SBT timeline scenario
Lt.Bullitt
Z210 because that’s when the FBI first thought that JFK would be
visible after passing under the oak tree. But is that really
possible? The shooter notices JFK, aims, and fires all in one
Zapruder frame? Is that humanly possible? Here’s another scenario.
The timeline (Zapruder frames) is mostly arbitrary and is meant to
promote further discussion.
Z210,11- Back of JFK’s head becomes clearly visible after going under
the Oak tree.
Z212-213- shooter registers this fact
Z214-219- shooter aims
Z220- shooter fires
Z222- bullet exits JFK
Z223- bullet exits JBC’s torso
Z224- bullet enters JBC’s left thigh
Scientific Comments are welcome about the following questions relating
to the Zapruder film and the timeline: (using decimals or fractions of
frames of course)
How many frames would it take the bullet to reach JFK from snipers
nest ? (in decimals or fractions of frames of course)
How much would going through JBC’s torso slow the bullet down? (Re.
Zapruder frames)
How much would going through JBC’s forearm/wrist slow the bullet down?
(Re. Zapruder frames)
WhiskyJoe
> Scientific Comments are welcome about
> the following questions relating to
> the Zapruder film and the timeline:
> (using decimals or fractions of
> frames of course)
First of all, bullets are very fast.
Each Zapruder frame is about
55 milliseconds (55 ms). At near full
speed, a bullet will travel 2 feet in
just 1 ms. Even at half speed, it will
travel 1 feet in 1 ms. From the time
the bullet struck JFK's neck till it
reached the thigh about 5 feet later
would have taken (assuming an average
of 1000 fps) about 5 ms, about one
tenth of a Zapruder frame, roughly.
Likely, the bullet struck around
frame 222 and came to a rest during
the same frame.
Frame 222 is the best estimate, because
it matches the camera jiggle of
Mr. Zapruder and because Dr. Lattimer's
tests show that a coat will reach
maximum bulge about 0.1 seconds after
the bullet passes through. The coat
bulge, more commonly mistakenly known
as the 'lapel flip' occurs at Z224,
hence, the bullet struck at Z222.
> How many frames would it take the bullet
> to reach JFK from snipers nest ?
> (in decimals or fractions of frames
> of course)
At an average speed of 2087 fps, with
the distance at 190 feet, and
18.3 frames per second, it would take
about 1.67 frames for the bullet to
reach JFK.
> How much would going through JBC’s
> torso slow the bullet down?
> (Re. Zapruder frames)
The best expert on this is Larry Sturdivan.
In his book, 'The JFK Myths', in the chapter
'The Magic Bullet', on page 144, Table III,
he lists his estimates:
Muzzle velocity:
2160 f/s +- 30 f/s
bullet was nose first
At Impact on JFK's neck:
2015 f/s +- 30 f/s
bullet was nose first
At Impact on Connally's back:
1830 f/s +- 50 f/s
bullet rotated 60 degrees
Penetrating Connally's rib:
1450 f/s +- 100 f/s
bullet was sideways
At Impact on Connally's wrist:
500 f/s +- 100 f/s
bullet was nearly backwards
At Impact on Connally's thigh: 135 f/s +- 20 f/s
135 f/s +- 20 f/s
bullet was backwards
Note: f/s is feet per second
In 'The JFK Myths', in the chapter
'The Magic Bullet', on page 118,
Table II, he estimates the velocity
below which bone will no longer deform
the bullet is 1400 f/s.
Soft flesh will not damage a
"full metal jacket" bullet like a WCC.
And bone can damage such a bullet only
if it is traveling at faster than
1400 f/s. So when the bullet first
struck significant bone, Connally's
rib, at 1450 f/s, the bullet was barely
traveling fast enough to be deformed,
hence, the small deformation seen with
the stretcher bullet.
> How much would going through JBC’s
> forearm/wrist slow the bullet down?
> (Re. Zapruder frames)
See above.
By the way, JBC's wrist did not further
deform the bullet, despite the wrist
bone being a good deal stronger than
the rib bone, because the critical
factor is the speed of the bullet,
not the strength of the bone.
Andrew Mason
the view of the car. It was quite possible to see through the outer
branches. See:http://www.dufourlaw.com/JFK/tree_dec63.jpg
So Oswald could have fired at any time. In fact he had an unobstructed
view of JFK well before z207. Here is the FBI re-enactment of frame 207
showing the back of the trunk to be quite visible.
http://www.dufourlaw.com/JFK/CE_892_z207.jpg
The back of the trunk is about 8 feet behind the position of JFK. And
that was in May 1964 after spring growth had occurred. All Oswald had to
do was track the president through the branches and fire.
Andrew Mason
Anthony Marsh
> Lt.Bullitt wrote:
>> Z210 because that�s when the FBI first thought that JFK would be
>> visible after passing under the oak tree. But is that really
>> possible? The shooter notices JFK, aims, and fires all in one
>> The timeline (Zapruder frames) is mostly arbitrary and is meant to
>> promote further discussion.
>>
>>
>> the Oak tree.
>>
>> Z212-213- shooter registers this fact
>>
>> Z214-219- shooter aims
>>
>> Z220- shooter fires
>>
>> Z222- bullet exits JFK
>>
>>
>> Z224- bullet enters JBC�s left thigh
>>
>>
>> Scientific Comments are welcome about the following questions relating
>> to the Zapruder film and the timeline: (using decimals or fractions of
>> frames of course)
>>
>> How many frames would it take the bullet to reach JFK from snipers
>> nest ? (in decimals or fractions of frames of course)
>>
>> Zapruder frames)
>>
>> How much would going through JBC�s forearm/wrist slow the bullet down?
>> (Re. Zapruder frames)
>>
> The outer branches of the tree that the car passed under did not block
> the view of the car. It was quite possible to see through the outer
> branches. See:http://www.dufourlaw.com/JFK/tree_dec63.jpg
>
> So Oswald could have fired at any time. In fact he had an unobstructed
> view of JFK well before z207. Here is the FBI re-enactment of frame 207
> showing the back of the trunk to be quite visible.
> http://www.dufourlaw.com/JFK/CE_892_z207.jpg
>
So, you think that Oswald intended to shoot the back of the trunk?
What's your damn point?
> The back of the trunk is about 8 feet behind the position of JFK. And
> that was in May 1964 after spring growth had occurred. All Oswald had to
> do was track the president through the branches and fire.
>
Yeah, any shooter could. But some obstinent WC defenders here claim that
no one has ever taken a shot which was not perfectly clear.
> Andrew Mason
>
>
Anthony Marsh
>
>> Scientific Comments are welcome about
>> the following questions relating to
>> the Zapruder film and the timeline:
>> (using decimals or fractions of
>> frames of course)
>
> First of all, bullets are very fast.
> Each Zapruder frame is about
> 55 milliseconds (55 ms). At near full
> speed, a bullet will travel 2 feet in
> just 1 ms. Even at half speed, it will
> travel 1 feet in 1 ms. From the time
> the bullet struck JFK's neck till it
> reached the thigh about 5 feet later
> would have taken (assuming an average
> of 1000 fps) about 5 ms, about one
> tenth of a Zapruder frame, roughly.
>
Yes, when the bullet has not been slowed down by hitting multiple objects,
but I think the poster is asking about how long it would take a Single
Bullet to do all the damage most SBTs propose. Again, only a fraction of a
Zapruder frame.
> Likely, the bullet struck around
> frame 222 and came to a rest during
> the same frame.
>
> Frame 222 is the best estimate, because
> it matches the camera jiggle of
> Mr. Zapruder and because Dr. Lattimer's
> tests show that a coat will reach
> maximum bulge about 0.1 seconds after
> the bullet passes through. The coat
> bulge, more commonly mistakenly known
> as the 'lapel flip' occurs at Z224,
> hence, the bullet struck at Z222.
>
Sure, if your test puts the bullet through the wrong point on the coat.
>> How many frames would it take the bullet
>> to reach JFK from snipers nest ?
>> (in decimals or fractions of frames
>> of course)
>
> At an average speed of 2087 fps, with
> the distance at 190 feet, and
> 18.3 frames per second, it would take
> about 1.67 frames for the bullet to
> reach JFK.
>
You don't show us your background math so we don't know how fast you think
the muzzle velocity was and how much velocity the bullet lost during the
190 feet. Care to share your assumptions with us? Otherwise, close enough
for a WC defender.
>> How much would going through JBC?s
>> torso slow the bullet down?
>> (Re. Zapruder frames)
>
> The best expert on this is Larry Sturdivan.
No, he is not. He made several errors in his estimates.
> In his book, 'The JFK Myths', in the chapter
> 'The Magic Bullet', on page 144, Table III,
> he lists his estimates:
>
> Muzzle velocity:
> 2160 f/s +- 30 f/s
> bullet was nose first
>
Wow, this ballistics expert figured out all by himself that the bullet
was going nose first when leaving the muzzle? Must be a genius!
> At Impact on JFK's neck:
> 2015 f/s +- 30 f/s
> bullet was nose first
>
> At Impact on Connally's back:
> 1830 f/s +- 50 f/s
> bullet rotated 60 degrees
>
> Penetrating Connally's rib:
> 1450 f/s +- 100 f/s
> bullet was sideways
>
How does he have the bullet change from 60 degrees to sideways?
> At Impact on Connally's wrist:
> 500 f/s +- 100 f/s
> bullet was nearly backwards
>
> At Impact on Connally's thigh: 135 f/s +- 20 f/s
> 135 f/s +- 20 f/s
> bullet was backwards
>
And penetrated only 1 inch?
> Note: f/s is feet per second
>
> In 'The JFK Myths', in the chapter
> 'The Magic Bullet', on page 118,
> Table II, he estimates the velocity
> below which bone will no longer deform
> the bullet is 1400 f/s.
>
That particular bullet. But he did not realize how thick the WCC
bullet's jacket really was.
> Soft flesh will not damage a
> "full metal jacket" bullet like a WCC.
Duh!
> And bone can damage such a bullet only
> if it is traveling at faster than
> 1400 f/s. So when the bullet first
It also depends on the angle at which it hits.
> struck significant bone, Connally's
> rib, at 1450 f/s, the bullet was barely
> traveling fast enough to be deformed,
> hence, the small deformation seen with
> the stretcher bullet.
>
>> How much would going through JBC?s
Anthony Marsh
> A popular notion is that the shooter in the sniper�s nest fired at
> Z210 because that�s when the FBI first thought that JFK would be
> visible after passing under the oak tree. But is that really
> possible? The shooter notices JFK, aims, and fires all in one
> The timeline (Zapruder frames) is mostly arbitrary and is meant to
> promote further discussion.
>
You mean elicit ridicule, don't you?
>
> Z210,11- Back of JFK�s head becomes clearly visible after going under
> the Oak tree.
>
Not necessary.
> Z212-213- shooter registers this fact
>
Registers?
> Z214-219- shooter aims
>
The shooter had already been tracking and aiming and had already fired a
shot which missed. Maybe you mean that he was still in the process of
reloading and reacquiring the target.
> Z220- shooter fires
>
> Z222- bullet exits JFK
>
Close enough for a WC defender.
> Z223- bullet exits JBC�s torso
>
> Z224- bullet enters JBC�s left thigh
>
>
Obviously you know nothing about the Zapruder film and ballistics. The
bullet would go through both men in much less than one complete Zapruder
frame.
> Scientific Comments are welcome about the following questions relating
> to the Zapruder film and the timeline: (using decimals or fractions of
> frames of course)
>
> How many frames would it take the bullet to reach JFK from snipers
> nest ? (in decimals or fractions of frames of course)
>
> How much would going through JBC�s torso slow the bullet down? (Re.
> Zapruder frames)
>
Your parenthetical qualification betrays the fact that you really don't
know what you are talking about, hence your newbie questions. The bullet
is going very fast, fast enough to breeze through both men in less than
half a Zapruder frame. Not over several Zapruder frames.
> How much would going through JBC�s forearm/wrist slow the bullet down?
> (Re. Zapruder frames)
>
bigdog
I have made much the same arguments to Tony Marsh in the "Single- Bullet
Logic " thread. The target came into clear view at Z210, but it is
unlikely a shooter would have squeezed the trigger at that instant. He
would want to first acquire the target in a clear line of fire which would
have become possible beginning at Z210 but that process would not have
been instantaneous. Once he acquired a clear line of sight at his target
which could have occured at Z210 at the earliest, he still has to place
the crosshairs on the target and squeeze the trigger as any competent
shooter would do. A shot fired at Z221 would have reached the target by
Z223 which is probably within one frame, plus or minus, of when the bullet
actually struck. That would mean that Oswald fired this shot a little more
than a half a second after he got a clear view of his target. That
requires a fairly rapid shot. Now of course it is theoretically possible
Oswald could have fired the shot as JFK was moving underneath the branches
but does this really make sense? Why would a shooter take an iffy shot
while his target was passing under branches which might or might not
interfer with the shot, when he could wait less than one second to get a
clear line of fire. We can only imagine what was going on in Oswald's
brain during the 8-9 seconds it took him to fire the three shots at JFK,
but I find it extremely unlikely he would have forced a shot through the
trees when he could simply wait less than one second to get a clear line
of fire.
bigdog
>
> The back of the trunk is about 8 feet behind the position of JFK. And
> that was in May 1964 after spring growth had occurred. All Oswald had to
> do was track the president through the branches and fire.
>
>
> - Show quoted text -
CE899 shows that JFK became an obscured target at Z-166. While a shooter
could theoretically see his target after this frame, would it make any
sense to risk a shot at this point rather than wait until the target was
completely in the clear. If you are operating a bolt action rifle, you
window of oppotunity is rather small so risking firing a shot between the
branches and hoping it is not defected doesn't make a whole lot of sense.
Oswald would have had a clear shot prior to Z166 and again after Z210.
This is all very consistent with modern LN thinking that the first shot
was fired at Z160 and the second shot, the single bullet, was fired at
about Z221, reaching the target by Z223.
If, as most modern LNs believe, the first shot was fired at approximately
Z160, it would have taken Oswald a more than two seconds to recycle the
rifle to attempt a second shot. That takes us into the late 190s when JFK
was an obscured target. With a limited number of shots available, why
would Oswald risk taking one of those shots while his target was partially
obscurred. Why not wait less than one more second to allow the target to
come completley into the clear?
Andrew Mason
Makes sense. But the problem is it does not fit the evidence. The
evidence is that JFK reacted immediately to the first shot (see above
reference with the testimony of 21 witnesses).
If you examine the branches of the tree as they appeared on December 3
1963, there is nothing that would completely obscure the car or its
occupants at any time. If you read the WC memos, it is apparent that the
operating theory was that the first shot was fired just as the car
emerged from under the tree and it hit JFK. They did not just make that
up. There was a lot of evidence to support that conclusion.
Andrew Mason
bigdog
>
> > The best expert on this is Larry Sturdivan.
>
> No, he is not. He made several errors in his estimates.
>
me, just ask him.
Andrew Mason
> On 6/28/2009 12:36 PM, Andrew Mason wrote:
>> Lt.Bullitt wrote:
>>> Z210 because that’s when the FBI first thought that JFK would be
>>> visible after passing under the oak tree. But is that really
>>> possible? The shooter notices JFK, aims, and fires all in one
>>> The timeline (Zapruder frames) is mostly arbitrary and is meant to
>>> promote further discussion.
>>>
>>>
>>> the Oak tree.
>>>
>>> Z212-213- shooter registers this fact
>>>
>>> Z214-219- shooter aims
>>>
>>> Z220- shooter fires
>>>
>>> Z222- bullet exits JFK
>>>
>>>
>>> Z224- bullet enters JBC’s left thigh
>>>
>>>
>>> Scientific Comments are welcome about the following questions relating
>>> to the Zapruder film and the timeline: (using decimals or fractions of
>>> frames of course)
>>>
>>> How many frames would it take the bullet to reach JFK from snipers
>>> nest ? (in decimals or fractions of frames of course)
>>>
>>> Zapruder frames)
>>>
>>> How much would going through JBC’s forearm/wrist slow the bullet down?
>>> (Re. Zapruder frames)
>>>
>> The outer branches of the tree that the car passed under did not block
>> the view of the car. It was quite possible to see through the outer
>> branches. See:http://www.dufourlaw.com/JFK/tree_dec63.jpg
>>
>> So Oswald could have fired at any time. In fact he had an unobstructed
>> view of JFK well before z207. Here is the FBI re-enactment of frame 207
>> showing the back of the trunk to be quite visible.
>> http://www.dufourlaw.com/JFK/CE_892_z207.jpg
>>
>
> So, you think that Oswald intended to shoot the back of the trunk?
> What's your damn point?
If the back of the trunk was 8 feet behind JFK and JFK was moving about
1 foot per frame when do you think JFK was in the same position as the
trunk was at z207? I thought you could figure that out.
Andrew Mason
Anthony Marsh
> Anthony Marsh wrote:
>> On 6/28/2009 12:36 PM, Andrew Mason wrote:
>>> Lt.Bullitt wrote:
>>>> Z210 because that�s when the FBI first thought that JFK would be
>>>> visible after passing under the oak tree. But is that really
>>>> possible? The shooter notices JFK, aims, and fires all in one
>>>> The timeline (Zapruder frames) is mostly arbitrary and is meant to
>>>> promote further discussion.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> the Oak tree.
>>>>
>>>> Z212-213- shooter registers this fact
>>>>
>>>> Z214-219- shooter aims
>>>>
>>>> Z220- shooter fires
>>>>
>>>> Z222- bullet exits JFK
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Z224- bullet enters JBC�s left thigh
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Scientific Comments are welcome about the following questions relating
>>>> to the Zapruder film and the timeline: (using decimals or fractions of
>>>> frames of course)
>>>>
>>>> How many frames would it take the bullet to reach JFK from snipers
>>>> nest ? (in decimals or fractions of frames of course)
>>>>
>>>> Zapruder frames)
>>>>
>>>> How much would going through JBC�s forearm/wrist slow the bullet down?
>>>> (Re. Zapruder frames)
>>>>
>>> The outer branches of the tree that the car passed under did not block
>>> the view of the car. It was quite possible to see through the outer
>>> branches. See:http://www.dufourlaw.com/JFK/tree_dec63.jpg
>>>
>>> So Oswald could have fired at any time. In fact he had an unobstructed
>>> view of JFK well before z207. Here is the FBI re-enactment of frame 207
>>> showing the back of the trunk to be quite visible.
>>> http://www.dufourlaw.com/JFK/CE_892_z207.jpg
>>>
>>
>> So, you think that Oswald intended to shoot the back of the trunk?
>> What's your damn point?
>
> If the back of the trunk was 8 feet behind JFK and JFK was moving about
> 1 foot per frame when do you think JFK was in the same position as the
> trunk was at z207? I thought you could figure that out.
>
So, what's your point about the trunk?
Anthony Marsh
> bigdog wrote:
>> On Jun 28, 12:36 pm, Andrew Mason <a.ma...@sasktel.net> wrote:
>>> Lt.Bullitt wrote:
>>>> Z210 because that�s when the FBI first thought that JFK would be
>>>> visible after passing under the oak tree. But is that really
>>>> possible? The shooter notices JFK, aims, and fires all in one
>>>> The timeline (Zapruder frames) is mostly arbitrary and is meant to
>>>> promote further discussion.
>>>> the Oak tree.
>>>> Z212-213- shooter registers this fact
>>>> Z214-219- shooter aims
>>>> Z220- shooter fires
>>>> Z222- bullet exits JFK
>>>> Z224- bullet enters JBC�s left thigh
>>>> Scientific Comments are welcome about the following questions relating
>>>> to the Zapruder film and the timeline: (using decimals or fractions of
>>>> frames of course)
>>>> How many frames would it take the bullet to reach JFK from snipers
>>>> nest ? (in decimals or fractions of frames of course)
>>>> Zapruder frames)
>>>> How much would going through JBC�s forearm/wrist slow the bullet down?
No, you are cherrypicking only a handful of witnesses to support your
wacky theory.
> If you examine the branches of the tree as they appeared on December 3
> 1963, there is nothing that would completely obscure the car or its
> occupants at any time. If you read the WC memos, it is apparent that the
Straw man argument. No one said the tree totally obscured the car or its
occupants.
> operating theory was that the first shot was fired just as the car
> emerged from under the tree and it hit JFK. They did not just make that
> up. There was a lot of evidence to support that conclusion.
>
Whose operating theory? The WC had no set operating theory about which
was the first shot, except before Specter invented the SBT. And that was
that the first shot hit Kennedy and the second shot hit Connally. After
the SBT was invented that freed up a shot for a miss, but they did not
know if the miss was the first or second shot.
> Andrew Mason
>
Anthony Marsh
> On Jun 28, 12:36 pm, Andrew Mason<a.ma...@sasktel.net> wrote:
>> Lt.Bullitt wrote:
>>> Z210 because that�s when the FBI first thought that JFK would be
>>> visible after passing under the oak tree. But is that really
>>> possible? The shooter notices JFK, aims, and fires all in one
>>> The timeline (Zapruder frames) is mostly arbitrary and is meant to
>>> promote further discussion.
>>
>>> the Oak tree.
>>
>>> Z212-213- shooter registers this fact
>>
>>> Z214-219- shooter aims
>>
>>> Z220- shooter fires
>>
>>> Z222- bullet exits JFK
>>
>>
>>> Z224- bullet enters JBC�s left thigh
>>
>>> Scientific Comments are welcome about the following questions relating
>>> to the Zapruder film and the timeline: (using decimals or fractions of
>>> frames of course)
>>
>>> How many frames would it take the bullet to reach JFK from snipers
>>> nest ? (in decimals or fractions of frames of course)
>>
>>> Zapruder frames)
>>
>>> How much would going through JBC�s forearm/wrist slow the bullet down?
>>> (Re. Zapruder frames)
>>
>> The outer branches of the tree that the car passed under did not block
>> the view of the car. It was quite possible to see through the outer
>> branches. See:http://www.dufourlaw.com/JFK/tree_dec63.jpg
>>
>> So Oswald could have fired at any time. In fact he had an unobstructed
>> view of JFK well before z207. Here is the FBI re-enactment of frame 207
>> showing the back of the trunk to be quite visible.http://www.dufourlaw.com/JFK/CE_892_z207.jpg
>>
>> The back of the trunk is about 8 feet behind the position of JFK. And
>> that was in May 1964 after spring growth had occurred. All Oswald had to
>> do was track the president through the branches and fire.
>>
>> Andrew Mason- Hide quoted text -
>>
>> - Show quoted text -
>
> CE899 shows that JFK became an obscured target at Z-166. While a shooter
Ok, but why do you ASSuME that CE 899 accurately represents what the
shooter would actually see on 11/22/63 during Z-166?
> could theoretically see his target after this frame, would it make any
> sense to risk a shot at this point rather than wait until the target was
> completely in the clear. If you are operating a bolt action rifle, you
It makes sense if you only have four bullets and it takes 2-3 seconds to
reload and the limo is only going to be visible for 12 seconds.
> window of oppotunity is rather small so risking firing a shot between the
> branches and hoping it is not defected doesn't make a whole lot of sense.
Yeah, so your assassin would wait until his target is much farther away,
out in the open, say Z-480? And then get off 4 shots in 2 seconds?
> Oswald would have had a clear shot prior to Z166 and again after Z210.
Yeah, the assassin had a clear shot when the limo was coming up Houston,
but he waited until the target was moving away.
> This is all very consistent with modern LN thinking that the first shot
> was fired at Z160 and the second shot, the single bullet, was fired at
> about Z221, reaching the target by Z223.
>
How many WC defenders think the first shot was at Z-160? Why is it that
they are not troubled by having to shoot through the tree?
> If, as most modern LNs believe, the first shot was fired at approximately
> Z160, it would have taken Oswald a more than two seconds to recycle the
> rifle to attempt a second shot. That takes us into the late 190s when JFK
> was an obscured target. With a limited number of shots available, why
But you don't seem to think an obscured target is a problem.
> would Oswald risk taking one of those shots while his target was partially
> obscurred. Why not wait less than one more second to allow the target to
> come completley into the clear?
>
Yeah, why not wait until a clear shot at Z-480. One shot, one kill.
bigdog
>
> Yeah, any shooter could. But some obstinent WC defenders here claim that
> no one has ever taken a shot which was not perfectly clear.
>
Welcome back, Strawman. I don't suppose you could cite a reference for
this claim.
bigdog
It fits the only reliable witness, Zapruder's camera. We see JBC reacting
to the sound of a shot at Z164 when he begins turning his head to look
over his right shoulder, just as he said he did. You seem to have no
problem dismissing JBC's testimony which doesn't fit with your story. You
only want to consider those witnesses which support your theory.
> If you examine the branches of the tree as they appeared on December 3
> 1963, there is nothing that would completely obscure the car or its
> occupants at any time. If you read the WC memos, it is apparent that the
> operating theory was that the first shot was fired just as the car
> emerged from under the tree and it hit JFK. They did not just make that
> up. There was a lot of evidence to support that conclusion.
>
It doesn't matter if you can see the target or not. The problem is if you
fire at a moving target with intervening branches, you risk the bullet
being intercepted by a branch, wasting a shot. It makes no sense to risk
such a shot when a clear shot is just a few seconds away.
I'm sure the WC considered a number of possibilities before arriving at
the SBT. What difference does that make? Why would you put any stock in
the theories the WC discarded. Nobody says the WC got it right at the
beginning. The important thing is they got it right at the end. Why would
I care what they left in their waste paper basket?
I do want to congratulate you for doing something I didn't think was
possible. You got Marsh and I to agree on something. Your theory is wacky.
Anthony Marsh
>> Z210 because that?s when the FBI first thought that JFK would be
>> visible after passing under the oak tree. But is that really
>> possible? The shooter notices JFK, aims, and fires all in one
>> The timeline (Zapruder frames) is mostly arbitrary and is meant to
>> promote further discussion.
>>
>> the Oak tree.
>>
>> Z212-213- shooter registers this fact
>>
>> Z214-219- shooter aims
>>
>> Z220- shooter fires
>>
>> Z222- bullet exits JFK
>>
>>
>> Z224- bullet enters JBC?s left thigh
>>
>> Scientific Comments are welcome about the following questions relating
>> to the Zapruder film and the timeline: (using decimals or fractions of
>> frames of course)
>>
>> How many frames would it take the bullet to reach JFK from snipers
>> nest ? (in decimals or fractions of frames of course)
>>
>> Zapruder frames)
>>
>> How much would going through JBC?s forearm/wrist slow the bullet down?
>> (Re. Zapruder frames)
>
> I have made much the same arguments to Tony Marsh in the "Single- Bullet
> Logic " thread. The target came into clear view at Z210, but it is
> unlikely a shooter would have squeezed the trigger at that instant. He
> would want to first acquire the target in a clear line of fire which would
> have become possible beginning at Z210 but that process would not have
> been instantaneous. Once he acquired a clear line of sight at his target
> which could have occured at Z210 at the earliest, he still has to place
Not that it makes any difference, but I never said the assassin squeezed
off the shot at Z-210 or acquired the target at Z-210. My theory is that
the bullet hit at about Z-210, plus or minus a half Zapruder frame
depending on some variables. I estimate the loss of velocity of the bullet
in flight at about 1.05 fps per foot based on the performance of the rifle
and ammunition in the tests done at White Laboratory. Much better than
Sturdivan's guess of .67 fps per foot.
> the crosshairs on the target and squeeze the trigger as any competent
> shooter would do. A shot fired at Z221 would have reached the target by
Whom are you assuming is a competent shooter? You mean someone who can't
hit a stationary target at 120 feet? Ok, this time I'll even put some
money on it. I'll bet $10 that even YOU could manage to hit the target at
120 feet.
When McAdams did the shooting tests with Todd Vaughan I wonder if he
managed to miss the target entirely at 190 feet.
> Z223 which is probably within one frame, plus or minus, of when the bullet
> actually struck. That would mean that Oswald fired this shot a little more
> than a half a second after he got a clear view of his target. That
> requires a fairly rapid shot. Now of course it is theoretically possible
> Oswald could have fired the shot as JFK was moving underneath the branches
> but does this really make sense? Why would a shooter take an iffy shot
> while his target was passing under branches which might or might not
> interfer with the shot, when he could wait less than one second to get a
Because he doesn't have all day. He has only 4 bullets and the rifle
takes 2-3 seconds to reload.
Andrew Mason
> On 6/29/2009 9:45 AM, Andrew Mason wrote:
>> Anthony Marsh wrote:
>>> On 6/28/2009 12:36 PM, Andrew Mason wrote:
>>>> Lt.Bullitt wrote:
>>>>> Z210 because that’s when the FBI first thought that JFK would be
>>>>> visible after passing under the oak tree. But is that really
>>>>> possible? The shooter notices JFK, aims, and fires all in one
>>>>> The timeline (Zapruder frames) is mostly arbitrary and is meant to
>>>>> promote further discussion.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> the Oak tree.
>>>>>
>>>>> Z212-213- shooter registers this fact
>>>>>
>>>>> Z214-219- shooter aims
>>>>>
>>>>> Z220- shooter fires
>>>>>
>>>>> Z222- bullet exits JFK
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Z224- bullet enters JBC’s left thigh
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Scientific Comments are welcome about the following questions relating
>>>>> to the Zapruder film and the timeline: (using decimals or fractions of
>>>>> frames of course)
>>>>>
>>>>> How many frames would it take the bullet to reach JFK from snipers
>>>>> nest ? (in decimals or fractions of frames of course)
>>>>>
>>>>> Zapruder frames)
>>>>>
>>>>> How much would going through JBC’s forearm/wrist slow the bullet down?
>>>>> (Re. Zapruder frames)
>>>>>
>>>> The outer branches of the tree that the car passed under did not block
>>>> the view of the car. It was quite possible to see through the outer
>>>> branches. See:http://www.dufourlaw.com/JFK/tree_dec63.jpg
>>>>
>>>> So Oswald could have fired at any time. In fact he had an unobstructed
>>>> view of JFK well before z207. Here is the FBI re-enactment of frame 207
>>>> showing the back of the trunk to be quite visible.
>>>> http://www.dufourlaw.com/JFK/CE_892_z207.jpg
>>>>
>>>
>>> So, you think that Oswald intended to shoot the back of the trunk?
>>> What's your damn point?
>>
>> If the back of the trunk was 8 feet behind JFK and JFK was moving about
>> 1 foot per frame when do you think JFK was in the same position as the
>> trunk was at z207? I thought you could figure that out.
>>
>
> So, what's your point about the trunk?
My point is not about the trunk. It is that JFK would have been visible
when he was 8 feet behind the position he is shown in the recreation of
z207.
Andrew Mason
Andrew Mason
So how, exactly, does the Zfilm by itself tell you when the first shot
occurred? It can't. You have to rely on witnesses to interpret it. And
the witnesses all said that JFK reacted to the first shot - but not by
smiling and waving.
> We see JBC reacting
> to the sound of a shot at Z164 when he begins turning his head to look
> over his right shoulder, just as he said he did.
But he turns from z230-270. How can you tell he is referring to the
partial turn (a turn that is very similar to that of JFk and Jackie at
the same time)?
> You seem to have no
> problem dismissing JBC's testimony which doesn't fit with your story.
What fact recollections of JBC would you be referring to?
> You
> only want to consider those witnesses which support your theory.
And what would you call rejecting 21 witnesses in favour your
interpretation of the zfilm?
>
>> If you examine the branches of the tree as they appeared on December 3
>> 1963, there is nothing that would completely obscure the car or its
>> occupants at any time. If you read the WC memos, it is apparent that the
>> operating theory was that the first shot was fired just as the car
>> emerged from under the tree and it hit JFK. They did not just make that
>> up. There was a lot of evidence to support that conclusion.
>>
>
> It doesn't matter if you can see the target or not. The problem is if you
> fire at a moving target with intervening branches, you risk the bullet
> being intercepted by a branch, wasting a shot. It makes no sense to risk
> such a shot when a clear shot is just a few seconds away.
Only if those branches could actually deflect a bullet. They can't and
Oswald probably knew that.
>
> I'm sure the WC considered a number of possibilities before arriving at
> the SBT. What difference does that make? Why would you put any stock in
> the theories the WC discarded.
The point is that FBI/WC never discarded the theory that the first
bullet struck JFK.
> Nobody says the WC got it right at the
> beginning. The important thing is they got it right at the end. Why would
> I care what they left in their waste paper basket?
>
> I do want to congratulate you for doing something I didn't think was
> possible. You got Marsh and I to agree on something. Your theory is wacky.
>
Ok. But it is not me. Your statement means that that the 21 witnesses
who said JFk reacted to the first shot, the 48 who said that the last
two shots were closer together and the 22 witnesses who put the first
shot after z186 were all wacky. For the second shot SBT to be correct,
all have be completely wrong.
Andrew Mason
bigdog
> On 6/28/2009 11:14 PM, bigdog wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Jun 28, 12:36 pm, Andrew Mason<a.ma...@sasktel.net> wrote:
> >> Lt.Bullitt wrote:
> >>> Z210 because that’s when the FBI first thought that JFK would be
> >>> visible after passing under the oak tree. But is that really
> >>> possible? The shooter notices JFK, aims, and fires all in one
> >>> The timeline (Zapruder frames) is mostly arbitrary and is meant to
> >>> promote further discussion.
>
> >>> the Oak tree.
>
> >>> Z212-213- shooter registers this fact
>
> >>> Z214-219- shooter aims
>
> >>> Z220- shooter fires
>
> >>> Z222- bullet exits JFK
>
>
> >>> Z224- bullet enters JBC’s left thigh
>
> >>> Scientific Comments are welcome about the following questions relating
> >>> to the Zapruder film and the timeline: (using decimals or fractions of
> >>> frames of course)
>
> >>> How many frames would it take the bullet to reach JFK from snipers
> >>> nest ? (in decimals or fractions of frames of course)
>
> >>> Zapruder frames)
>
> >>> How much would going through JBC’s forearm/wrist slow the bullet down?
>
> - Show quoted text -
Well, Tony, you have proved something I always supsected about you. You
argue just for the sake of arguing. You argue with Andrew Mason who
believes a shot through the branches would make sense to a shooter and you
argue with me who believes it would not. You don't really have a point to
make. You just want to be argumentative.
bigdog
A strike at Z210 would require it to have been fired at about Z208. You
want us to believe Oswald fire the shot just before he had a clear shot
rather than wait a fraction of a second to get a clear line of fire. A
trained shooter knows that in order to fire accurately, you squeeze the
trigger rather than give it a sudden jerk. It makes no sense that Oswald
would fire that round at the instant he got a clear view. It makes far
more sense that he would begin to squeeze the trigger at Z210 and the shot
was fired around Z221-222 reaching the target at Z223-224.
> > the crosshairs on the target and squeeze the trigger as any competent
> > shooter would do. A shot fired at Z221 would have reached the target by
>
> Whom are you assuming is a competent shooter? You mean someone who can't
> hit a stationary target at 120 feet? Ok, this time I'll even put some
> money on it. I'll bet $10 that even YOU could manage to hit the target at
> 120 feet.
>
What does hitting a stationary target at 120 feet have to do with
anything?
> When McAdams did the shooting tests with Todd Vaughan I wonder if he
> managed to miss the target entirely at 190 feet.
>
Why do you wonder that?
> > Z223 which is probably within one frame, plus or minus, of when the bullet
> > actually struck. That would mean that Oswald fired this shot a little more
> > than a half a second after he got a clear view of his target. That
> > requires a fairly rapid shot. Now of course it is theoretically possible
> > Oswald could have fired the shot as JFK was moving underneath the branches
> > but does this really make sense? Why would a shooter take an iffy shot
> > while his target was passing under branches which might or might not
> > interfer with the shot, when he could wait less than one second to get a
>
> Because he doesn't have all day. He has only 4 bullets and the rifle
> takes 2-3 seconds to reload.
>
He got off 3 shots in less than 9 seconds firing at Z160, Z223, Z313. He
reloaded the fourth round and was ready to fire again until he realized a
fourth shot was unnecessary. He would have had time to fire the fourth
shot even without forcing a shot through the tree.
bigdog
OMG, do we have to go over this again. Anyone who can't see that JBC has
suffered a devastating wound immediately after reappearing from behind the
sign is fooling themselves. You aren't fooling anyone else. About 20 years
ago, Jim Moore authored a book called Conspiracy of One. His premise was
that JFK was not hit either when he reappeared from behind the sign. He
claimed his raised arms were a defensive posture, although he was not the
first to propose it. It was of course ridiculous which is why that book
has find its rightful place on the scrap heap with all the conspiracy
books. It is as preposterous as your claim that JBC was not hit either. It
boggles the mind someone can look at that film and come to such absurd
conclusions. Your theory, which Tony Marsh has accurately described as
wacky belongs in the same category as unicorns, the Abominable Snowman,
Bigfoot, and the Loch Ness Monster. It is a fable. I would put the
probability of the SBT being true at 99.99%. The odds of a second gunman I
would give 0.01%. That leaves 0.00% for your wacky theory. Sorry.
> > You seem to have no
> > problem dismissing JBC's testimony which doesn't fit with your story.
>
> What fact recollections of JBC would you be referring to?
>
> > You
> > only want to consider those witnesses which support your theory.
>
> And what would you call rejecting 21 witnesses in favour your
> interpretation of the zfilm?
>
Critical analysis. If what the witnesses said is not compatible with the
Z-film, the witnesses are wrong.
>
>
> >> If you examine the branches of the tree as they appeared on December 3
> >> 1963, there is nothing that would completely obscure the car or its
> >> occupants at any time. If you read the WC memos, it is apparent that the
> >> operating theory was that the first shot was fired just as the car
> >> emerged from under the tree and it hit JFK. They did not just make that
> >> up. There was a lot of evidence to support that conclusion.
>
> > It doesn't matter if you can see the target or not. The problem is if you
> > fire at a moving target with intervening branches, you risk the bullet
> > being intercepted by a branch, wasting a shot. It makes no sense to risk
> > such a shot when a clear shot is just a few seconds away.
>
> Only if those branches could actually deflect a bullet. They can't and
> Oswald probably knew that.
>
Absolutely untrue and you have no idea what Oswald knew.
>
>
> > I'm sure the WC considered a number of possibilities before arriving at
> > the SBT. What difference does that make? Why would you put any stock in
> > the theories the WC discarded.
>
> The point is that FBI/WC never discarded the theory that the first
> bullet struck JFK.
>
Nor did they accept it. The came to no conclusion about which shot
missed. Given the advantage of time and modern technology which has
allowed us to gather more information from the Z-film, it is safe to
say the first shot did miss.
> > Nobody says the WC got it right at the
> > beginning. The important thing is they got it right at the end. Why would
> > I care what they left in their waste paper basket?
>
> > I do want to congratulate you for doing something I didn't think was
> > possible. You got Marsh and I to agree on something. Your theory is wacky.
>
> Ok. But it is not me. Your statement means that that the 21 witnesses
> who said JFk reacted to the first shot, the 48 who said that the last
> two shots were closer together and the 22 witnesses who put the first
> shot after z186 were all wacky. For the second shot SBT to be correct,
> all have be completely wrong.
Yes, they all are wrong. Not wacky. Just wrong. They didn't have the
benefit of seeing the event over and over again on film. If they did and
came to the same conclusions, that would be wacky.
>
WhiskyJoe
>> We see JBC reacting to the sound
>> of a shot at Z164 when he begins
>> turning his head to look over his
>> right shoulder, just as he said
>> he did.
> But he turns from z230-270. How can
> you tell he is referring to the
> partial turn (a turn that is very
> similar to that of JFK and Jackie at
> the same time)?
Because he doesn't just say he turned
to the right and was shot and that is it.
Instead, he says:
* he heard a shot
* he turned to his right and saw nothing
* he turned back forward and started
turning to his left
* perceived he was just wounded.
The problem with him being wounded
after Z240, is he never turns to the right and
then back forward again. He only turns to his
right and is pulled straight back toward his
wife.
The only hypothetical shot that includes
right after it a turn to the right,
a turn back to facing forward and the
start of a turn to the left is after the
Z154 shot. The hypothetical Z271 shot
just doesn't have a turn to the left
afterwards. It just doesn't.
> You seem to have no problem dismissing
> JBC's testimony which doesn't fit with
> your story
There is not a lot of JBC's testimony
which needs to be dismissed. The only
part is he thinks he was hit after his
turn to the left passed his facing
straight forward and was then facing
somewhat to his left when wounded,
consistent with a shot around Z232.
But likely, he was mistaken. Many
soldiers have serious rifle bullet
wounds and don't realize it for many
seconds or minutes. JBC likely realized
he had a serious wound when he tried to
inhale, a half second after being shot
at Z222.
The strong evidence that JFK and JBC
were hit together at Z222 is just too
strong, the simultaneous reactions of
both, including the raising of JFK's
arms and JBC's wounded arm at exactly
the same time, JBC's torso twist,
JBC's "coat bulge", the Zapruder camera
jiggle at Z227-228 is a lot to lightly
dismiss. All that has to out-weight
JBC's impression that he was wounded
at roughly Z232.
Now, Connally, like any witness, could
be mistaken. He could have imagined he
heard a shot before being wounded, but
he really didn't, he got confused.
He could have imagined he turned to his
right, than to his left after hearing the
first shot, just before he was wounded
himself, but he really didn't, he just
got confused. And it's just a coincidence
that before the first shot was fired,
we can see Connally turn to his right
and back toward the left during Z162-232
but that was, as I said, a coincidence.
It had nothing to do with the first shot
which really hadn't happened yet.
But let's not pretend that we don't have
any witnesses whose testimony is largely
consistent with a missed Z154 shot and a
SBT shot at Z222.
> Only if those branches could actually
> deflect a bullet. They can't and
> Oswald probably knew that.
It's possible that Oswald took aim with
JFK's head flickering behind the leaves
and fired. It's possible that Oswald took
aim while holding the rifle over his
shoulder while looking in a mirror.
But most likely, he made it easy on
himself.
He probably fired just before the tree,
worked the bolt while JFK was behind the
tree, waited another half second for JFK
to totally clear the tree (by Z206), and
than took aim and fired 0.8 seconds later
(at Z220, with the bullet arriving at Z222).
Certainly no other conclusion should be
drawn without overwhelming evidence of a
shot between Z166 and Z206, which we do
not have, but we do have strong evidence
for a shot at Z222 and fairly strong
evidence for a shot at Z154.
bigdog
WhiskyJoe, I am curious as to why you pick Z154 for the first shot.
Myers and others have placed the shot at Z160. JBC's visible reaction
is obvserved beginning at Z164. I don't see any other definitive event
so a shot at Z154, Z160, or anywhere in between seems plausible. If I
could I would ask Myers the same question. Do you really think it is
possible to pinpoint the first shot?
Andrew Mason
The only difference is that my "theory" is what 21 + 48 + 22 +?
witnesses independently said they saw. No one said they saw what you
think you see in the zfilm (ie. JFK smiling and waving after the first
shot; JFK not hit by the first shot). You have it backward. The SBT is
in the same category as fable.
>
>>> You seem to have no
>>> problem dismissing JBC's testimony which doesn't fit with your story.
>> What fact recollections of JBC would you be referring to?
>>
>>> You
>>> only want to consider those witnesses which support your theory.
>> And what would you call rejecting 21 witnesses in favour your
>> interpretation of the zfilm?
>>
>
> Critical analysis. If what the witnesses said is not compatible with the
> Z-film, the witnesses are wrong.
Ok. We now have it on record. Thanks.
>
>>
>>>> If you examine the branches of the tree as they appeared on December 3
>>>> 1963, there is nothing that would completely obscure the car or its
>>>> occupants at any time. If you read the WC memos, it is apparent that the
>>>> operating theory was that the first shot was fired just as the car
>>>> emerged from under the tree and it hit JFK. They did not just make that
>>>> up. There was a lot of evidence to support that conclusion.
>>> It doesn't matter if you can see the target or not. The problem is if you
>>> fire at a moving target with intervening branches, you risk the bullet
>>> being intercepted by a branch, wasting a shot. It makes no sense to risk
>>> such a shot when a clear shot is just a few seconds away.
>> Only if those branches could actually deflect a bullet. They can't and
>> Oswald probably knew that.
>>
>
> Absolutely untrue and you have no idea what Oswald knew.
Not exactly. Oswald told Mrs. DeMohrenschildt that he practiced shooting
the MC by shooting at leaves on trees. You may be the only person who
believes that a 2000 fps bullet would bounce off a branch of a tree -
any branch let alone the kind of thin wispy branches that the limo
passed under.
>
>>
>>> I'm sure the WC considered a number of possibilities before arriving at
>>> the SBT. What difference does that make? Why would you put any stock in
>>> the theories the WC discarded.
>> The point is that FBI/WC never discarded the theory that the first
>> bullet struck JFK.
>>
>
> Nor did they accept it. The came to no conclusion about which shot
> missed. Given the advantage of time and modern technology which has
> allowed us to gather more information from the Z-film, it is safe to
> say the first shot did miss.
That is what the WC report said. But that is not what the majority of
commissioners thought likely happened. All the internal memos indicate
that the view was that the first shot struck JFK. It is pretty clear
that McLoy thought that the first shot was the one that struck JBC in
the back and he did not notice it. Since three members didn't believe
the SBT, that makes a makes a majority - at least four - who thought the
first shot struck JFK.
>
>>> Nobody says the WC got it right at the
>>> beginning. The important thing is they got it right at the end. Why would
>>> I care what they left in their waste paper basket?
>>> I do want to congratulate you for doing something I didn't think was
>>> possible. You got Marsh and I to agree on something. Your theory is wacky.
>> Ok. But it is not me. Your statement means that that the 21 witnesses
>> who said JFk reacted to the first shot, the 48 who said that the last
>> two shots were closer together and the 22 witnesses who put the first
>> shot after z186 were all wacky. For the second shot SBT to be correct,
>> all have be completely wrong.
>
> Yes, they all are wrong. Not wacky. Just wrong. They didn't have the
> benefit of seeing the event over and over again on film. If they did and
> came to the same conclusions, that would be wacky.
The WC is no wackier than my "theory" that the witnesses who said they
observed JFK react to the first shot were not wacky. You say they were
wacky. Why? Do you think that if they saw the zfilm over and over they
would start believing that JFK reacted to the first shot by smiling and
waving?
Andrew Mason
>
>
Andrew Mason
>>> We see JBC reacting to the sound
>>> of a shot at Z164 when he begins
>>> turning his head to look over his
>>> right shoulder, just as he said
>>> he did.
>
>> But he turns from z230-270. How can
>> you tell he is referring to the
>> partial turn (a turn that is very
>> similar to that of JFK and Jackie at
>> the same time)?
>
> Because he doesn't just say he turned
> to the right and was shot and that is it.
Nellie did. She told Dr. Shires exactly that. JBC said that the was shot
after he turned around to the right to look behind him to see JFK. Where
does he ever turn to look behind him except z230-270?
>
> Instead, he says:
>
> * he heard a shot
>
> * he turned to his right and saw nothing
>
> * he turned back forward and started
> turning to his left
>
> * perceived he was just wounded.
>
> The problem with him being wounded
> after Z240, is he never turns to the right and
> then back forward again. He only turns to his
> right and is pulled straight back toward his
> wife.
He turns forward from where he had been looking back. He is facing the
side of the car when he is pulled down by Nellie. Nellie also did not
describe waiting 3 seconds to pull him down after the second shot.
>
> The only hypothetical shot that includes
> right after it a turn to the right,
> a turn back to facing forward and the
> start of a turn to the left is after the
> Z154 shot. The hypothetical Z271 shot
> just doesn't have a turn to the left
> afterwards. It just doesn't.
True. But he was not exactly thinking about where he was facing after he
was shot. Nellie said he was turned to the right when shot.
>
>> You seem to have no problem dismissing
>> JBC's testimony which doesn't fit with
>> your story
>
> There is not a lot of JBC's testimony
> which needs to be dismissed. The only
> part is he thinks he was hit after his
> turn to the left passed his facing
> straight forward and was then facing
> somewhat to his left when wounded,
> consistent with a shot around Z232.
>
> But likely, he was mistaken. Many
> soldiers have serious rifle bullet
> wounds and don't realize it for many
> seconds or minutes. JBC likely realized
> he had a serious wound when he tried to
> inhale, a half second after being shot
> at Z222.
Except that he said he distinctly recalled the forceful impact.
Ok. But we have a lot more witnesses whose evidence is inconsistent with
such a shot pattern. The test is not whether they are consistent with
such a pattern but whether they are inconsistent with a different pattern.
Andrew Mason
Anthony Marsh
> bigdog wrote:
>> On Jun 30, 11:52 am, Andrew Mason <a.ma...@spmlaw.ca> wrote:
>>> bigdog wrote:
>>>> On Jun 29, 9:42 am, Andrew Mason <a.ma...@sasktel.net> wrote:
>>>>> bigdog wrote:
>>>>>> On Jun 28, 12:36 pm, Andrew Mason <a.ma...@sasktel.net> wrote:
>>>>>>> Lt.Bullitt wrote:
>>>>>>>> Z210 because that�s when the FBI first thought that JFK would be
>>>>>>>> visible after passing under the oak tree. But is that really
>>>>>>>> possible? The shooter notices JFK, aims, and fires all in one
>>>>>>>> The timeline (Zapruder frames) is mostly arbitrary and is meant to
>>>>>>>> promote further discussion.
>>>>>>>> under
>>>>>>>> the Oak tree.
>>>>>>>> Z212-213- shooter registers this fact
>>>>>>>> Z214-219- shooter aims
>>>>>>>> Z220- shooter fires
>>>>>>>> Z222- bullet exits JFK
>>>>>>>> Z224- bullet enters JBC�s left thigh
>>>>>>>> Scientific Comments are welcome about the following questions
>>>>>>>> relating
>>>>>>>> to the Zapruder film and the timeline: (using decimals or
>>>>>>>> fractions of
>>>>>>>> frames of course)
>>>>>>>> How many frames would it take the bullet to reach JFK from snipers
>>>>>>>> nest ? (in decimals or fractions of frames of course)
>>>>>>>> Zapruder frames)
>>>>>>>> How much would going through JBC�s forearm/wrist slow the bullet
SO, that's latest theory, that Oswald liked to shoot at leaves so he was
only shooting at the tree in Dealey Plaza?
> believes that a 2000 fps bullet would bounce off a branch of a tree -
> any branch let alone the kind of thin wispy branches that the limo
> passed under.
>
No one said anything about a leaf or a thin wispy branch causing a
bullet to bounce. But tests have been done which show that a bullet will
be deflected when it hits a tree branch.
>>
>>>
>>>> I'm sure the WC considered a number of possibilities before arriving at
>>>> the SBT. What difference does that make? Why would you put any stock in
>>>> the theories the WC discarded.
>>> The point is that FBI/WC never discarded the theory that the first
>>> bullet struck JFK.
>>>
>>
>> Nor did they accept it. The came to no conclusion about which shot
>> missed. Given the advantage of time and modern technology which has
>> allowed us to gather more information from the Z-film, it is safe to
>> say the first shot did miss.
>
> That is what the WC report said. But that is not what the majority of
> commissioners thought likely happened. All the internal memos indicate
> that the view was that the first shot struck JFK. It is pretty clear
> that McLoy thought that the first shot was the one that struck JBC in
> the back and he did not notice it. Since three members didn't believe
> the SBT, that makes a makes a majority - at least four - who thought the
> first shot struck JFK.
>
The official conclusion was going to be that the first shot hit JFK then
the second shot hit Connally until Specter dreamed up the SBT.
But again I have to remind you that facts are not a popularity contest.
You don't VOTE on the truth.
>>
>>>> Nobody says the WC got it right at the
>>>> beginning. The important thing is they got it right at the end. Why
>>>> would
>>>> I care what they left in their waste paper basket?
>>>> I do want to congratulate you for doing something I didn't think was
>>>> possible. You got Marsh and I to agree on something. Your theory is
>>>> wacky.
>>> Ok. But it is not me. Your statement means that that the 21 witnesses
>>> who said JFk reacted to the first shot, the 48 who said that the last
>>> two shots were closer together and the 22 witnesses who put the first
>>> shot after z186 were all wacky. For the second shot SBT to be correct,
>>> all have be completely wrong.
>>
>> Yes, they all are wrong. Not wacky. Just wrong. They didn't have the
>> benefit of seeing the event over and over again on film. If they did
>> and came to the same conclusions, that would be wacky.
>
> The WC is no wackier than my "theory" that the witnesses who said they
> observed JFK react to the first shot were not wacky. You say they were
> wacky. Why? Do you think that if they saw the zfilm over and over they
> would start believing that JFK reacted to the first shot by smiling and
> waving?
>
It would not be unusual for someone to react to the first shot by
smiling and waving. Many spectators did. It took a few seconds to react.
The President of Taiwan was shot in the stomach and did not even notice
it as he kept smiling and waving to the crowd.
> Andrew Mason
>
>>
>>
>
Anthony Marsh
Other WC defenders place the first shot nearer to Z-150 to give more time
to reload and fire a shot at Z-210. Holland et al think a very early shot
hit an obstacle such as the traffic light support bar. That would be in
the Z-150s.
bigdog
mutually exclusive to what is seen in the Z-film, there are three
possibilities.
1. The witness is wrong and the Z-film is genuine.
2. The witness is wrong and the Z-film is a forgery.
3. The witness is wrond and the Z-film is a forgery.
So which possibility do you accept. It is not a possibility for the
witness to be right and the Z-film to be genuine.
>
>
>
>
>
>
> >>>> If you examine the branches of the tree as they appeared on December 3
> >>>> 1963, there is nothing that would completely obscure the car or its
> >>>> occupants at any time. If you read the WC memos, it is apparent that the
> >>>> operating theory was that the first shot was fired just as the car
> >>>> emerged from under the tree and it hit JFK. They did not just make that
> >>>> up. There was a lot of evidence to support that conclusion.
> >>> It doesn't matter if you can see the target or not. The problem is if you
> >>> fire at a moving target with intervening branches, you risk the bullet
> >>> being intercepted by a branch, wasting a shot. It makes no sense to risk
> >>> such a shot when a clear shot is just a few seconds away.
> >> Only if those branches could actually deflect a bullet. They can't and
> >> Oswald probably knew that.
>
> > Absolutely untrue and you have no idea what Oswald knew.
>
> Not exactly. Oswald told Mrs. DeMohrenschildt that he practiced shooting
> the MC by shooting at leaves on trees. You may be the only person who
> believes that a 2000 fps bullet would bounce off a branch of a tree -
> any branch let alone the kind of thin wispy branches that the limo
> passed under.
>
What does shooting at leaves have to do with whether Oswald would risk
one of his four possible shots by firing through the branches of a
tree. A practice shot at a leaf has no consequence if it is deflected
by a branch. For someone trying to kill the President of the United
States with a very small window of time and a limited number of shots,
a tree branch poses a significant problem.
>
>
> >>> I'm sure the WC considered a number of possibilities before arriving at
> >>> the SBT. What difference does that make? Why would you put any stock in
> >>> the theories the WC discarded.
> >> The point is that FBI/WC never discarded the theory that the first
> >> bullet struck JFK.
>
> > Nor did they accept it. The came to no conclusion about which shot
> > missed. Given the advantage of time and modern technology which has
> > allowed us to gather more information from the Z-film, it is safe to
> > say the first shot did miss.
>
> That is what the WC report said. But that is not what the majority of
> commissioners thought likely happened. All the internal memos indicate
> that the view was that the first shot struck JFK. It is pretty clear
> that McLoy thought that the first shot was the one that struck JBC in
> the back and he did not notice it. Since three members didn't believe
> the SBT, that makes a makes a majority - at least four - who thought the
> first shot struck JFK.
>
For some strange reason, you place a lot of significance in the
inevitable give and take that would be done by a fact finding body
that is trying to determine what happened. In such a process ideas are
going to be floated, considered, and accepted or rejected. What
matters is the final conclusions, not the ideas that didn't make the
final cut.
>
>
> >>> Nobody says the WC got it right at the
> >>> beginning. The important thing is they got it right at the end. Why would
> >>> I care what they left in their waste paper basket?
> >>> I do want to congratulate you for doing something I didn't think was
> >>> possible. You got Marsh and I to agree on something. Your theory is wacky.
> >> Ok. But it is not me. Your statement means that that the 21 witnesses
> >> who said JFk reacted to the first shot, the 48 who said that the last
> >> two shots were closer together and the 22 witnesses who put the first
> >> shot after z186 were all wacky. For the second shot SBT to be correct,
> >> all have be completely wrong.
>
> > Yes, they all are wrong. Not wacky. Just wrong. They didn't have the
> > benefit of seeing the event over and over again on film. If they did and
> > came to the same conclusions, that would be wacky.
>
> The WC is no wackier than my "theory" that the witnesses who said they
> observed JFK react to the first shot were not wacky. You say they were
> wacky. Why? Do you think that if they saw the zfilm over and over they
> would start believing that JFK reacted to the first shot by smiling and
> waving?
>
Why don't you reread what I wrote. I said the witnesses were wrong,
not wacky. Then you turn around and claim I said they were wacky. A
witness who doesn't perfectly recall what he heard and saw and the
sequence in which the events occurred is not wacky. They are simply
wrong. It means they are human. On the other hand, someone who can
look at the Z-film over and over again and then try to claim that it
does not show something that it obviously does, that is a person I
would describe as wacky.
Anthony Marsh
> On Jun 29, 4:22 pm, Anthony Marsh<anthony_ma...@comcast.net> wrote:
>> On 6/28/2009 11:14 PM, bigdog wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>> On Jun 28, 12:36 pm, Andrew Mason<a.ma...@sasktel.net> wrote:
>>>> Lt.Bullitt wrote:
>>>>> Z210 because that�s when the FBI first thought that JFK would be
>>>>> visible after passing under the oak tree. But is that really
>>>>> possible? The shooter notices JFK, aims, and fires all in one
>>>>> The timeline (Zapruder frames) is mostly arbitrary and is meant to
>>>>> promote further discussion.
>>
>>>>> the Oak tree.
>>
>>>>> Z212-213- shooter registers this fact
>>
>>>>> Z214-219- shooter aims
>>
>>>>> Z220- shooter fires
>>
>>>>> Z222- bullet exits JFK
>>
>>
>>>>> Z224- bullet enters JBC�s left thigh
>>
>>>>> Scientific Comments are welcome about the following questions relating
>>>>> to the Zapruder film and the timeline: (using decimals or fractions of
>>>>> frames of course)
>>
>>>>> How many frames would it take the bullet to reach JFK from snipers
>>>>> nest ? (in decimals or fractions of frames of course)
>>
>>>>> Zapruder frames)
>>
>>>>> How much would going through JBC�s forearm/wrist slow the bullet down?
I argue with the errors and false assumptions whether I agree with
someone or not.
Anthony Marsh
> bigdog wrote:
>> On Jun 29, 9:42 am, Andrew Mason <a.ma...@sasktel.net> wrote:
>>> bigdog wrote:
>>>> On Jun 28, 12:36 pm, Andrew Mason <a.ma...@sasktel.net> wrote:
>>>>> Lt.Bullitt wrote:
>>>>>> Z210 because that�s when the FBI first thought that JFK would be
>>>>>> visible after passing under the oak tree. But is that really
>>>>>> possible? The shooter notices JFK, aims, and fires all in one
>>>>>> The timeline (Zapruder frames) is mostly arbitrary and is meant to
>>>>>> promote further discussion.
>>>>>> the Oak tree.
>>>>>> Z212-213- shooter registers this fact
>>>>>> Z214-219- shooter aims
>>>>>> Z220- shooter fires
>>>>>> Z222- bullet exits JFK
>>>>>> Z224- bullet enters JBC�s left thigh
>>>>>> Scientific Comments are welcome about the following questions
>>>>>> relating
>>>>>> to the Zapruder film and the timeline: (using decimals or
>>>>>> fractions of
>>>>>> frames of course)
>>>>>> How many frames would it take the bullet to reach JFK from snipers
>>>>>> nest ? (in decimals or fractions of frames of course)
>>>>>> Zapruder frames)
>>>>>> How much would going through JBC�s forearm/wrist slow the bullet
No. Never rely on witnesses. The jiggle analysis gives us good clues.
> the witnesses all said that JFK reacted to the first shot - but not by
> smiling and waving.
>
No, as usual you misrepresent historical facts to promote your wacky
theories. It was not all the witnesses. You are cherry picking and
misrepresenting what the witnesses said.
>> We see JBC reacting to the sound of a shot at Z164 when he begins
>> turning his head to look over his right shoulder, just as he said he did.
>
> But he turns from z230-270. How can you tell he is referring to the
> partial turn (a turn that is very similar to that of JFk and Jackie at
> the same time)?
>
>> You seem to have no problem dismissing JBC's testimony which doesn't
>> fit with your story.
>
> What fact recollections of JBC would you be referring to?
>
>> You only want to consider those witnesses which support your theory.
>
> And what would you call rejecting 21 witnesses in favour your
> interpretation of the zfilm?
>
Jeez, I don't care if we have to reject 100 witnesses who were wrong.
>>
>>> If you examine the branches of the tree as they appeared on December 3
>>> 1963, there is nothing that would completely obscure the car or its
>>> occupants at any time. If you read the WC memos, it is apparent that the
>>> operating theory was that the first shot was fired just as the car
>>> emerged from under the tree and it hit JFK. They did not just make that
>>> up. There was a lot of evidence to support that conclusion.
>>>
>>
>> It doesn't matter if you can see the target or not. The problem is if
>> you fire at a moving target with intervening branches, you risk the
>> bullet being intercepted by a branch, wasting a shot. It makes no
>> sense to risk such a shot when a clear shot is just a few seconds away.
>
> Only if those branches could actually deflect a bullet. They can't and
> Oswald probably knew that.
>
Oswald knew nada.
>>
>> I'm sure the WC considered a number of possibilities before arriving
>> at the SBT. What difference does that make? Why would you put any
>> stock in the theories the WC discarded.
>
> The point is that FBI/WC never discarded the theory that the first
> bullet struck JFK.
>
The WC was never clear about which shot missed.
Anthony Marsh
> Anthony Marsh wrote:
>> On 6/29/2009 9:45 AM, Andrew Mason wrote:
>>> Anthony Marsh wrote:
>>>> On 6/28/2009 12:36 PM, Andrew Mason wrote:
>>>>> Lt.Bullitt wrote:
>>>>>> Z210 because that�s when the FBI first thought that JFK would be
>>>>>> visible after passing under the oak tree. But is that really
>>>>>> possible? The shooter notices JFK, aims, and fires all in one
>>>>>> The timeline (Zapruder frames) is mostly arbitrary and is meant to
>>>>>> promote further discussion.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> the Oak tree.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Z212-213- shooter registers this fact
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Z214-219- shooter aims
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Z220- shooter fires
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Z222- bullet exits JFK
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Z224- bullet enters JBC�s left thigh
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Scientific Comments are welcome about the following questions
>>>>>> relating
>>>>>> to the Zapruder film and the timeline: (using decimals or
>>>>>> fractions of
>>>>>> frames of course)
>>>>>>
>>>>>> How many frames would it take the bullet to reach JFK from snipers
>>>>>> nest ? (in decimals or fractions of frames of course)
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Zapruder frames)
>>>>>>
>>>>>> How much would going through JBC�s forearm/wrist slow the bullet
>>>>>> down?
>>>>>> (Re. Zapruder frames)
>>>>>>
>>>>> The outer branches of the tree that the car passed under did not block
>>>>> the view of the car. It was quite possible to see through the outer
>>>>> branches. See:http://www.dufourlaw.com/JFK/tree_dec63.jpg
>>>>>
>>>>> So Oswald could have fired at any time. In fact he had an unobstructed
>>>>> view of JFK well before z207. Here is the FBI re-enactment of frame
>>>>> 207
>>>>> showing the back of the trunk to be quite visible.
>>>>> http://www.dufourlaw.com/JFK/CE_892_z207.jpg
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> So, you think that Oswald intended to shoot the back of the trunk?
>>>> What's your damn point?
>>>
>>> If the back of the trunk was 8 feet behind JFK and JFK was moving about
>>> 1 foot per frame when do you think JFK was in the same position as the
>>> trunk was at z207? I thought you could figure that out.
>>>
>>
>> So, what's your point about the trunk?
>
> My point is not about the trunk. It is that JFK would have been visible
> when he was 8 feet behind the position he is shown in the recreation of
> z207.
>
And what does the recreation have to do with reality. Show the position
of JFK at whatever frame you want.
> Andrew Mason
>
Andrew Mason
There is no evidence at all to support a first shot at z154. What you see
at z164 could be the response to Mary Woodward waving and shouting at the
President. Why would they smile and wave in response to a loud noise? And
why all three in the same direction - looking toward Mary Woodward and her
friends? Mary Woodward SAID that JFK and Jackie turned and smiled and
waved at them BEFORE the first shot. Where else do they do that?
You also have the problem with Croft who took a photo at z162 from very
close to the car. He said it was well before the first shot. Betzner and
Willis put it after z186.
Andrew Mason
WhiskyJoe
> WhiskyJoe
> Do you really think it is possible to
> pinpoint the first shot?
bigdog
While the evidence for a shot around
Z312/313 is overwhelming, and a shot at
Z222 is very strong, the evidence for a
shot around Z152/153 is only fairly good.
We can't even by absolutely certain that
three shots were fired. Maybe it was only
two, the one the three cartridges found
on the floor of the sniper's nest associated
with Oswald's last practice shot from
month's before, not with a shot at Dealey
Plaza.
Still, I think there was at least an
80% chance for a shot around Z150-160
and if it occurred, it was probably
around Z152-153.
> I am curious as to why you pick Z154
> for the first shot. Myers and others
> have placed the shot at Z160.
Actually, I probably should put the first
shot around Z153, maybe Z152.
The following information is from Larry
Sturdivan's 'The JFK Myths', Appendix E,
Table E1.
The three biggest jiggles of Zapruder's
camera before Z320, not including four
jiggles which may have been caused by
JFK's limousine disappearing behind
the freeway sign around Z200, are at:
Z158/159 corresponding to: Z152/153
Z227 corresponding to: Z221
Z318 corresponding to: Z312
The camera jiggles probably occur about
5 to 6 frames after the shot reaches
the limousine.
I place the Z312 shot at Z312, not Z313,
because the two inch forward movement of
JFK's between Z312/313 shows the shot must
have been much closer to Z312, probably
about when the shutter closed for Z312,
than Z313. There is simply not enough time
for a bullet to push JFK's head forward by
two inches if the shot was at or closer to
Z313.
Though the jiggle at Z227 implies a shot
at Z221, I think the SBT shot struck
closer to Z222, because Dr. Lattimer's
tests of the mid 1990's show the coat
should bulge 0.1 seconds after the bullet,
hence, the 'Coat Bulge' at Z224 implies
a shot at Z222.
****************************************
So, the evidence of a shot at Z152/153:
* Zapruder's camera jiggle at Z158/159
* Looking at Don Roberdeau's map, about
two thirds of the way down, he has a
graph of the directions the two Kennedy's
and Connally's were facing for Z140-208.
This graph shows that JFK started to turn
to his right at Z159 and Connally at Z163.
http://imgcash2.imageshack.us/img160/7642/dpjpg110508mb6.gif
While Don's map is very accurate, I'm
not certain of this graph. But, in any
case, even if we ignore the graph,
Connally's turn starting at Z164 is
pretty soon after Z160. I wonder if
Connally could determine the direction
of the sound and decide to start turning
back in one quarter of a second.
While 0.7 seconds may seem like a long
time for Connally to determine the
direction of the shot and start to turn,
many people were not able to guess the
direction of any of the shots and many
who did guess were wrong.
Sturdivan pointed out in his book that
people have trouble accurately placing
a sound source that is up high. We do
much better when the sound source is on
the same level as us.
Also, Sturdivan pointed out that the
sound of the supersonic bullet could
throw people off. People close the bullet
path would not hear a "bang" but were
instead hear a "crack-thump". "crack"
is the sound of the supersonic bullet
itself. "thump" is the muzzle blast.
People should ignore the "crack" and
concentrate on the "thump" to get the
direction of the rifle. Connally might
need to use a fraction of a second to
do this.
Connally had hunting experience, but
assuming he never went hunting with
Dick Cheney, he never heard shots fired
in his general direction. I think
0.7 seconds sounds like a plausible
amount of time for him to sort out the
"crack-thump" and start turning toward
the thump.
****************************************
In conclusion, my primary belief on a
shot at Z152 and not at Z160, is based
on the Zapruder camera jiggle at Z158/159.
If the shot occurred at Z160, I don't
know why there was not large camera
jiggle at Z166 and why there was a
camera jiggle at Z158-159.
And, I might add that a shot at Z158
won't cause Zapruder to jiggle his
camera at Z158. He can't possibly
react that fast to hearing the sound.
****************************************
I believe that the theory of a shot at
Z160 instead of a little earlier came
about because of a desire to explain
the first shot missing the entire
limousine, a surprising result to say
the least.
It was guessed that maybe the tree
suddenly filled the sights of the scope.
But this required pushing the shot as
far forward as possible, to Z160,
to be at least somewhat plausibly
associated with Connally's and JFK's
turn to the right.
But, actually, even Z160 is not far
forward enough. The tree doesn't start
blocking the view of JFK until Z166.
Likely, there were barking up the wrong tree.
Oswald missed his first shot badly because
it was by far the most difficult shot.
He should not have attempted it.
The limousine was moving not directly
away but was off by 25 degrees.
Worst, the angular speed was 5 to 6
degrees per second. If he waited until
after the limousine cleared the tree,
he would have a target moving almost away
from him.
The angular speed of the target for Z222
was around 1.8 degrees per second and
for Z312, 0.7 degrees per second.
A much easier shot for someone with
training and practice only at
stationary targets with a rifle.
WhiskyJoe
> Do you think that if they saw the zfilm
> over and over they would start believing
> that JFK reacted to the first shot by
> smiling and waving?
Well, in the late Z280's and Z290's,
Charles Brehm, a combat veteran was
clapping his hands in the Zapruder film.
This occurred after JFK was clearly wounded.
Brehm even said he heard a shot and saw JFK
react, clearly to the shot in the Z220's.
But Brehm did not recognize the shot he
heard as a shot. He though it was just
a noise. So he continued clapping.
If you look at the Zapruder film, the only
ones who seem aware of shots being fired
before Z312, are five of the six in the
limousine and the Secret Service men in
the follow up car. No one else in the
film seems to be reacting like they think
shots are being fired.
So, just as Brehm heard the shot,
but did not recognize the shot,
it may be that JFK heard the first shot,
did not recognize as a shot, thought
it was a backfire or firecracker and
continued waving.
Question:
If we conclude that no shot could have
been fired before Z220, because JFK
continued waving, why can't we conclude
that no shot could have been fired before
Z280, because the very experienced combat
veteran Charles Brehm was still clapping
in the Z280's and Z290's?
WhiskyJoe
> Except that he said he distinctly
> recalled the forceful impact.
Yes. And if we follow his testimony
exactly:
* heard a shot behind him and to his right
* he turned to his right
* he turned forward, till he was
facing somewhat to his left
* he felt a shot hit him
That means a first shot in the Z150-160
range and a second shot that wounds him
in the Z230's.
A shot in the Z270's wounding Connally
doesn't come close to matching what he
remembers.
And clearly, from the Zapruder film, he's
wounded during the Z230's and Z240's and
possibly sooner. But certainly by Z235.
However, based on an abundance of evidence,
not two camera jiggles but one camera jiggle,
and the jiggle at Z227 corresponding with
a shot around Z222, Connally's torso movement
around Z224, the coat movement at Z224, the
wrist movement at Z225-231, all add up
to Connally being wounded at Z222 and not
noting in his mind the direction he was
facing until around Z230.
> True. But he was not exactly thinking
> about where he was facing after he
> was shot. Nellie said he was turned
> to the right when shot.
Why should we assume that Nellie more
carefully noted the direction JBC
was facing when JBC was wounded?
Why don't we assume the opposite, that
Connally was a better witness. And we
have excellent reasons for believing
that JBC was a better witness than
Nellie. Simply because she was not
looking at either JBC nor JFK during
the critical interval of Z220-235.
How can she be a good witness on who got
wounded first when much of the time she
looked at neither and, of course, never
looked at both of them at the same time?
It looks like she heard her husband
yell, saw JFK was wounded, looked
at her husband, saw he was wounded too,
assumed wrongly that he just because
wounded the moment she perceived he
was wounded, and pulled him down.
> Ok. But we have a lot more witnesses
> whose evidence is inconsistent with
> such a shot pattern. The test is not
> whether they are consistent with such
> a pattern but whether they are
> inconsistent with a different pattern.
But witnesses can be mistaken. They
may gauge time differently when they
don't think shots are being fired then
when they begin to suspect it, because
JFK raises his arms in a strange manner.
This may result in systematic errors.
There may be a tendency to remember a
five second interval as shorter if they
are wondering what's wrong with JFK.
Or, it may be that the witnesses did
get it right, for once. But the first
shot miss could have been before Z133 so
shots at Z120, Z222 and Z312 do fit a:
"bang ..... bank ... band" pattern.
There is no compelling reason the reported
"bang ..... bank ... band" pattern should
overruled the clear evidence of JFK and JBC
wounded in the Z220's and JFK hit at Z312.
Andrew Mason
I don't disagree that it would not be impossible for JFK and Jackie to
have smiled and waved after the first shot. The problem is that we have
abundant evidence that it did not happen: There are at least 21
witnesses who said that they did not wave and smile after the first
shot. There are also 22 witnesses who gave evidence that is inconsistent
with a first shot before z186. There are also 48 witnesses who said
there was only one shot before the midpoint between the first and last
shot. You just choose to ignore all that evidence.
>
> Question:
>
> If we conclude that no shot could have
> been fired before Z220, because JFK
> continued waving, why can't we conclude
> that no shot could have been fired before
> Z280, because the very experienced combat
> veteran Charles Brehm was still clapping
> in the Z280's and Z290's?
The reason I conclude that JFK did not smile and wave after the first
shot is because the evidence says he did not. If the evidence was that
he smiled and waved after the first shot I would conclude otherwise. But
it doesn't. Similarly, there is abundant evidence that JFK was shot
before the 280s. You have to look at more than just the zfilm.
Andrew Mason
>
Andrew Mason
>> Except that he said he distinctly
>> recalled the forceful impact.
>
> Yes. And if we follow his testimony
> exactly:
>
> * heard a shot behind him and to his right
>
> * he turned to his right
>
> * he turned forward, till he was
> facing somewhat to his left
>
> * he felt a shot hit him
>
> That means a first shot in the Z150-160
> range and a second shot that wounds him
> in the Z230's.
>
> A shot in the Z270's wounding Connally
> doesn't come close to matching what he
> remembers.
That may be so. But the questions were never put to him. He was never
asked to point out in the zfilm, for example, where he made his turn
back to see JFK.
>
> And clearly, from the Zapruder film, he's
> wounded during the Z230's and Z240's and
> possibly sooner. But certainly by Z235.
>
> However, based on an abundance of evidence,
> not two camera jiggles but one camera jiggle,
> and the jiggle at Z227 corresponding with
> a shot around Z222, Connally's torso movement
> around Z224, the coat movement at Z224, the
> wrist movement at Z225-231, all add up
> to Connally being wounded at Z222 and not
> noting in his mind the direction he was
> facing until around Z230.
>
>> True. But he was not exactly thinking
>> about where he was facing after he
>> was shot. Nellie said he was turned
>> to the right when shot.
>
> Why should we assume that Nellie more
> carefully noted the direction JBC
> was facing when JBC was wounded?
We don't have to assume that at all. I just pointed out that there are
two witnesses to JBC's position at the time of the second shot. One of
them said he was turned right when hit. The other "thought" he was
facing forward.
> Why don't we assume the opposite, that
> Connally was a better witness. And we
> have excellent reasons for believing
> that JBC was a better witness than
> Nellie. Simply because she was not
> looking at either JBC nor JFK during
> the critical interval of Z220-235.
Which can be interpreted two ways:
1. the second shot did not occur then but occurred after z260 when she
was looking at him OR
2. she was completely wrong on what she saw at the time of the second
shot, when JBC said "oh, no, no", when JFK brought his hands to his
neck, how long she waited to pull her husband down etc. Oh, and by the
way, Greer was wrong on when he said he turned around. And all those
witnesses who said that JFK reacted to the first shot were wrong too. As
were the shot pattern witnesses. As were the 22 witnesses (at least) who
put the location of the first shot at the position of JFK seen in the
zfilm at around z200 (Betzner, Croft, Willis, VP car occupants, VP
follow up car occupants; dozehs who lined Elm St. and noted where the
President was in relation to where they were standing at the time of the
first shot).
I choose the first because it requires rejecting the least amount of
evidence. If you could begin to explain how all that evidence could
agree so well and yet be so completely and utterly wrong, I am listening.
That is hardly much difference. 5.5 seconds and 5 seconds.
>
> There is no compelling reason the reported
> "bang ..... bank ... band" pattern should
> overruled the clear evidence of JFK and JBC
> wounded in the Z220's and JFK hit at Z312.
I disagree.
Andrew Mason
>
bigdog
Very interesting analysis, WhiskyJoe, as I expected. I think we would
agree that without a definitive event as we had for the next two
shots, the best we can do seems to be an educated guess for that first
shot.
My theory for the first shot miss was the awkwardness of a shot being
fired down at a very steep angle. This would have forced Oswald to
raise the rifle butt and possibly to have to come out of his kneeling
position. This might also have taken away the use of the box as a
rifle rest which could have added to his unsteadiness. Another thing
to consider is what athletes refer to as the choke factor. When you
have time to think about what you are going to do, such as a golfer
trying to sink an important putt or a basketball player shooting a
free throw near the end of a game, the mind can interfer with the
body. After the first shot, time would have forced Oswald into a more
instinctive mode in which his firearms training would have kicked in
without the interference from the mind. Just my humble opinion.
Of course, we wouldn't need to be having this discussion if Zapruder
would have used a camcorder.
Andrew Mason
witnesses who were there. You cannot solve this or any other case by
speculation.
Andrew Mason
Andrew Mason
> On 7/1/2009 12:10 PM, Andrew Mason wrote:
>> bigdog wrote:
>>> On Jun 30, 11:52 am, Andrew Mason <a.ma...@spmlaw.ca> wrote:
>>>> bigdog wrote:
>>>>> On Jun 29, 9:42 am, Andrew Mason <a.ma...@sasktel.net> wrote:
>>>>>> bigdog wrote:
>>>>>>> On Jun 28, 12:36 pm, Andrew Mason <a.ma...@sasktel.net> wrote:
>>>>>>>> Lt.Bullitt wrote:
>>>>>>>>> Z210 because that’s when the FBI first thought that JFK would be
>>>>>>>>> visible after passing under the oak tree. But is that really
>>>>>>>>> possible? The shooter notices JFK, aims, and fires all in one
>>>>>>>>> The timeline (Zapruder frames) is mostly arbitrary and is meant to
>>>>>>>>> promote further discussion.
>>>>>>>>> under
>>>>>>>>> the Oak tree.
>>>>>>>>> Z212-213- shooter registers this fact
>>>>>>>>> Z214-219- shooter aims
>>>>>>>>> Z220- shooter fires
>>>>>>>>> Z222- bullet exits JFK
>>>>>>>>> Z224- bullet enters JBC’s left thigh
>>>>>>>>> Scientific Comments are welcome about the following questions
>>>>>>>>> relating
>>>>>>>>> to the Zapruder film and the timeline: (using decimals or
>>>>>>>>> fractions of
>>>>>>>>> frames of course)
>>>>>>>>> How many frames would it take the bullet to reach JFK from snipers
>>>>>>>>> nest ? (in decimals or fractions of frames of course)
>>>>>>>>> (Re.
>>>>>>>>> Zapruder frames)
>>>>>>>>> How much would going through JBC’s forearm/wrist slow the bullet
Sure. 12 inches over 75 yards. That is the American Rifleman test. Not
enough to deflect a 2000 fps MC bullet so that it misses the car 30 feet
below.
Of course it would have been possible for JFK and Jackie to have turned
and waved after the first shot. But the evidence is that they did this
before the first shot. The evidence is that JFK reacted to the first
shot by leaning left and bringing his hands to his neck.
Andrew Mason
>
>> Andrew Mason
>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>
>
Andrew Mason
I agree. If we had witnesses who said that JFK's head did not rupture on
any shot, you would have a point. But none said that. The point is that
there is nothing about the witness evidence that is inconsistent with
the zfilm. It is only your interpretation that they are inconsistent
with. You have a choice:
1. The witnesses were right and your interpretation is wrong.
2. Your interpretation is right and all the witnesses are wrong.
Those are your two choices. You have chosen 2. I disagree. My only
objection is that you say 1. is a wacky choice. That is in itself a
wacky idea even if you were right.
>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>>>>> If you examine the branches of the tree as they appeared on December 3
>>>>>> 1963, there is nothing that would completely obscure the car or its
>>>>>> occupants at any time. If you read the WC memos, it is apparent that the
>>>>>> operating theory was that the first shot was fired just as the car
>>>>>> emerged from under the tree and it hit JFK. They did not just make that
>>>>>> up. There was a lot of evidence to support that conclusion.
>>>>> It doesn't matter if you can see the target or not. The problem is if you
>>>>> fire at a moving target with intervening branches, you risk the bullet
>>>>> being intercepted by a branch, wasting a shot. It makes no sense to risk
>>>>> such a shot when a clear shot is just a few seconds away.
>>>> Only if those branches could actually deflect a bullet. They can't and
>>>> Oswald probably knew that.
>>> Absolutely untrue and you have no idea what Oswald knew.
>> Not exactly. Oswald told Mrs. DeMohrenschildt that he practiced shooting
>> the MC by shooting at leaves on trees. You may be the only person who
>> believes that a 2000 fps bullet would bounce off a branch of a tree -
>> any branch let alone the kind of thin wispy branches that the limo
>> passed under.
>>
> What does shooting at leaves have to do with whether Oswald would risk
> one of his four possible shots by firing through the branches of a
> tree. A practice shot at a leaf has no consequence if it is deflected
> by a branch. For someone trying to kill the President of the United
> States with a very small window of time and a limited number of shots,
> a tree branch poses a significant problem.
Only for being able to see the target. It would have a negligible effect
on the bullet.
>>
>>>>> I'm sure the WC considered a number of possibilities before arriving at
>>>>> the SBT. What difference does that make? Why would you put any stock in
>>>>> the theories the WC discarded.
>>>> The point is that FBI/WC never discarded the theory that the first
>>>> bullet struck JFK.
>>> Nor did they accept it. The came to no conclusion about which shot
>>> missed. Given the advantage of time and modern technology which has
>>> allowed us to gather more information from the Z-film, it is safe to
>>> say the first shot did miss.
>> That is what the WC report said. But that is not what the majority of
>> commissioners thought likely happened. All the internal memos indicate
>> that the view was that the first shot struck JFK. It is pretty clear
>> that McLoy thought that the first shot was the one that struck JBC in
>> the back and he did not notice it. Since three members didn't believe
>> the SBT, that makes a makes a majority - at least four - who thought the
>> first shot struck JFK.
>>
> For some strange reason, you place a lot of significance in the
> inevitable give and take that would be done by a fact finding body
> that is trying to determine what happened. In such a process ideas are
> going to be floated, considered, and accepted or rejected. What
> matters is the final conclusions, not the ideas that didn't make the
> final cut.
A fact finding body goes by the evidence. There was overwhelming
evidence that the first shot struck JFK. It is not surprising that the
memos reflect this. Posner and Bugliosi and other second shot SBT
supporters do not even deal with this evidence. At least the WC dealt
with it - and did not reject it.
>>
>>>>> Nobody says the WC got it right at the
>>>>> beginning. The important thing is they got it right at the end. Why would
>>>>> I care what they left in their waste paper basket?
>>>>> I do want to congratulate you for doing something I didn't think was
>>>>> possible. You got Marsh and I to agree on something. Your theory is wacky.
>>>> Ok. But it is not me. Your statement means that that the 21 witnesses
>>>> who said JFk reacted to the first shot, the 48 who said that the last
>>>> two shots were closer together and the 22 witnesses who put the first
>>>> shot after z186 were all wacky. For the second shot SBT to be correct,
>>>> all have be completely wrong.
>>> Yes, they all are wrong. Not wacky. Just wrong. They didn't have the
>>> benefit of seeing the event over and over again on film. If they did and
>>> came to the same conclusions, that would be wacky.
>> The WC is no wackier than my "theory" that the witnesses who said they
>> observed JFK react to the first shot were not wacky. You say they were
>> wacky. Why? Do you think that if they saw the zfilm over and over they
>> would start believing that JFK reacted to the first shot by smiling and
>> waving?
>>
> Why don't you reread what I wrote. I said the witnesses were wrong,
> not wacky.
But you say that if I say they were right, you say I am wacky. What is
the difference?
> Then you turn around and claim I said they were wacky. A
> witness who doesn't perfectly recall what he heard and saw and the
> sequence in which the events occurred is not wacky. They are simply
> wrong. It means they are human. On the other hand, someone who can
> look at the Z-film over and over again and then try to claim that it
> does not show something that it obviously does, that is a person I
> would describe as wacky.
I would say that the notion that the zfilm can be interpreted without
regard to the rest of the evidence is wacky. I think you would agree
with that. Except that you choose to ignore vast bodies of evidence and
you cherry pick the rest.
Andrew Mason
>
Anthony Marsh
> WhiskyJoe wrote:
>>> Except that he said he distinctly
>>> recalled the forceful impact.
>>
>> Yes. And if we follow his testimony
>> exactly:
>>
>> * heard a shot behind him and to his right
>>
>> * he turned to his right
>>
>> * he turned forward, till he was
>> facing somewhat to his left
>>
>> * he felt a shot hit him
>>
>> That means a first shot in the Z150-160
>> range and a second shot that wounds him
>> in the Z230's.
>>
>> A shot in the Z270's wounding Connally
>> doesn't come close to matching what he
>> remembers.
>
> That may be so. But the questions were never put to him. He was never
> asked to point out in the zfilm, for example, where he made his turn
> back to see JFK.
>
Connally testified to where he saw himself being hit in the Zapruder
film. He said it was at about frame 230.
Connally is cleared wounded by the Altgens photo, taken at about frame 255.
bigdog
before Z230 but you choose to ignore that. Looking at other evidence
is fine as long as you don't ignore the Z-film. If it happened on the
Z-film, it happened.
Anthony Marsh
Wow, 21 out of 900. I'm not impressed.
Anthony Marsh
>
>> Do you think that if they saw the zfilm
>> over and over they would start believing
>> that JFK reacted to the first shot by
>> smiling and waving?
>
> Well, in the late Z280's and Z290's,
> Charles Brehm, a combat veteran was
> clapping his hands in the Zapruder film.
> This occurred after JFK was clearly wounded.
> Brehm even said he heard a shot and saw JFK
> react, clearly to the shot in the Z220's.
Brehm never specified Z220's. That is YOUR opinion.
> But Brehm did not recognize the shot he
> heard as a shot. He though it was just
> a noise. So he continued clapping.
>
Many people thought it was a backfire.
New theory here. What if it was a backfire?
Could you tell the difference between a backfire and a real rifle shot
on the DPD tape?
> If you look at the Zapruder film, the only
> ones who seem aware of shots being fired
> before Z312, are five of the six in the
> limousine and the Secret Service men in
> the follow up car. No one else in the
> film seems to be reacting like they think
> shots are being fired.
>
Not quite. You are leaving out some other examples we know about such as
Rosemary Willis and Malcolm Summers and then not looking for others. I
assume you are correctly leaving out the erroneous claim of a reaction
of the car door of the SS car behind LBJ flung open.
> So, just as Brehm heard the shot,
> but did not recognize the shot,
> it may be that JFK heard the first shot,
> did not recognize as a shot, thought
> it was a backfire or firecracker and
> continued waving.
>
Ok, but can you agree that he had a reflex reaction at the time he was hit?
> Question:
>
> If we conclude that no shot could have
> been fired before Z220, because JFK
> continued waving, why can't we conclude
Exactly where do you see JFK continue to wave at Z-220?
Andrew Mason
Your definition evidence differs from mine. I do not call the opinions of
amateur zfilm analyzers evidence, and neither do the courts. There is
absolutely no independent corroboration of these opinions from other
evidence. None. Zero. That should tell you something.
Andrew Mason
bigdog
>
> - Show quoted text -
The Z-film itself is evidence. The sworn testimony of Connally would
be evidence and it is compatible with what virtually everyone else in
the civilized world believes except you. Connally was hit before Z240.
Most LNs place the shot in the early Z220s when JFK was hit. Many if
not most CTs place the shot in the Z230s. I know of no one outside
your inner circle who believes he was hit any later than Z240. To
believe that is to disbelieve one's own eyes. It is so incredibly
obvious that JBC has been hit by Z240 that only someone who
desperately wants to prove a fairy tale is true would deny it. I could
claim that JFK was not shot in the head at Z313 but was mere struck be
a tomato hurled by a heckler. It would make about as much sense and
get just as much a following as you have managed to get for your wacky
theory.
I would love to see you present the Z-film in court and then argue to
the jury that Connally was not hit until Z271. I get this mental
picture of 12 men and woman, the judge, the opposing counsel, the
bailiff, and all the spectators trying to choke back the laughter. I
don't think they could do it.
Andrew Mason
Sure it is. I never said it was not evidence. I said amateur opinion
about where the shots occurred is not evidence. If you have an opinion
on where the shots occurred, your opinion is not evidence.
This is because the zfilm does not show where the first two shots
occurred. You have to interpret it. It cannot be used to show the time
of the first two shots without reference to other evidence. There is no
unequivocal evidence in the zfilm for any of the shots other than the
head shot. That is why there was an honest debate over where the shots
occurred among the FBI and the WC as well as the HSCA and just about
everyone else who has looked at it.
> The sworn testimony of Connally would
> be evidence and it is compatible with what virtually everyone else in
> the civilized world believes except you.
Yes. His opinion about where he was hit is evidence because he was
really there. But it is still opinion evidence and it is not conclusive.
Neither Nellie nor JBC would have maintained otherwise.
> Connally was hit before Z240.
Your opinion, not evidence. Mind you, it was also the opinion of
Frazier, Specter etc. Actually Frazier did not state that he had to have
been hit before z240. He said "if the bullet did not change direction in
passing through Connally" a shot from the SN after z240 would have
passed through JBC's left side.
> Most LNs place the shot in the early Z220s when JFK was hit.
And all I am saying is that such a conclusion is inconsistent with
several bodies of consistent well corroborated witness evidence.
> Many if
> not most CTs place the shot in the Z230s.
I disagree with them to..
> I know of no one outside
> your inner circle who believes he was hit any later than Z240. To
> believe that is to disbelieve one's own eyes.
No. It is to disbelieve your opinion. If you were to open your eyes to
the rest of the evidence you would see that JBC being shot in the chest
prior to z240 is inconsistent with an enormous amount of evidence.
> It is so incredibly
> obvious that JBC has been hit by Z240 that only someone who
> desperately wants to prove a fairy tale is true would deny it.
Your opinion. Not mine.
> I could
> claim that JFK was not shot in the head at Z313 but was mere struck be
> a tomato hurled by a heckler. It would make about as much sense and
> get just as much a following as you have managed to get for your wacky
> theory.
Ah, the difference is that the shot in head is unequivocally established
at z313. You won't see any debate among the FBI, WC, HSCA or anyone else
about that. That MEANS it is unequivocal - reasonable people cannot
disagree. That is NOT the case with the first two shots.
>
> I would love to see you present the Z-film in court and then argue to
> the jury that Connally was not hit until Z271. I get this mental
> picture of 12 men and woman, the judge, the opposing counsel, the
> bailiff, and all the spectators trying to choke back the laughter. I
> don't think they could do it.
I would win with an unbiased jury. Definitely.
Andrew Mason
Anthony Marsh
So, in other words, you accept the fact that Connally was hit at frame
230 because he said so? Isn't it a nice coincidence that the acoustical
evidence places a shot at Z-230?
> Most LNs place the shot in the early Z220s when JFK was hit. Many if
> not most CTs place the shot in the Z230s. I know of no one outside
> your inner circle who believes he was hit any later than Z240. To
> believe that is to disbelieve one's own eyes. It is so incredibly
> obvious that JBC has been hit by Z240 that only someone who
> desperately wants to prove a fairy tale is true would deny it. I could
> claim that JFK was not shot in the head at Z313 but was mere struck be
> a tomato hurled by a heckler. It would make about as much sense and
> get just as much a following as you have managed to get for your wacky
> theory.
>
Isn't there some wacko who claims there were no shots at all before
Z-285. He obviously must think all the photographic evidence is fake.
> I would love to see you present the Z-film in court and then argue to
> the jury that Connally was not hit until Z271. I get this mental
Well, I seem to remember that someone did present the Z-film in court
and what the jurors were laughing at was the WC's SBT.
Anthony Marsh
> Anthony Marsh wrote:
>> On 7/1/2009 12:10 PM, Andrew Mason wrote:
>>> bigdog wrote:
>>>> On Jun 30, 11:52 am, Andrew Mason <a.ma...@spmlaw.ca> wrote:
>>>>> bigdog wrote:
>>>>>> On Jun 29, 9:42 am, Andrew Mason <a.ma...@sasktel.net> wrote:
>>>>>>> bigdog wrote:
>>>>>>>> On Jun 28, 12:36 pm, Andrew Mason <a.ma...@sasktel.net> wrote:
>>>>>>>>> Lt.Bullitt wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> fired at
>>>>>>>>>> Z210 because that?s when the FBI first thought that JFK would be
>>>>>>>>>> visible after passing under the oak tree. But is that really
>>>>>>>>>> possible? The shooter notices JFK, aims, and fires all in one
>>>>>>>>>> scenario.
>>>>>>>>>> The timeline (Zapruder frames) is mostly arbitrary and is
>>>>>>>>>> meant to
>>>>>>>>>> promote further discussion.
>>>>>>>>>> under
>>>>>>>>>> the Oak tree.
>>>>>>>>>> Z212-213- shooter registers this fact
>>>>>>>>>> Z214-219- shooter aims
>>>>>>>>>> Z220- shooter fires
>>>>>>>>>> Z222- bullet exits JFK
>>>>>>>>>> Z224- bullet enters JBC?s left thigh
>>>>>>>>>> Scientific Comments are welcome about the following questions
>>>>>>>>>> relating
>>>>>>>>>> to the Zapruder film and the timeline: (using decimals or
>>>>>>>>>> fractions of
>>>>>>>>>> frames of course)
>>>>>>>>>> How many frames would it take the bullet to reach JFK from
>>>>>>>>>> snipers
>>>>>>>>>> nest ? (in decimals or fractions of frames of course)
>>>>>>>>>> (Re.
>>>>>>>>>> Zapruder frames)
>>>>>>>>>> How much would going through JBC?s forearm/wrist slow the bullet
That's one test. And the conditions of that one test? Using only a
half-inch dowel.
What car was only 30 feet below? The window sill was 60 feet above the
sidewalk. Oh, you mean the car driving UP the side of the building? Oh,
you mean 30 feet below the tree? Which branch? And which angle from the
tree branch to the car which is exactly where in relation to the tree
branch at which specific frame? And whose theory is it that it misses the
entire car? Maybe someone has a theory that it caused the dent of the
chrome topping.
WhiskyJoe
> From bigdog
> Very interesting analysis, WhiskyJoe,
> as I expected. I think we would agree
> that without a definitive event as we
> had for the next two shots, the best
> we can do seems to be an educated
> guess for that first shot.
Thank you.
I feel there is only a 80% chance
that there was a first shot miss in the
Z140-Z180 range. A lot of things occur
that indicate this:
* the Zapruder camera jiggle at Z158-159
* Connally's turn to his right in the
Zapruder film, which is supported by
testimony his testimony
* JFK's turn to his right
* Jackie's turn to her right, a bit later
* Rosemary's slowing down and stopping
during Z160-190 and her statements,
made years later, that this was or may
have been caused by her hearing the
first shot.
* the limousine slowing down, from 15
to 12 mph, probably starting in the
Z160's and certainly by the Z170's.
Could all be a fairly big coincidence.
Connally may have given mistaken
testimony, which happens to match
what we see in the Zapruder film,
but mistaken never the less. But,
most likely, there was an early missed
shot.
And if there was an early missed shot,
likely at Z154. Of all the reactions
I listed, the only one that could be
a good time marker, is the camera
jiggle at Z159. We don't know how long
Connally would take to realize the
direction of the shot and start turning.
We don't know how long Rosemary would
take before she would decide to start
slowing down. But camera jiggles, when
caused by a loud noise, consistently
occur about a third of a second after
the noise.
Maybe Zapruder just happened to jiggle
his camera at Z158. The shot really
occurred at Z160. But if so, why do
we not have a camera jiggle at Z166,
while we do have camera jiggles at
Z227 and Z318?
****************************************
> My theory for the first shot miss was
> the awkwardness of a shot being fired
> down at a very steep angle.
Yes. Michael Yardley who recreated the
shooting for the Discovery Channel,
firing at a target at the roughly the
same distance, speed and angles that
Oswald faced, thought the first shot
angle was the most awkward.
And certainly, some stances are better
than others. Lying down is best, kneeling
is harder and standing is the hardest
of all. And Oswald's stance was probably
harder than standing and firing on the
level. And Oswald never fired from that
stance before. And with the moving target
Oswald likely was changing his stance
while aiming.
On the other hand, my impression is that
the stance only makes a moderate difference.
Lying down and a good shooter might expect
to miss at one hundred yards by a couple
of inches. Standing does not cause an
expected miss of three feet, but more like
three or four inches. I doubt Oswald's
stance, by itself, would cause a miss
of five or more feet, not unless he was
facing backwards, bending over and firing
between his legs. Taking an uneducated
guess, firing in a half couch, halfway
between kneeling and standing, shouldn't
cause Oswald to miss by more than a
foot or two, at most.
I think, the high angular speed of
the target was the main problem,
5 to 6 degrees per second.
****************************************
By the way, the high angular speed was
caused by three factors, each of which
was roughly equally important.
* Oswald being so far off the line of
travel, 25 degrees horizontally, 27
degrees vertically, resulting in being
35 degrees off, as opposed to being off
by 18 degrees and 13 degrees for the
second and third shot. Of course, the
worst angle would be 90 degrees off,
but 35 degrees off is pretty bad.
* The limousine going it's fastest for
the first shot, around 15 mph, as opposed
to 12 mph and 9 mph for the second and
third shot.
* The limousine being at it's closest,
130 feet, as opposed to 190 and 265 feet
for the second and third shot. In some
ways, a closer shot is easier, but all
else being equal, a closer target will
have a higher angular speed than one
farther away.
35 degrees off the line of travel,
15 mph, 130 feet from target, all
add up to an angular speed of 5 to 6
degrees per second:
sin(35) * (15*5280/3600) / 130 = 5.56
> Of course, we wouldn't need to be having
> this discussion if Zapruder would have
> used a camcorder.
Yes, but then they would have been saying
that Zapruder must have been using a
super advanced, futuristic camera he
got from the CIA :) It would solve some
problems for us, but create others.
WhiskyJoe
bigdog
Well if this evidence had ever been presented to a jury of amateur
analysts, I don't think any one of them would have had a hard time
figuring out that JBC was shot before Z240. That isn't something that
requires a pro to figure otu. Just someone with a functional pair of eyes
and a bit of common sense.
> This is because the zfilm does not show where the first two shots
> occurred. You have to interpret it. It cannot be used to show the time
> of the first two shots without reference to other evidence. There is no
> unequivocal evidence in the zfilm for any of the shots other than the
> head shot. That is why there was an honest debate over where the shots
> occurred among the FBI and the WC as well as the HSCA and just about
> everyone else who has looked at it.
>
Yeah, that's a toughie. When we see JFK suddenly jerk his arms up to the
level of his chin and JBC's right arm simulteously flips his right arm
upward, it is really difficult to tell that a shot occured then. Maybe Jim
Moore was right. Maybe these were both defensive reactions. After reading
your interpretion, suddenly Moore's doesn't seem quite as bizarre.
> > The sworn testimony of Connally would
> > be evidence and it is compatible with what virtually everyone else in
> > the civilized world believes except you.
>
> Yes. His opinion about where he was hit is evidence because he was
> really there. But it is still opinion evidence and it is not conclusive.
> Neither Nellie nor JBC would have maintained otherwise.
>
Only your handpicked witnesses are considered conclusive. I don't suppose
it ever occurred to you that those people were wrong and JBC was right and
witnesses such as SS agent Bennett were right.
> > Connally was hit before Z240.
>
> Your opinion, not evidence. Mind you, it was also the opinion of
> Frazier, Specter etc. Actually Frazier did not state that he had to have
> been hit before z240. He said "if the bullet did not change direction in
> passing through Connally" a shot from the SN after z240 would have
> passed through JBC's left side.
>
Can you name one person outside your inner circle who believes JBC was not
shot through the chest before Z271?
> > Most LNs place the shot in the early Z220s when JFK was hit.
>
> And all I am saying is that such a conclusion is inconsistent with
> several bodies of consistent well corroborated witness evidence.
>
At least the ones you have cherry picked.
> > Many if
> > not most CTs place the shot in the Z230s.
>
> I disagree with them to..
>
Right. You want us to believe you are right and the rest of the world
is wrong.
> > I know of no one outside
> > your inner circle who believes he was hit any later than Z240. To
> > believe that is to disbelieve one's own eyes.
>
> No. It is to disbelieve your opinion. If you were to open your eyes to
> the rest of the evidence you would see that JBC being shot in the chest
> prior to z240 is inconsistent with an enormous amount of evidence.
>
I understand what you mean by other evidence. Witnesses whose testimony is
compatible with your wacky theory are considered credible. Witnesses, like
Connally whose testimony is at odds with your wacky theory are considered
inconclusive. Aren't double standards a wonderful thing?
> > It is so incredibly
> > obvious that JBC has been hit by Z240 that only someone who
> > desperately wants to prove a fairy tale is true would deny it.
>
> Your opinion. Not mine.
>
And the opinion of virtually every LN and every CT. But you want us to
believe Andrew Mason knows something that the rest of us can't figure out.
> > I could
> > claim that JFK was not shot in the head at Z313 but was mere struck be
> > a tomato hurled by a heckler. It would make about as much sense and
> > get just as much a following as you have managed to get for your wacky
> > theory.
>
> Ah, the difference is that the shot in head is unequivocally established
> at z313. You won't see any debate among the FBI, WC, HSCA or anyone else
> about that. That MEANS it is unequivocal - reasonable people cannot
> disagree. That is NOT the case with the first two shots.
>
OK, if that's that standard, the FBI, the WC, and the HSCA all agreed that
JBC was shot through the torso prior to Z240. By your rule, that makes it
unequivocal - reasonable people cannot disagree. But no one has accused
you of being reasonable. It is safe to say, no one will.
>
>
> > I would love to see you present the Z-film in court and then argue to
> > the jury that Connally was not hit until Z271. I get this mental
> > picture of 12 men and woman, the judge, the opposing counsel, the
> > bailiff, and all the spectators trying to choke back the laughter. I
> > don't think they could do it.
>
> I would win with an unbiased jury. Definitely.
>
As long as they were all members of your immediate family.
bigdog
No, I accept that JBC was hit before Z240. As best as I can figure,
Z222-223 came before Z240. JBC came close with his guess. He was only
about a half second off. Not bad. He thought he had reached a forward
facing position when hit, which he did at Z230. Other clues in the Z- film
indicate he was hit just before that.
> > Most LNs place the shot in the early Z220s when JFK was hit. Many if
> > not most CTs place the shot in the Z230s. I know of no one outside
> > your inner circle who believes he was hit any later than Z240. To
> > believe that is to disbelieve one's own eyes. It is so incredibly
> > obvious that JBC has been hit by Z240 that only someone who
> > desperately wants to prove a fairy tale is true would deny it. I could
> > claim that JFK was not shot in the head at Z313 but was mere struck be
> > a tomato hurled by a heckler. It would make about as much sense and
> > get just as much a following as you have managed to get for your wacky
> > theory.
>
> Isn't there some wacko who claims there were no shots at all before
> Z-285. He obviously must think all the photographic evidence is fake.
>
There are even some wackos who don't think JFK was killed.
> > I would love to see you present the Z-film in court and then argue to
> > the jury that Connally was not hit until Z271. I get this mental
>
> Well, I seem to remember that someone did present the Z-film in court
> and what the jurors were laughing at was the WC's SBT.
>
I'm not sure what you are referring to here. If you are talking about
Garrison's presentation, I remember the audience in the theater laughing
at the Costner/Garrison distortion in the movie. I was unaware of the Clay
Shaw jury laughing. I do remember they completed rejected Garrison's case.
Andrew Mason
You are drawing a fairly long bow to conclude that JFK could possibly
react with facial expression by z225 from a shot at z223. How could
facial expression occur so quickly?
Besides, JFK is reacting voluntarily in z226 because he is doing many
different things with different parts of his body as well as his face.
That cannot possibly be a reflex reaction.
>
>>> The sworn testimony of Connally would
>>> be evidence and it is compatible with what virtually everyone else in
>>> the civilized world believes except you.
>> Yes. His opinion about where he was hit is evidence because he was
>> really there. But it is still opinion evidence and it is not conclusive.
>> Neither Nellie nor JBC would have maintained otherwise.
>>
>
> Only your handpicked witnesses are considered conclusive. I don't suppose
> it ever occurred to you that those people were wrong and JBC was right and
> witnesses such as SS agent Bennett were right.
The witnesses are not handpicked at all. I put all the witnesses who
described what JFK did after the first shot; all the witnesses who
placed JFK at the time of the first shot; and all the witnesses who
recalled the spacing of the shots. I don't leave out anyone.
Bennett is not corroborated. Besides, his initial notes are ambiguous do
not state that JFK was hit on the second shot. Unfortunately he was
never called to testify. If you have 16 witnesses who independently
recalled JFK reacted to the first shot and one witness who thought he
saw JFK hit on the second shot, why would you reject the 16?
>
>>> Connally was hit before Z240.
>> Your opinion, not evidence. Mind you, it was also the opinion of
>> Frazier, Specter etc. Actually Frazier did not state that he had to have
>> been hit before z240. He said "if the bullet did not change direction in
>> passing through Connally" a shot from the SN after z240 would have
>> passed through JBC's left side.
>>
>
> Can you name one person outside your inner circle who believes JBC was not
> shot through the chest before Z271?
Caeruleo and John Hill. The problem is that no one takes the time to
read the evidence.
>
>>> Most LNs place the shot in the early Z220s when JFK was hit.
>> And all I am saying is that such a conclusion is inconsistent with
>> several bodies of consistent well corroborated witness evidence.
>>
> At least the ones you have cherry picked.
If your definition of cherry picking is picking 16 witnesses who
independently report seeing the same thing; picking the 48 witnesses who
recalled the 1.....2...3 shot pattern over the 6 who heard it the other
way around, or the 22 witnesses who put the first shot after z191 over -
well over who puts it before z191?
>
>>> Many if
>>> not most CTs place the shot in the Z230s.
>> I disagree with them to..
>>
> Right. You want us to believe you are right and the rest of the world
> is wrong.
Well, not exactly. I don't think the rest of the world really has looked
at it.
>
>>> I know of no one outside
>>> your inner circle who believes he was hit any later than Z240. To
>>> believe that is to disbelieve one's own eyes.
>> No. It is to disbelieve your opinion. If you were to open your eyes to
>> the rest of the evidence you would see that JBC being shot in the chest
>> prior to z240 is inconsistent with an enormous amount of evidence.
>>
>
> I understand what you mean by other evidence. Witnesses whose testimony is
> compatible with your wacky theory are considered credible. Witnesses, like
> Connally whose testimony is at odds with your wacky theory are considered
> inconclusive. Aren't double standards a wonderful thing?
One looks for corroboration. In this case there is plenty of
corroboration for three facts, each of which is inconsistent with a
first shot miss.
>
>>> It is so incredibly
>>> obvious that JBC has been hit by Z240 that only someone who
>>> desperately wants to prove a fairy tale is true would deny it.
>> Your opinion. Not mine.
>>
>
> And the opinion of virtually every LN and every CT. But you want us to
> believe Andrew Mason knows something that the rest of us can't figure out.
You have to look at the evidence. No one else seems to want to do that.
BTW, is that your best argument?
>
>>> I could
>>> claim that JFK was not shot in the head at Z313 but was mere struck be
>>> a tomato hurled by a heckler. It would make about as much sense and
>>> get just as much a following as you have managed to get for your wacky
>>> theory.
>> Ah, the difference is that the shot in head is unequivocally established
>> at z313. You won't see any debate among the FBI, WC, HSCA or anyone else
>> about that. That MEANS it is unequivocal - reasonable people cannot
>> disagree. That is NOT the case with the first two shots.
>>
>
> OK, if that's that standard, the FBI, the WC, and the HSCA all agreed that
> JBC was shot through the torso prior to Z240. By your rule, that makes it
> unequivocal - reasonable people cannot disagree. But no one has accused
> you of being reasonable. It is safe to say, no one will.
That does not make it unequivocal. It is unequivocal if it is clear from
the zfilm alone. It isn't. Not even the FBI,WC or HSCA thought so.
Otherwise, they would not have debated when the shots occurred.
Andrew Mason
bigdog
> > From bigdog
> > Very interesting analysis, WhiskyJoe,
> > as I expected. I think we would agree
> > that without a definitive event as we
> > had for the next two shots, the best
> > we can do seems to be an educated
> > guess for that first shot.
>
> Thank you.
>
> I feel there is only a 80% chance
> that there was a first shot miss in the
> Z140-Z180 range. A lot of things occur
> that indicate this:
>
only way the SBT and the LN theory works well. Given our agreement
that the first hit was Z222-223, that means the missed shot either
came right at or about Z180 or between Z222 and Z313. Either way, that
puts Oswald close to the mimimum time to operate the bolt action and
fire, not leaving much time for target reacquisition. Or maybe you are
saying there were only two shots. That two conflicts with a lot of the
evidence, both physical and eyewitness.
I believe Oswald did his best USMC shooting from a kneeling position
although I can't find the documentation for that. With a braced rifle,
it seems to me kneeling would be as good or better than the prone
position.
Anthony Marsh
Some people point to Connally's facial expressions as indicating that he
was just hit a couple of frames earlier. Do you have any experimental
film demonstrating exactly how long it takes to react to a shot?
> Besides, JFK is reacting voluntarily in z226 because he is doing many
> different things with different parts of his body as well as his face.
> That cannot possibly be a reflex reaction.
>
Not voluntary at all. The reaction was a reflex caused by the bullet
passing so close to the C8 nerve.
>>
>>>> The sworn testimony of Connally would
>>>> be evidence and it is compatible with what virtually everyone else in
>>>> the civilized world believes except you.
>>> Yes. His opinion about where he was hit is evidence because he was
>>> really there. But it is still opinion evidence and it is not conclusive.
>>> Neither Nellie nor JBC would have maintained otherwise.
>>>
>>
>> Only your handpicked witnesses are considered conclusive. I don't
>> suppose it ever occurred to you that those people were wrong and JBC
>> was right and witnesses such as SS agent Bennett were right.
>
> The witnesses are not handpicked at all. I put all the witnesses who
> described what JFK did after the first shot; all the witnesses who
> placed JFK at the time of the first shot; and all the witnesses who
> recalled the spacing of the shots. I don't leave out anyone.
>
You don't leave out anyone? So you claim 21 was everyone?
> Bennett is not corroborated. Besides, his initial notes are ambiguous do
> not state that JFK was hit on the second shot. Unfortunately he was
> never called to testify. If you have 16 witnesses who independently
> recalled JFK reacted to the first shot and one witness who thought he
> saw JFK hit on the second shot, why would you reject the 16?
>
If you have only 16 out of 900 why would you call that 16 everyone?
bigdog
in this case. Only you seem to care enough to have reviewed the
evidence.
>
>
> >>> I know of no one outside
> >>> your inner circle who believes he was hit any later than Z240. To
> >>> believe that is to disbelieve one's own eyes.
> >> No. It is to disbelieve your opinion. If you were to open your eyes to
> >> the rest of the evidence you would see that JBC being shot in the chest
> >> prior to z240 is inconsistent with an enormous amount of evidence.
>
> > I understand what you mean by other evidence. Witnesses whose testimony is
> > compatible with your wacky theory are considered credible. Witnesses, like
> > Connally whose testimony is at odds with your wacky theory are considered
> > inconclusive. Aren't double standards a wonderful thing?
>
> One looks for corroboration. In this case there is plenty of
> corroboration for three facts, each of which is inconsistent with a
> first shot miss.
>
>
>
> >>> It is so incredibly
> >>> obvious that JBC has been hit by Z240 that only someone who
> >>> desperately wants to prove a fairy tale is true would deny it.
> >> Your opinion. Not mine.
>
> > And the opinion of virtually every LN and every CT. But you want us to
> > believe Andrew Mason knows something that the rest of us can't figure out.
>
> You have to look at the evidence. No one else seems to want to do that.
> BTW, is that your best argument?
>
assassination to get people to re-examine the evidence. I'm sure if
that would happen, everyone would come around to your way of
thinking.
>
> >> Ah, the difference is that the shot in head is unequivocally established
> >> at z313. You won't see any debate among the FBI, WC, HSCA or anyone else
> >> about that. That MEANS it is unequivocal - reasonable people cannot
> >> disagree. That is NOT the case with the first two shots.
>
> > OK, if that's that standard, the FBI, the WC, and the HSCA all agreed that
> > JBC was shot through the torso prior to Z240. By your rule, that makes it
> > unequivocal - reasonable people cannot disagree. But no one has accused
> > you of being reasonable. It is safe to say, no one will.
>
> That does not make it unequivocal. It is unequivocal if it is clear from
> the zfilm alone. It isn't. Not even the FBI,WC- Hide quoted text -
>
It is clear from the Z-film ALONE that Connally was hit before Z240.
The fact that you want to turn a blind eye to that very simple and
obvious fact does not negate it. There might have been some debate and
disagreement about who got hit when, but I challenge you to find one
person from the FBI, the WC, or the HSCA, who even proposed that JBC
had not been hit before Z240.
Andrew Mason
Well, the entire WC staff and the FBI thought that JBC was hit after
z240 until about May 1964. Also three members of the WC did not accept
the SBT.
I don't turn a blind eye to the zfilm. I just disagree with your
interpretation. Some people interpret every jiggle as a shot. I think
you would agree that one can't do that. You have to look at the rest of
the evidence.
You interpret the change in JBC's jacket as a bullet. I don't. You
interpret JFK's hands in z223 as a natural position for his hands just
before being shot. I don't. You interpret his facial reaction in z225 as
a reflex reaction. I doubt that it is possible so I am not persuaded by
your opinion. You interpret JBC's reaction in z228ff as a reaction to
being shot in the back/torso. I interpret it as a reaction to hearing
the first shot because that is what he said he did after hearing the
first shot. You interpret the reaction of JFK/Jackie at z170 or so to a
reaction to hearing the first shot. I don't because Mary Woodward said
it was a reaction to her shouting at the President BEFORE the first shot.
What you seem to think you can do is disregard large bodies of
independent witness recollections that essentially agree. You cannot do
that without being able to explain how that can possibly occur. You
cannot explain it by saying that witnesses are unreliable. That does not
explain why the vast majority of witness had the same observation about
JFK's reaction to the first shot; the same recollection as to the shot
pattern; and the same recollection as to where the President was when
the first shot occurred. Until you can explain how that convergence can
occur without there being any reason at all, your opinion of the zfilm
is not very persuasive.
Andrew Mason
>
WhiskyJoe
>> I feel there is only a 80% chance
>> that there was a first shot miss in the
>> Z140-Z180 range. A lot of things occur
>> that indicate this:
bigdog replies:
> Really? I would put it much higher.
> Closer to 99%. ... Or maybe you are
> saying there were only two shots.
> That two conflicts with a lot of the
> evidence, both physical and eyewitness.
I just put the probability at 80% because
I think people tend to overestimate the
probability of their beliefs being true.
I'm certain Andrew Mason's estimate of his
scenario being true is way too high.
Even your scenario, which is the standard
LN scenario (Z152-160, Z221-224, Z312-313)
which is also what I believe, which is
what most LNers believe and which most
LNers would put at 99% certain, the
probability is overrated by most who
believe in it, which is only natural.
I don't think the missed shot occurred
between Z222 and Z312. Nor do I think
it occurred after Z180, or likely after
Z166. It's not likely the Oswald rushed
his shots that much nor fired through
the leaves.
But a two shots scenario is possible, I think.
One of the shells found on the floor
could have been from his last practice
shot months earlier. The majority of
witnesses report three shots, that is
true. But a lot of them say the shots
were "bang ... bang bang." Some of them
report the last two shots being right
on top of each other.
If three shots from Oswald occurred, then
it must have been common for these witnesses
to have missed hearing the first
shot and hearing the third shot as
two shots. This is quite possible.
That unusual stance of Oswald for the
first shot, likely kept the muzzle
inside the room, which would muffle
the sound of that shot, at least for
witnesses who do not have a direct
line of sight to the rifle. With the
noise of all the cars and motorcycles,
cheering and clapping, it's possible
many people may have missed hearing
the first shot. The non reaction of
the Secret Service agents, standing
in the follow up car, but their turning
backwards after the Z222 shot, may be
caused by them not having a line of
sight to the rifle, hence the sound
being greatly muffled, for the Z152
shot.
If one is near the path of the bullet,
and that bullet travels far enough,
like 265 feet, one will hear a
"crack thump". First the sound of the
super sonic bullet, followed, up to
0.13 seconds later, the sound of the
muzzle blast. "Bang bang." Hence, some
may report the last shot was two shots.
If three shots were fired, I think that
is what accounts for the common
"bang ... bang bang" pattern. They missed
hearing the first shot and reported the
third shot as two shots.
But, it's also possible only two shots
occurred. And the last shot was reported
as two shots, giving an apparent total
of three.
Still, I agree, three shots is more likely,
the first at Z160 or before, and the camera
jiggle implies Z152. Connally and the others
may take a half second to respond. After all,
many could not tell the direction of the
bullet at all. We have a lot that implies
a missed shot around Z150-160:
* Z158 camera jiggle
* Connally's, JFK and Jackie's turn back to
the right, supported strongly by Connally's
testimony
* Rose Mary Willis's slowing and stopping
and her belated statements years later
* Limousine slowing after Z152, from
15 to 12 mph, just as it slowed from
12 to 9 mph after Z222 and from 9 mph
to about 6 mph after Z312
Still, we must all guard against an
overestimation of probability. Robert
Harris is totally convinced of a shot
at Z285 based on a bunch of people
doing things that seem to me unrelated
to a shot at Z285. Only the camera
jiggle at Z291 is a possible shot
indicator and that camera jiggle is
rather small, weaker than about 7 to 10
other camera jiggles between Z133-317.
> Believe Oswald did his best USMC shooting
> from a kneeling position although I can't
> find the documentation for that. With a
> braced rifle, it seems to me kneeling
> would be as good or better than the
> prone position.
That may be true. I just recall the
standing position was the hardest of the
three positions. But not a lot less
accurate than kneeling. At one hundred
yards, standing tends to hurt the
accuracy be a few extra inches, but not
by five feet or more. And even Oswald's
awkward stance for Z152 should not,
by itself, cause a miss by five feet,
I would guess.
bigdog
>
> > It is clear from the Z-film ALONE that Connally was hit before Z240.
> > The fact that you want to turn a blind eye to that very simple and
> > obvious fact does not negate it. There might have been some debate and
> > disagreement about who got hit when, but I challenge you to find one
> > person from the FBI, the WC, or the HSCA, who even proposed that JBC
> > had not been hit before Z240.
>
> Well, the entire WC staff and the FBI thought that JBC was hit after
> z240 until about May 1964. Also three members of the WC did not accept
> the SBT.
>
> I don't turn a blind eye to the zfilm. I just disagree with your
> interpretation.
Of course you do. I am right and you are wrong.
> Some people interpret every jiggle as a shot.
I certainly don't. If I did, I would have at least six shots and
multiple gunman.
> I think
> you would agree that one can't do that. You have to look at the rest of
> the evidence.
>
> You interpret the change in JBC's jacket as a bullet.
And I will continue to do so until somebody comes up with a plausbile
alternative.
> I don't. You
> interpret JFK's hands in z223 as a natural position for his hands just
> before being shot.
JFK's hands were not visible in Z223. In Z224 we get a glimpse of his
right hand. It's position is basically the same in Z225. If anything, it
has lowered. In Z226, hands suddenly jerk upward in front of his face. You
want us to believe that he shows no reaction for two seconds after being
shot, then makes a sudden and dramatic movement. He must have been drugged
to have reacted so slowly.
> I don't. You interpret his facial reaction in z225 as
> a reflex reaction.
I don't recall ever making any interpretation of his facial
expression.
> I doubt that it is possible so I am not persuaded by
> your opinion. You interpret JBC's reaction in z228ff as a reaction to
> being shot in the back/torso. I interpret it as a reaction to hearing
> the first shot because that is what he said he did after hearing the
> first shot.
HUH??? JBC said that when he heard the first shot, his reaction was to
look over his right shoulder. I don't recall him saying he flipped his
right arm upward. I don't recall him saying he dropped his right
shoulder dipped to his right.
> You interpret the reaction of JFK/Jackie at z170 or so to a
> reaction to hearing the first shot.
That's another observation I don't recall making. JFK doesn't show much
reaction at all to the first shot because like a lot of the witnesses, I
don't think he recognized it as a gunshot. Many of the spectators did not
show any reaction even after the second shot which hit JFK. We can see
several of them continue to cheer as the wounded President passed in front
of them. Jackie simply rotates her head to the right. It is impossible to
say what, if anything she was reacting too. I believe she didn't recognize
the sound as a gunshot, either.
> I don't because Mary Woodward said
> it was a reaction to her shouting at the President BEFORE the first shot.
>
> What you seem to think you can do is disregard large bodies of
> independent witness recollections that essentially agree.
It isn't a question of what I can do but what I must do. I have large
bodies of witnesses giving conflicting accounts. I can't accept both
versions as factual. That is not possible. I must reject one or the other.
The Z-film makes that choice easy.
> You cannot do
> that without being able to explain how that can possibly occur. You
> cannot explain it by saying that witnesses are unreliable.
Of course I can. I know that witnesses are unreliable or else most or all
of them would have told us the same thing. That obviously did not happen.
I don't need to explain why some people got it wrong. I just need to
demonstrate that they did. Whatever else we believe about what happened in
Dealy Plaza, there is one thing we can safely say. A lot of witnesses got
it wrong.
> That does not
> explain why the vast majority of witness had the same observation about
> JFK's reaction to the first shot; the same recollection as to the shot
> pattern; and the same recollection as to where the President was when
> the first shot occurred. Until you can explain how that convergence can
> occur without there being any reason at all, your opinion of the zfilm
> is not very persuasive.
>
There are plenty of witnesses who give an account that is at odds with
your theory and other posters have pointed those folks out. You choose to
reject those witnesses because what they say is incompatible with your
fable. I choose to reject your witnesses because what they say is
incompatible with the Z-film.
Anthony Marsh
It is theoretically possible that they thought that, but I'd like to see
you point me to a citation or a quote which specified frame Z-240.
It was in late April that they rejected the Humes SBT and went with the
Specter SBT. Before that they did not specify the exact frames of each hit.
> I don't turn a blind eye to the zfilm. I just disagree with your
> interpretation. Some people interpret every jiggle as a shot. I think
> you would agree that one can't do that. You have to look at the rest of
> the evidence.
>
What criteria are used to decide which jiggles indicate a shot?
bigdog
Of all the possibilities that do not include an early miss, a two shot
only scenario poses the least problems for the LN theory. After all, the
physical evidence for a 3 shot-1 miss scenario is the same as a 2 shot-0
miss scenario with the exception of the third spent shell which you offer
a reasonable, although unlikely explaination. Although there was clear
earwitness consensus that there were three shots, I could be persuaded
that the consensus was wrong if there were not other corroboration of the
3 shot scenario. The most compelling to me is the observable reaction of
JBC coupled with his statement. We can see him doing exactly what he said
he did. Virtually every part of JBC's account can be verified in the
Z-film with the minor exception that he though he had got back to a
forward facing position when he was hit and the Z-film shows he had not
quite reached that position. I have also seen him demonstrate that he
doubled over forward and saw he was covered with blood. In actuality, he
bent over to his right. We also have the testimony of Williams, Jarman,
and a third person whose name escapes me right now and I'm too lazy to
look it up. They heard the shots and then heard the shells hitting the
floor.
In short, it seems to me that the body of evidence points to a 3 shot, 1
miss scenario. I just can't give the 2 shot scenario a 20% probability. We
don't really have a formula for determining the probability. It is more a
gut feeling and mine tells me the likelihood of 3 shots, 1 miss is much
closer to 99 than 80%.
Andrew Mason
....
>>
>> Well, the entire WC staff and the FBI thought that JBC was hit after
>> z240 until about May 1964. Also three members of the WC did not accept
>> the SBT.
>>
>
> It is theoretically possible that they thought that, but I'd like to see
> you point me to a citation or a quote which specified frame Z-240.
> It was in late April that they rejected the Humes SBT and went with the
> Specter SBT. Before that they did not specify the exact frames of each hit.
It is apparent from Inspector Gauthier's April 15, 1964 memo that they
were still operating on the basis that there were three shots, three hits:
"Heretofore it was the opinion of the Commission that Shot 1 had only
hit the President, that Shot 2 had entered the Governor's right shoulder
area penetrating his torso through the chest area emerging and again
entering the wrist and on into his leg."
That comment is prefaced by the statement of the new view:
"The most revealing information brought out by the doctors is as follows:
1. That Shot 1 struck the President high in the right shoulder area,
penetrating the torso near the base of the neck damaging the flesh of
the throat but not tearing the throat wall. This bullet, according to
the Doctors, continued and entered Governor Connally's right shoulder,
emerging below the right nippe. The velocity of the missile, according
to the doctors apprarently was snagged in the coat and shirt, eventually
falling out on Connally's stretcher.
2. That Shot 2 struck the wrist of the Governor, continuing on into his
thigh.
3. That Shot 3 struck the right side of the President's head, carrying
much bone and brain tissue away, leaving a large cavity. There is
nothing controversial about where shot 3 occurred inasmuch as the
Zapruder movie indicates with much clarity where this happened."
Lee Rankin's letter to J. Edgar Hoover, May 7, 1964:
"Our examination of the Zapruder films indicates that Governor Connally
was hit at some point prior to frame 240. (All references to frames in
the Zapruder films are on the basis of a numbering system worked out
with the FBI personnel who have been working on this project). Doctors
familiar with the Governor's wounds concluded that after frame 236 his
body was not in a position to have received the window of the Texas
School Book Depository Building. The Governor feels he was hit at
approximately frame 230; some members of our staff feel that it could
have been as late as frame 240. Governor and Mrs. Connally also
testified that the Governor was hit by the second shot.
(1) A point should be marked on the road corresponding to
frame 199 on the Zapruder film, which is the last point at which the
assassin could have fired from the window and still have been able to
fire again by frame 240."
It was only after the reconstruction occurred that the Commission
realized that at z199 the view of the car was blocked by the tree that
the SBT was proposed. Up to this point, everyone was working on the
"three shots, three hits" scenario because that is what the other
evidence showed.
>
>> I don't turn a blind eye to the zfilm. I just disagree with your
>> interpretation. Some people interpret every jiggle as a shot. I think
>> you would agree that one can't do that. You have to look at the rest of
>> the evidence.
>>
>
> What criteria are used to decide which jiggles indicate a shot?
Good question. It is junk science. Not because it is not a plausible
theory but because it has not been demonstrated to accurately and
repeatedly determine shots from camera jiggle.
Andrew Mason
Andrew Mason
> On Jul 5, 12:36 pm, Andrew Mason <a.ma...@spmlaw.ca> wrote:
>>> It is clear from the Z-film ALONE that Connally was hit before Z240.
>>> The fact that you want to turn a blind eye to that very simple and
>>> obvious fact does not negate it. There might have been some debate and
>>> disagreement about who got hit when, but I challenge you to find one
>>> person from the FBI, the WC, or the HSCA, who even proposed that JBC
>>> had not been hit before Z240.
>> Well, the entire WC staff and the FBI thought that JBC was hit after
>> z240 until about May 1964. Also three members of the WC did not accept
>> the SBT.
>>
>> I don't turn a blind eye to the zfilm. I just disagree with your
>> interpretation.
>
> Of course you do. I am right and you are wrong.
Not very persuasive. This is about a grade 3 level schoolyard debate:
"did not", "did too" etc. I am not really interested in that kind of debate.
>
>> Some people interpret every jiggle as a shot.
>
> I certainly don't. If I did, I would have at least six shots and
> multiple gunman.
Then I am not sure why jiggle analysis is mentioned at all. In my view,
until someone shows that it works - that it can reliably ascertain shot
times by actually doing it - it is junk science. I say that with respect
to Luis Alvarez.
>
>> I think
>> you would agree that one can't do that. You have to look at the rest of
>> the evidence.
>>
>> You interpret the change in JBC's jacket as a bullet.
>
> And I will continue to do so until somebody comes up with a plausbile
> alternative.
Well, for starters, try a shot that fits the shot pattern recalled by an
overwhelming proportion of witnesses.
>
>> I don't. You
>> interpret JFK's hands in z223 as a natural position for his hands just
>> before being shot.
>
> JFK's hands were not visible in Z223. In Z224 we get a glimpse of his
> right hand. It's position is basically the same in Z225. If anything, it
> has lowered. In Z226, hands suddenly jerk upward in front of his face. You
> want us to believe that he shows no reaction for two seconds after being
> shot, then makes a sudden and dramatic movement. He must have been drugged
> to have reacted so slowly.
So are you saying that his hands in z223 were materially different than
they were in 224 and 225? If not, then how do you explain the dramatic
change in position of his hands from z200 to z223 - a little more than a
second?
>
>> I don't. You interpret his facial reaction in z225 as
>> a reflex reaction.
>
> I don't recall ever making any interpretation of his facial
> expression.
You don't think his facial expression in z225 is rather peculiar and a
dramatic change from that in z193-198?
>
>> I doubt that it is possible so I am not persuaded by
>> your opinion. You interpret JBC's reaction in z228ff as a reaction to
>> being shot in the back/torso. I interpret it as a reaction to hearing
>> the first shot because that is what he said he did after hearing the
>> first shot.
>
> HUH??? JBC said that when he heard the first shot, his reaction was to
> look over his right shoulder. I don't recall him saying he flipped his
> right arm upward. I don't recall him saying he dropped his right
> shoulder dipped to his right.
Why would he even be conscious of flipping his right arm upward? Are you
saying his right arm/shoulder did not have to change position in order
to turn around to see JFK?
>
>> You interpret the reaction of JFK/Jackie at z170 or so to a
>> reaction to hearing the first shot.
>
> That's another observation I don't recall making. JFK doesn't show much
> reaction at all to the first shot because like a lot of the witnesses, I
> don't think he recognized it as a gunshot. Many of the spectators did not
> show any reaction even after the second shot which hit JFK. We can see
> several of them continue to cheer as the wounded President passed in front
> of them. Jackie simply rotates her head to the right. It is impossible to
> say what, if anything she was reacting too. I believe she didn't recognize
> the sound as a gunshot, either.
But the point is that Mary Woodward and 20 others said that this was not
his reaction to the first shot. It was what he did immediately BEFORE
the first shot.
>
>> I don't because Mary Woodward said
>> it was a reaction to her shouting at the President BEFORE the first shot.
>>
>> What you seem to think you can do is disregard large bodies of
>> independent witness recollections that essentially agree.
>
> It isn't a question of what I can do but what I must do. I have large
> bodies of witnesses giving conflicting accounts. I can't accept both
> versions as factual. That is not possible. I must reject one or the other.
> The Z-film makes that choice easy.
There is no conflict at all between the 21 witnesses who said JFK
reacted to the first shot, the 48 who recalled the 1....2..3 shot
pattern and the 22 who put the first shot after z186. None. In fact, you
cannot have the 1....2..3 shot pattern with out the first shot hit and
first shot after z186 witnesses. Differences in the details noticed or
not noticed between witnesses always happens. Juries make important
decisions all the time on the evidence of much fewer witnesses.
>
>> You cannot do
>> that without being able to explain how that can possibly occur. You
>> cannot explain it by saying that witnesses are unreliable.
>
> Of course I can. I know that witnesses are unreliable or else most or all
> of them would have told us the same thing.
That is absurd. Witnesses ALMOST NEVER agree completely on all the minor
details. In the 300 or so trials I have done, I cannot ever recall
witnesses agreeing completely. If that ever happens, it is evidence of
collusion. When you are presenting witnesses, the last thing you want is
for the witnesses to agree on every detail.
> That obviously did not happen.
> I don't need to explain why some people got it wrong. I just need to
> demonstrate that they did. Whatever else we believe about what happened in
> Dealy Plaza, there is one thing we can safely say. A lot of witnesses got
> it wrong.
You are missing the key point: how is it that witnesses can agree on an
essential observed fact: that JFK reacted to the first shot randomly? If
it is not random, the only thing that could cause this is that this is
what they observed. The only other possibility is that their
observations were not independent. That level of convergence cannot
possibly happen randomly. Never in a million centuries.
>
>> That does not
>> explain why the vast majority of witness had the same observation about
>> JFK's reaction to the first shot; the same recollection as to the shot
>> pattern; and the same recollection as to where the President was when
>> the first shot occurred. Until you can explain how that convergence can
>> occur without there being any reason at all, your opinion of the zfilm
>> is not very persuasive.
>>
>
> There are plenty of witnesses who give an account that is at odds with
> your theory and other posters have pointed those folks out. You choose to
> reject those witnesses because what they say is incompatible with your
> fable. I choose to reject your witnesses because what they say is
> incompatible with the Z-film.
I notice you don't provide names. No one gave evidence that is
inconsistent with the first shot being after z186. None.
Andrew Mason
>
>
WhiskyJoe
> Although there was clear ear witness
> consensus that there were three shots,
> I could be persuaded that the consensus
> was wrong if there were not other
> corroboration of the 3 shot scenario.
> The most compelling to me is the
> observable reaction of JBC coupled with
> his statement. We can see him doing
> exactly what he said he did. Virtually
> every part of JBC's account can be
> verified in the Z-film with the minor
> exception that he though he had got
> back to a forward facing position when
> he was hit and the Z-film shows he had
> not quite reached that position.
True. Connally's testimony combined with
the support of the Zapruder film showing
him doing what he describes, does make it
quite likely that there was an early
shot miss. He's an eyewitness and
eyewitnesses can be mistaken, but his
account of what he was doing does match
very well with the Zapruder film.
In none of the other witness accounts do
we have such good collaboration where
they describe what they heard or observed
and what they did and have this
collaborated with the Zapruder film.
Many witnesses, like Jean Hill's evolving
story was flatly contradicted by film and
pictures, like her immediately rushing
through the motorcade in pursuit of a
possible Grassy Knoll gunman, a powerful
sign of what years of people asking
leading questions can do to someone's
memory.
The nearest equivalent is photographers
who report the first shot came just when
they took there picture, but since we have
statements to that effect for the Z180's
or Z190's, but also for Altgens Z255
photograph, such statements don't time
stamp events very well. Everyone thinks
their picture was historically vital,
taken within a fraction of a second
of the first shot.
In conclusion, my saying that there was
only an 80% chance of an early shot miss
around Z160 was not based on any calculations,
but was really based on my trying to avoid a
very common error where people overestimate
the probability of a scenario they believe
is true. Most everyone always say that there
is a 99% chance that they are right. Andrew
Mason believes there is a 99% chance that
Connally was wounded around Z271.
Robert Harris believes there is a 99% chance
for a missed shot around Z285.
But, perhaps, the first shot miss may be a
good scenario to have almost maximum
confidence in. But not as good as the
Z220-224 SBT scenario. Not only is the
Z220-224 scenario reasonably well supported
by Connally's account (within a half second),
but unlike the Z150-160 miss shot scenario,
we can see signs of the bullet itself, the
strange movement of Connally's torso, the
coat bulge, the hat flip, etc.
Andrew Mason
Not quite. The 2 shot 0 miss scenario actually has much more evidentiary
support. 17 witnesses heard only two and 7 others said they heard two or
three. How many people actually said the first shot missed (you can't
count Mary Woodward because she said the last two shots were closer
together which precludes a first shot miss)?
Of 178 witnesses whose evidence was compiled by the HSCA, 132 reported
hearing exactly three shots, 17 recalled hearing two, 7 said they heard
two or three shots (total: 88 percent). A total of 6 people said they
thought they heard four shots and 9 said they were not sure how many
shots they heard. Another 7 people said they thought they heard 1, 5, 6,
or 8 shots.
D. M. Green, “Analysis of Earwitness Reports Relating to the
Assassination of President John F. Kennedy”, Report No. 4034, 8 HSCA 128
at page 142.
Although there was clear
> earwitness consensus that there were three shots, I could be persuaded
> that the consensus was wrong if there were not other corroboration of the
> 3 shot scenario.
If one of the shells had been thrown in the garbage and never found you
would believe that there were only two shots?
You have it backwards. The shells corroborate the witness evidence not
the other way around. In itself that evidence is statistically
corroborrated by the number of independent witnesses who recalled
exactly three shots (and many recalled the general pattern). Statistical
corroboration is the same way that a DNA "match" works.
> The most compelling to me is the observable reaction of
> JBC coupled with his statement. We can see him doing exactly what he said
> he did. Virtually every part of JBC's account can be verified in the
> Z-film with the minor exception that he though he had got back to a
> forward facing position when he was hit and the Z-film shows he had not
> quite reached that position.
And that prior to z240 he was never in a position to even be trying to
see JFK.
> I have also seen him demonstrate that he
> doubled over forward and saw he was covered with blood. In actuality, he
> bent over to his right.
And he forgot to mention he took about four seconds to look at the chest
wound that he immediately knew he had received.
> We also have the testimony of Williams, Jarman,
> and a third person whose name escapes me right now and I'm too lazy to
> look it up. They heard the shots and then heard the shells hitting the
> floor.
Norman.
>
> In short, it seems to me that the body of evidence points to a 3 shot, 1
> miss scenario. I just can't give the 2 shot scenario a 20% probability. We
> don't really have a formula for determining the probability. It is more a
> gut feeling and mine tells me the likelihood of 3 shots, 1 miss is much
> closer to 99 than 80%.
>
Not very scientific. This is like arguing about the number of angels
that fit on a pinhead.
Andrew Mason
Anthony Marsh
> Anthony Marsh wrote:
> ....
>>>
>>> Well, the entire WC staff and the FBI thought that JBC was hit after
>>> z240 until about May 1964. Also three members of the WC did not accept
>>> the SBT.
>>>
>>
>> It is theoretically possible that they thought that, but I'd like to
>> see you point me to a citation or a quote which specified frame Z-240.
>> It was in late April that they rejected the Humes SBT and went with
>> the Specter SBT. Before that they did not specify the exact frames of
>> each hit.
>
> It is apparent from Inspector Gauthier's April 15, 1964 memo that they
> were still operating on the basis that there were three shots, three hits:
>
I like the way you quote the very memo that I was the first to find and
post here, as if you are answering my questions or rebutting anything I
said. Nice trick.
> "Heretofore it was the opinion of the Commission that Shot 1 had only
> hit the President, that Shot 2 had entered the Governor's right shoulder
> area penetrating his torso through the chest area emerging and again
> entering the wrist and on into his leg."
>
That was based on the FBI conclusion.
> That comment is prefaced by the statement of the new view:
>
The is the HUMES SBT, something I have brought up hundreds of times. As I
said before about a million times the WC SBT does not work. Another SBT
might possibly work.
> "The most revealing information brought out by the doctors is as follows:
>
> 1. That Shot 1 struck the President high in the right shoulder area,
> penetrating the torso near the base of the neck damaging the flesh of
> the throat but not tearing the throat wall. This bullet, according to
> the Doctors, continued and entered Governor Connally's right shoulder,
> emerging below the right nippe. The velocity of the missile, according
> to the doctors apprarently was snagged in the coat and shirt, eventually
> falling out on Connally's stretcher.
>
And they thought that would be CE 399.
The notion that the bullet would just die and flop out will be dismissed
by all WC defenders, but various forensic pathologists have suggested it
and presented examples from their own cases where that happens.
> 2. That Shot 2 struck the wrist of the Governor, continuing on into his
> thigh.
>
Implicit in that scenario is the idea that the WHOLE bullet went through
Connally's wrist. At that point they are not talking about it breaking up.
So where is that bullet or the fragments? There was no defense attorney to
cross examine Humes.
> 3. That Shot 3 struck the right side of the President's head, carrying
> much bone and brain tissue away, leaving a large cavity. There is
> nothing controversial about where shot 3 occurred inasmuch as the
> Zapruder movie indicates with much clarity where this happened."
>
> Lee Rankin's letter to J. Edgar Hoover, May 7, 1964:
> "Our examination of the Zapruder films indicates that Governor Connally
> was hit at some point prior to frame 240. (All references to frames in
Again, that does not answer my question. It doesn't say that the official
view used to be that Connally was hit AFTER Z-240. It doesn't even say
WHEN exactly they decided he could not be hit after Z-240, based on
testimony of his doctors. It doesn't say for how long they rejected the
idea of Connally being hit after Z-240 and they already had Connally's
opinion that he was hit at about Z-230. And this memo was after Specter
had already proposed his SBT.
> the Zapruder films are on the basis of a numbering system worked out
> with the FBI personnel who have been working on this project). Doctors
> familiar with the Governor's wounds concluded that after frame 236 his
> body was not in a position to have received the window of the Texas
> School Book Depository Building. The Governor feels he was hit at
> approximately frame 230; some members of our staff feel that it could
> have been as late as frame 240. Governor and Mrs. Connally also
> testified that the Governor was hit by the second shot.
>
> (1) A point should be marked on the road corresponding to
> frame 199 on the Zapruder film, which is the last point at which the
> assassin could have fired from the window and still have been able to
> fire again by frame 240."
>
> It was only after the reconstruction occurred that the Commission
> realized that at z199 the view of the car was blocked by the tree that
> the SBT was proposed. Up to this point, everyone was working on the
> "three shots, three hits" scenario because that is what the other
> evidence showed.
>
Yes, the timing problem. Not enough time between 210 and 240 for one
person to fire twice, hence conspiracy. That is exactly why Specter had to
invent his SBT. The Humes SBT would not solve the problem in his mind,
although a later hit of the wrist would allow one bullet to hit both
Kennedy and Connally and plenty of time for another bullet to hit
Connally's wrist. But when?
>>
>>> I don't turn a blind eye to the zfilm. I just disagree with your
>>> interpretation. Some people interpret every jiggle as a shot. I think
>>> you would agree that one can't do that. You have to look at the rest of
>>> the evidence.
>>>
>>
>> What criteria are used to decide which jiggles indicate a shot?
>
> Good question. It is junk science. Not because it is not a plausible
> theory but because it has not been demonstrated to accurately and
> repeatedly determine shots from camera jiggle.
>
That's a good tactic. If you can't refute something just call it junk
science, as they did with the acoustical analysis. Name anything you
want to rely on and I'll just call it junk science.
Anthony Marsh
> On Jul 5, 12:36 pm, Andrew Mason<a.ma...@spmlaw.ca> wrote:
>>
>>> It is clear from the Z-film ALONE that Connally was hit before Z240.
>>> The fact that you want to turn a blind eye to that very simple and
>>> obvious fact does not negate it. There might have been some debate and
>>> disagreement about who got hit when, but I challenge you to find one
>>> person from the FBI, the WC, or the HSCA, who even proposed that JBC
>>> had not been hit before Z240.
>>
>> Well, the entire WC staff and the FBI thought that JBC was hit after
>> z240 until about May 1964. Also three members of the WC did not accept
>> the SBT.
>>
>> I don't turn a blind eye to the zfilm. I just disagree with your
>> interpretation.
>
> Of course you do. I am right and you are wrong.
>
>> Some people interpret every jiggle as a shot.
>
> I certainly don't. If I did, I would have at least six shots and
> multiple gunman.
>
Now, wait a cotton pickin minute here. The challenge was not to pick and
choose. It was to claim that ALL the jiggles indicate a shot. That would
be well over 40 shots. Not just 6.
Andrew Mason
>> Although there was clear ear witness
>> consensus that there were three shots,
>> I could be persuaded that the consensus
>> was wrong if there were not other
>> corroboration of the 3 shot scenario.
>> The most compelling to me is the
>> observable reaction of JBC coupled with
>> his statement. We can see him doing
>> exactly what he said he did. Virtually
>> every part of JBC's account can be
>> verified in the Z-film with the minor
>> exception that he though he had got
>> back to a forward facing position when
>> he was hit and the Z-film shows he had
>> not quite reached that position.
>
> True. Connally's testimony combined with
> the support of the Zapruder film showing
> him doing what he describes, does make it
> quite likely that there was an early
> shot miss. He's an eyewitness and
> eyewitnesses can be mistaken, but his
> account of what he was doing does match
> very well with the Zapruder film.
Where do you see him turning around to see JFK?
>
> In none of the other witness accounts do
> we have such good collaboration where
> they describe what they heard or observed
> and what they did and have this
> collaborated with the Zapruder film.
You have to be kidding.
There are dozens of witnesses whose accounts fit with the Zfilm but not
with the first shot miss. One example: Mary Woodward.
> Many witnesses, like Jean Hill's evolving
> story was flatly contradicted by film and
> pictures, like her immediately rushing
> through the motorcade in pursuit of a
> possible Grassy Knoll gunman, a powerful
> sign of what years of people asking
> leading questions can do to someone's
> memory.
>
> The nearest equivalent is photographers
> who report the first shot came just when
> they took there picture, but since we have
> statements to that effect for the Z180's
> or Z190's, but also for Altgens Z255
> photograph, such statements don't time
> stamp events very well.
Where is the conflict. Betzner Croft and Towner gave a "before" bracket
and Altgens gave an after bracket as did Zapruder (we can see him reacting
in z225 so it is after). There is no conflict whatsoever between Altgens,
Betzner, Croft, Willis and Towner. Altgens also gives a "before" bracket
for the second shot.
There is absolutely no conflict in terms of when the first shot occurred
in relation to those photographs. What we have is a difference in time
estimate.
> Everyone thinks
> their picture was historically vital,
> taken within a fraction of a second
> of the first shot.
You are just making this up. Do you really think that these photographers
would do that? Willis? He was an ex Major in the army. He never bothered
to sell his photographs to the media. But you do not really have to
believe Willis. Just look at where all the witnesses put the first shot:
http://www.dufourlaw.com/JFK/first_shot_location_witnesses.PDF
Andrew Mason
bigdog
>
> - Show quoted text -
Your own reference indicates that even before the SBT was developed, the
WC knew that JBC had been hit before Z240. It was as obvious to them then
as it is to almost everyone now, that JBC had been hit before that frame.
Lots of disagreement about how much before Z240 JBC was hit, but you have
provided no reference which indicates that anybody at any time believed
JBC had been hit after Z240.
There were a number of problems with the 3 shot, 3 hit scenario besides
the tree. JFK and JBC were both clearly reacting to a wound too close
together to have been hit by seperate bullets from the same bolt action
rifle. If they had been hit by seperate shots, one or the other had to
have had a significant delayed reaction or there had to be two guns. Then
there was the problem of explaining what happened to the bullet that
exited JFK's throat. I suspect that is the issue that triggered the
thought process that resulted in the SBT. The SBT resolved all the
problematic issues, The problem with the intervening tree, the
simultaneous reactions of JFK and JBC, and the whereabouts of the bullet
exiting JFK's throat. I'm sure they never even considered your late hit on
JBC because that would have been as ludicrous then as it is now. It was
just too plainly obvious JBC had been hit well before Z271. To even
consider your scenario, they would have had to disbelieve what they saw in
the Z-film. Of course they didn't do that nor should they have.
bigdog
Yes, it is somewhat like a belief in God. There are those who are certain
he exists and others who are just as certain he does not. The only thing
we can safely say with certainty is that one of the groups that is certain
regarding God's existense is right and the other one is wrong. As for me,
I think everyone needs to believe in something, and I believe I'll have
another beer.
Andrew Mason
It is merely an observation. Science is knowledge that is exhaustively
tested empirically to see if it can be falsified. Junk science is a theory
masquerading as science but which has never been empirically tested. You
would be amazed how many "experts" expound junk science.
No one has ever taken many series of varying numbers of shots to see if
jiggle analysis can pinpoint the timing. Until that happens, it is not
science. It is properly called junk science because it clutters the field
and confuses people as to what is really science and what is not.
Andrew Mason
Andrew Mason
The reference to z240 is the May 7 memo. The SBT was developed by
Specter in response to Belin coming up with the evidence that JBC could
not have been shot in the chest after z240. See Belin, Final Disclosure,
Ch. 7.
>
> There were a number of problems with the 3 shot, 3 hit scenario besides
> the tree. JFK and JBC were both clearly reacting to a wound too close
> together to have been hit by seperate bullets from the same bolt action
> rifle. If they had been hit by seperate shots, one or the other had to
> have had a significant delayed reaction or there had to be two guns. Then
> there was the problem of explaining what happened to the bullet that
> exited JFK's throat. I suspect that is the issue that triggered the
> thought process that resulted in the SBT.
> The SBT resolved all the
> problematic issues, The problem with the intervening tree, the
> simultaneous reactions of JFK and JBC, and the whereabouts of the bullet
> exiting JFK's throat.
Except that it required rejecting large bodies of consistent evidence.
> I'm sure they never even considered your late hit on
> JBC because that would have been as ludicrous then as it is now. It was
> just too plainly obvious JBC had been hit well before Z271. To even
> consider your scenario, they would have had to disbelieve what they saw in
> the Z-film. Of course they didn't do that nor should they have.
Not according to Belin. The test firing by the FBI of the MC was done
fairly early. They knew what the minimum time between shots was. Based
on witness evidence and the zfilm they thought the first shot was
somewhere around the time JFK disappears behind the sign - around
z200-210. They did not perceive a timing problem until Belin came up
with hit "expert".
Until the "expert" evidence limited the shot to JBC to before z240, they
assumed the time between the first and second shot was longer than 2.3
seconds. Read Belin, Chapter 7.
Andrew Mason
>
WhiskyJoe
> Where do you see him turning around to see JFK?
First of all, Connally did not say he turned and
looked back at JFK. He said he almost turned back
far enough to see JFK, but could not quite see him.
And starting around Z162, Connally turns to his
right, and taking into account he could look another
70 degrees to his right, he could have almost seen
JFK. There any frame after frame 170 to 200 shows
him facing right.
http://www.assassinationresearch.com/zfilm/z196.jpg
>> In none of the other witness accounts do
>> we have such good collaboration where
>> they describe what they heard or observed
>> and what they did and have this
>> collaborated with the Zapruder film.
> You have to be kidding.
> There are dozens of witnesses whose accounts fit
> with the Zfilm but not with the first shot miss.
> One example: Mary Woodward.
You have to be kidding. Or, at least, not going with
her original statement:
Mary Woodward, a reporter, immediately wrote down
her account that appeared in the Dallas Morning News
for November 23, 1963
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/msg/7e3fd773d29d6fde?dmode=source
Quote from Article dated November 23, 1963 Section 1 -3.
............
quote on:
"After acknowledging our cheers, he faced forward
again and suddenly a horrible ear-shattering noise
coming from behind and a little to the right.
My first reaction, and also my friends', was that
as a joke, someone had backfired their car.
Apparently the driver and occupants of the
President's car had the same impression, because
instead of speeding up, the car came almost to
a halt.
Things are a little hazy from this point, but I
don't believe anyone was hit with the first bullet.
The President and Mrs. Kennedy turned and looked
around, as if they, too, didn't believe the noise
was really coming from a gun.
Then after a moment's pause there was another shot
and I saw the President start slumping in the car.
This was followed rapidly by another shot.
Mrs. Kennedy stood up in the car, then fell on top
of her husband's body. Not until this minute did
it sink in what actually was happening......"
quote off:
Now, admittedly, it's hard to interpret exactly
what she means. The "President started slumping"
could refer to just after Z222, when he leaned
well forward with his fists raised high. But it
could also refer to Z312, when JFK fell backwards.
If this slump refers to Z222, then her account
matches well with Connally's and the Zapruder
film. The only error would be that third shot
rapidly followed the second, which implies the
pause between the first and second was longer
than the second and third.
But people's perception of time may change when
they start to suspect something significant may
be happening. As the President "slumped" and
raised his fists, five seconds may have seemed
like two or three. And in any case, the first
shot miss may have occurred before Z133, though
I doubt it, making the first period between
shots longer than the second.
But in any case, she specifically says:
"Things are a little hazy from this point, but I
don't believe anyone was hit with the first bullet."
I can't understand why you thing she is a witness:
"whose accounts fit with the Zfilm but not with
the first shot miss"
Exactly what would a witness have to say to qualify
as a "first shot miss" witness?
By the way, Woodward is not as good a witness
as Connally, because, unlike Connally, she does
not describe what she did, so we can't correlate
her movements with when the first shot occurred,
like we can with Connally. Connally said he
heard a shot and turned to his right and that
corresponds only with a shot before Z162, because
he said he turned back and started facing left,
which he did not do after Z230.
I know of no witness, except Connally, who
describes his actions and is visible in the
Zapruder film, so we can zero in on when the
first shot occurred.
***************************************************
>> Everyone thinks their picture was historically
>> vital, taken within a fraction of a second
>> of the first shot.
> You are just making this up. Do you really think
> that these photographers would do that? Willis?
> He was an ex Major in the army. He never bothered
> to sell his photographs to the media. But you do
> not really have to believe Willis. Just look at
> where all the witnesses put the first shot
Well, Altgens thought his photograph, at Z255,
was within a fraction of a second of the first
shot (so that means no earlier than Z237).
And some of the others thought their photograph
was within a fraction of a second of the first
shot. But since these photographs range from Z186
though Z255, they all can't be right, can they?
Some of them honestly thought there photograph
came right with the first shot. But some of them
have to be mistaken.
Why can't they all be mistaken?
Being a former major in the army means nothing.
I'm not talking about anyone consciously lying.
What I am talking about is that photographers
won't tend to err on the high side when they
estimate the interval between their photograph
and the first shot. That is the likely reason
for all these photographers believing their
photograph came within a second of the first shot
when we know these photographs were separated by
many seconds from the Zapruder film.
As far as the photographers bracketing the first
shot between Z186 and Z255, what if they did not
hear the first shot. What if the first shot was
muffled because the muzzle was inside the room,
so it was heard by some but not by others,
particularly those without a directly line of
sight to the muzzle? What if they aren't really
talking about the first shot, but the second
shot, at Z222?
Is this a possibility we should just ignore?
Would not witnesses behind the limousine, like
Mr. Willis, have a harder time hearing a muffled
shot, compared to witnesses farther up, like
his daughter, or those inside the limousine?
Remember there was the noise of all the other
vehicles and motorcycles.
bigdog
> bigdog wrote:
> > On Jul 5, 12:36 pm, Andrew Mason <a.ma...@spmlaw.ca> wrote:
> >>> It is clear from the Z-film ALONE that Connally was hit before Z240.
> >>> The fact that you want to turn a blind eye to that very simple and
> >>> obvious fact does not negate it. There might have been some debate and
> >>> disagreement about who got hit when, but I challenge you to find one
> >>> person from the FBI, the WC, or the HSCA, who even proposed that JBC
> >>> had not been hit before Z240.
> >> Well, the entire WC staff and the FBI thought that JBC was hit after
> >> z240 until about May 1964. Also three members of the WC did not accept
> >> the SBT.
>
> >> I don't turn a blind eye to the zfilm. I just disagree with your
> >> interpretation.
>
> > Of course you do. I am right and you are wrong.
>
> Not very persuasive. This is about a grade 3 level schoolyard debate:
> "did not", "did too" etc. I am not really interested in that kind of debate.
>
>
>
> >> Some people interpret every jiggle as a shot.
>
> > I certainly don't. If I did, I would have at least six shots and
> > multiple gunman.
>
> Then I am not sure why jiggle analysis is mentioned at all. In my view,
> until someone shows that it works - that it can reliably ascertain shot
> times by actually doing it - it is junk science. I say that with respect
> to Luis Alvarez.
>
It was Alvarez's findings, confirmed through experimentation, that all
gunshots were followed by jiggles but not all jiggles were preceded by
gunshots.
>
>
> >> I think
> >> you would agree that one can't do that. You have to look at the rest of
> >> the evidence.
>
> >> You interpret the change in JBC's jacket as a bullet.
>
> > And I will continue to do so until somebody comes up with a plausbile
> > alternative.
>
> Well, for starters, try a shot that fits the shot pattern recalled by an
> overwhelming proportion of witnesses.
>
That shot pattern is incompatible with the Z-film, so that shot
pattern gets thrown overboard.
>
>
> >> I don't. You
> >> interpret JFK's hands in z223 as a natural position for his hands just
> >> before being shot.
>
> > JFK's hands were not visible in Z223. In Z224 we get a glimpse of his
> > right hand. It's position is basically the same in Z225. If anything, it
> > has lowered. In Z226, hands suddenly jerk upward in front of his face. You
> > want us to believe that he shows no reaction for two seconds after being
> > shot, then makes a sudden and dramatic movement. He must have been drugged
> > to have reacted so slowly.
>
> So are you saying that his hands in z223 were materially different than
> they were in 224 and 225? If not, then how do you explain the dramatic
> change in position of his hands from z200 to z223 - a little more than a
> second?
>
Why would I say that? If I can't see his hands in Z223, why would I
conclude they were in a materially different position. How is it you seem
to know where his hands were in Z223? There is no dramatic change in his
hand position from Z200 to Z224 when we first see his right hand reappear.
He had begun lowering his hand from a wave before he disappeared and his
hand position in Z224 and Z225 is consistent with that movement.
>
>
> >> I don't. You interpret his facial reaction in z225 as
> >> a reflex reaction.
>
> > I don't recall ever making any interpretation of his facial
> > expression.
>
> You don't think his facial expression in z225 is rather peculiar and a
> dramatic change from that in z193-198?
>
I take exception to you attributing a position to me that I never
took. Don't try to reframe the issue.
>
>
> >> I doubt that it is possible so I am not persuaded by
> >> your opinion. You interpret JBC's reaction in z228ff as a reaction to
> >> being shot in the back/torso. I interpret it as a reaction to hearing
> >> the first shot because that is what he said he did after hearing the
> >> first shot.
>
> > HUH??? JBC said that when he heard the first shot, his reaction was to
> > look over his right shoulder. I don't recall him saying he flipped his
> > right arm upward. I don't recall him saying he dropped his right
> > shoulder dipped to his right.
>
> Why would he even be conscious of flipping his right arm upward? Are you
> saying his right arm/shoulder did not have to change position in order
> to turn around to see JFK?
>
He wouldn't be conscious of the flipping of his right arm upward if it was
a reflexive reaction to being shot through the wrist. A sudden flip of the
right arm is a strange an unnatural reaction by someone who was in the
process of looking over his right shoulder. Just one more Z-film event
which trashes your theory.
>
>
> >> You interpret the reaction of JFK/Jackie at z170 or so to a
> >> reaction to hearing the first shot.
>
> > That's another observation I don't recall making. JFK doesn't show much
> > reaction at all to the first shot because like a lot of the witnesses, I
> > don't think he recognized it as a gunshot. Many of the spectators did not
> > show any reaction even after the second shot which hit JFK. We can see
> > several of them continue to cheer as the wounded President passed in front
> > of them. Jackie simply rotates her head to the right. It is impossible to
> > say what, if anything she was reacting too. I believe she didn't recognize
> > the sound as a gunshot, either.
>
> But the point is that Mary Woodward and 20 others said that this was not
> his reaction to the first shot. It was what he did immediately BEFORE
> the first shot.
>
So if it was Mary Woodward's observation, why did you attribute it to
me?
>
>
> >> I don't because Mary Woodward said
> >> it was a reaction to her shouting at the President BEFORE the first shot.
>
> >> What you seem to think you can do is disregard large bodies of
> >> independent witness recollections that essentially agree.
>
> > It isn't a question of what I can do but what I must do. I have large
> > bodies of witnesses giving conflicting accounts. I can't accept both
> > versions as factual. That is not possible. I must reject one or the other.
> > The Z-film makes that choice easy.
>
> There is no conflict at all between the 21 witnesses who said JFK
> reacted to the first shot, the 48 who recalled the 1....2..3 shot
> pattern and the 22 who put the first shot after z186. None. In fact, you
> cannot have the 1....2..3 shot pattern with out the first shot hit and
> first shot after z186 witnesses. Differences in the details noticed or
> not noticed between witnesses always happens. Juries make important
> decisions all the time on the evidence of much fewer witnesses.
>
It is the details that are important and the details which witnesses get
wrong. A 1.....2..3 shot pattern is a detail and a significant one and one
that witnesses could get wrong. I doubt anyone even thought about the
spacing of the shots until someone asked them about it. They were then
forced to recreate from memory a detail which probably didn't make a firm
impression on them in the first place.
>
>
> >> You cannot do
> >> that without being able to explain how that can possibly occur. You
> >> cannot explain it by saying that witnesses are unreliable.
>
> > Of course I can. I know that witnesses are unreliable or else most or all
> > of them would have told us the same thing.
>
> That is absurd. Witnesses ALMOST NEVER agree completely on all the minor
> details. In the 300 or so trials I have done, I cannot ever recall
> witnesses agreeing completely. If that ever happens, it is evidence of
> collusion. When you are presenting witnesses, the last thing you want is
> for the witnesses to agree on every detail.
>
Now that is a really interesting argument. You are using the fact that
witnesses cannot agree on details as evidence of how reliable witnesses
really are. It seems to me that you are saying in order for them to be
considered reliable, they must disagree. A very unique perspective, I must
say. So by your reasoning, we should find it suspiscious that your 21
handpicked witnesses agreed on the 1.....2..3 shot pattern. OK, I'll buy
that.
> > That obviously did not happen.
> > I don't need to explain why some people got it wrong. I just need to
> > demonstrate that they did. Whatever else we believe about what happened in
> > Dealy Plaza, there is one thing we can safely say. A lot of witnesses got
> > it wrong.
>
> You are missing the key point: how is it that witnesses can agree on an
> essential observed fact: that JFK reacted to the first shot randomly?
It's easy to get agreement from the witnesses when you only select the
ones that agreed.
> If
> it is not random, the only thing that could cause this is that this is
> what they observed.
Completely illogical.
> The only other possibility is that their
> observations were not independent. That level of convergence cannot
> possibly happen randomly. Never in a million centuries.
>
It isn't random. You cherry picked that ones who made that
observation.
>
>
> >> That does not
> >> explain why the vast majority of witness had the same observation about
> >> JFK's reaction to the first shot; the same recollection as to the shot
> >> pattern; and the same recollection as to where the President was when
> >> the first shot occurred. Until you can explain how that convergence can
> >> occur without there being any reason at all, your opinion of the zfilm
> >> is not very persuasive.
>
> > There are plenty of witnesses who give an account that is at odds with
> > your theory and other posters have pointed those folks out. You choose to
> > reject those witnesses because what they say is incompatible with your
> > fable. I choose to reject your witnesses because what they say is
> > incompatible with the Z-film.
>
> I notice you don't provide names. No one gave evidence that is
> inconsistent with the first shot being after z186. None.
>
Connally who said he heard the shot and then looked over his right
shoulder which we seem him begin to do at Z164. Bennett who said he heard
the first shot then turned and saw the second shot strike JFK in the
shoulder. Bennett's testimony is compelling because he wrote that in his
notes on Air Force One at a time when the only way he could have known
about the back wound was if he had actually observed it. No one at
Parkland saw it and it was not discovered until the autopsy, hours after
Bennett had written his notes. Buell Frazier, Howard Brennan, Barbara
Rowland, Royce Skelton, Geneva Hine, and SS agent Paul Landis all said
they heard the first shot right after the limo had completed the turn. We
can see that the limo had completed the turn in Z133 when Zapruder has
resumed filming and a missed shot in the 150-160 time frame would have
come 1 to 1.5 seconds after that. We had two motorcycle officers who saw a
bullet strike the pavement at the time of the first shot and another who
observed JFK after the first shot and said he had not been hit.
It makes perfect sense for Oswald to fire as soon as the limo completed
the turn because it is the first chance he had to shoot JFK in the back
without being observed by any of the SS agents. You want us to believe he
passed on this first chance at a clear shot and instead waited until his
target passed under the branches of the tree when he had neither a clear
line of sight nor a clear line of fire. Oswald had plenty of time in the
SN before the limo arrived to consider his options and decide when he
would take his shot. It would have been quite easy for him to see that he
would have a brief opportunity to fire a clear shot after the limo turned
the corner and before it went under the tree. Wby would he elect to take
that first shot when his target would be obscured? A shot at Z186 is just
one more nonsensical argument for a nonsensical theory.
Andrew Mason
It has never been proven that you could pinpoint shot times with jiggle
analysis. The theory is plausible, just like bullet lead analysis, but
the acid test for science is empirical testing. No one ever filmed shots
being fired and pinpointed the timings from jiggle analysis. It has
never been shown to work. Why would you put your faith in an untested
theory?
>
>>
>>>> I think
>>>> you would agree that one can't do that. You have to look at the rest of
>>>> the evidence.
>>>> You interpret the change in JBC's jacket as a bullet.
>>> And I will continue to do so until somebody comes up with a plausbile
>>> alternative.
>> Well, for starters, try a shot that fits the shot pattern recalled by an
>> overwhelming proportion of witnesses.
>>
> That shot pattern is incompatible with the Z-film, so that shot
> pattern gets thrown overboard.
I guess we will just have to disagree.
>>
>>>> I don't. You
>>>> interpret JFK's hands in z223 as a natural position for his hands just
>>>> before being shot.
>>> JFK's hands were not visible in Z223. In Z224 we get a glimpse of his
>>> right hand. It's position is basically the same in Z225. If anything, it
>>> has lowered. In Z226, hands suddenly jerk upward in front of his face. You
>>> want us to believe that he shows no reaction for two seconds after being
>>> shot, then makes a sudden and dramatic movement. He must have been drugged
>>> to have reacted so slowly.
>> So are you saying that his hands in z223 were materially different than
>> they were in 224 and 225? If not, then how do you explain the dramatic
>> change in position of his hands from z200 to z223 - a little more than a
>> second?
>>
>
> Why would I say that? If I can't see his hands in Z223, why would I
> conclude they were in a materially different position. How is it you seem
> to know where his hands were in Z223? There is no dramatic change in his
> hand position from Z200 to Z224 when we first see his right hand reappear.
> He had begun lowering his hand from a wave before he disappeared and his
> hand position in Z224 and Z225 is consistent with that movement.
Where do you think his hands were in z223? Waving?
>>
>>>> I don't. You interpret his facial reaction in z225 as
>>>> a reflex reaction.
>>> I don't recall ever making any interpretation of his facial
>>> expression.
>> You don't think his facial expression in z225 is rather peculiar and a
>> dramatic change from that in z193-198?
>>
>
> I take exception to you attributing a position to me that I never
> took. Don't try to reframe the issue.
I was just asking a question. You are the one saying that JFK is
completely normal in z223, never having been struck by anything.
>
>>
>>>> I doubt that it is possible so I am not persuaded by
>>>> your opinion. You interpret JBC's reaction in z228ff as a reaction to
>>>> being shot in the back/torso. I interpret it as a reaction to hearing
>>>> the first shot because that is what he said he did after hearing the
>>>> first shot.
>>> HUH??? JBC said that when he heard the first shot, his reaction was to
>>> look over his right shoulder. I don't recall him saying he flipped his
>>> right arm upward. I don't recall him saying he dropped his right
>>> shoulder dipped to his right.
>> Why would he even be conscious of flipping his right arm upward? Are you
>> saying his right arm/shoulder did not have to change position in order
>> to turn around to see JFK?
>>
>
> He wouldn't be conscious of the flipping of his right arm upward if it was
> a reflexive reaction to being shot through the wrist. A sudden flip of the
> right arm is a strange an unnatural reaction by someone who was in the
> process of looking over his right shoulder. Just one more Z-film event
> which trashes your theory.
I disagree. I think it is quite natural to turn one's right arm when
one's right shoulder turns. It is impossible to do it any other way.
>
>>
>>>> You interpret the reaction of JFK/Jackie at z170 or so to a
>>>> reaction to hearing the first shot.
>>> That's another observation I don't recall making. JFK doesn't show much
>>> reaction at all to the first shot because like a lot of the witnesses, I
>>> don't think he recognized it as a gunshot. Many of the spectators did not
>>> show any reaction even after the second shot which hit JFK. We can see
>>> several of them continue to cheer as the wounded President passed in front
>>> of them. Jackie simply rotates her head to the right. It is impossible to
>>> say what, if anything she was reacting too. I believe she didn't recognize
>>> the sound as a gunshot, either.
>> But the point is that Mary Woodward and 20 others said that this was not
>> his reaction to the first shot. It was what he did immediately BEFORE
>> the first shot.
>>
> So if it was Mary Woodward's observation, why did you attribute it to
> me?
I didn't. You said that JFK turned smiled and waved AFTER the first
shot. Mary Woodward said it was before. Mary Woodward disagrees with you.
>>
>>>> I don't because Mary Woodward said
>>>> it was a reaction to her shouting at the President BEFORE the first shot.
>>>> What you seem to think you can do is disregard large bodies of
>>>> independent witness recollections that essentially agree.
>>> It isn't a question of what I can do but what I must do. I have large
>>> bodies of witnesses giving conflicting accounts. I can't accept both
>>> versions as factual. That is not possible. I must reject one or the other.
>>> The Z-film makes that choice easy.
>> There is no conflict at all between the 21 witnesses who said JFK
>> reacted to the first shot, the 48 who recalled the 1....2..3 shot
>> pattern and the 22 who put the first shot after z186. None. In fact, you
>> cannot have the 1....2..3 shot pattern with out the first shot hit and
>> first shot after z186 witnesses. Differences in the details noticed or
>> not noticed between witnesses always happens. Juries make important
>> decisions all the time on the evidence of much fewer witnesses.
>>
>
> It is the details that are important and the details which witnesses get
> wrong. A 1.....2..3 shot pattern is a detail and a significant one and one
> that witnesses could get wrong. I doubt anyone even thought about the
> spacing of the shots until someone asked them about it. They were then
> forced to recreate from memory a detail which probably didn't make a firm
> impression on them in the first place.
Have you actually read the evidence? It is all set out here:
http://www.dufourlaw.com/JFK/shot_pattern_evidence.pdf
Your speculation does not fit the evidence.
>
>>
>>>> You cannot do
>>>> that without being able to explain how that can possibly occur. You
>>>> cannot explain it by saying that witnesses are unreliable.
>>> Of course I can. I know that witnesses are unreliable or else most or all
>>> of them would have told us the same thing.
>> That is absurd. Witnesses ALMOST NEVER agree completely on all the minor
>> details. In the 300 or so trials I have done, I cannot ever recall
>> witnesses agreeing completely. If that ever happens, it is evidence of
>> collusion. When you are presenting witnesses, the last thing you want is
>> for the witnesses to agree on every detail.
>>
>
> Now that is a really interesting argument. You are using the fact that
> witnesses cannot agree on details as evidence of how reliable witnesses
> really are. It seems to me that you are saying in order for them to be
> considered reliable, they must disagree. A very unique perspective, I must
> say. So by your reasoning, we should find it suspiscious that your 21
> handpicked witnesses agreed on the 1.....2..3 shot pattern. OK, I'll buy
> that.
No. It is 21 witnesses on the first shot hit. It is 48 on the shot
pattern. Have you ever taken the time to read the evidence? This is
getting quite tiresome because you don't seem to want to read it:
http://www.dufourlaw.com/JFK/shot_pattern_evidence.pdf
http://www.dufourlaw.com/JFK/first_shot_hit_witnesses.PDF
http://www.dufourlaw.com/JFK/first_shot_location_witnesses.PDF
>
>>> That obviously did not happen.
>>> I don't need to explain why some people got it wrong. I just need to
>>> demonstrate that they did. Whatever else we believe about what happened in
>>> Dealy Plaza, there is one thing we can safely say. A lot of witnesses got
>>> it wrong.
>> You are missing the key point: how is it that witnesses can agree on an
>> essential observed fact: that JFK reacted to the first shot randomly?
>
> It's easy to get agreement from the witnesses when you only select the
> ones that agreed.
You really have to read the evidence. You would not say this if you had.
>
>> If
>> it is not random, the only thing that could cause this is that this is
>> what they observed.
>
> Completely illogical.
>
>> The only other possibility is that their
>> observations were not independent. That level of convergence cannot
>> possibly happen randomly. Never in a million centuries.
>>
> It isn't random. You cherry picked that ones who made that
> observation.
Not so. Read the evidence and tell me which witnesses I have missed.
>
>
>>
>>>> That does not
>>>> explain why the vast majority of witness had the same observation about
>>>> JFK's reaction to the first shot; the same recollection as to the shot
>>>> pattern; and the same recollection as to where the President was when
>>>> the first shot occurred. Until you can explain how that convergence can
>>>> occur without there being any reason at all, your opinion of the zfilm
>>>> is not very persuasive.
>>> There are plenty of witnesses who give an account that is at odds with
>>> your theory and other posters have pointed those folks out. You choose to
>>> reject those witnesses because what they say is incompatible with your
>>> fable. I choose to reject your witnesses because what they say is
>>> incompatible with the Z-film.
>> I notice you don't provide names. No one gave evidence that is
>> inconsistent with the first shot being after z186. None.
>>
>
> Connally who said he heard the shot and then looked over his right
> shoulder which we seem him begin to do at Z164. Bennett who said he heard
> the first shot then turned and saw the second shot strike JFK in the
> shoulder. Bennett's testimony is compelling because he wrote that in his
> notes on Air Force One at a time when the only way he could have known
> about the back wound was if he had actually observed it.
So why is not SA Kinney, SA Clint Hill, SA Hickey, David Powers etc.
just as compelling. They all say JFK react immediately to the first shot.
> No one at
> Parkland saw it and it was not discovered until the autopsy, hours after
> Bennett had written his notes. Buell Frazier, Howard Brennan, Barbara
> Rowland, Royce Skelton, Geneva Hine, and SS agent Paul Landis all said
> they heard the first shot right after the limo had completed the turn. We
> can see that the limo had completed the turn in Z133 when Zapruder has
> resumed filming and a missed shot in the 150-160 time frame would have
> come 1 to 1.5 seconds after that. We had two motorcycle officers who saw a
> bullet strike the pavement at the time of the first shot and another who
> observed JFK after the first shot and said he had not been hit.
>
> It makes perfect sense for Oswald to fire as soon as the limo completed
> the turn because it is the first chance he had to shoot JFK in the back
> without being observed by any of the SS agents. You want us to believe he
> passed on this first chance at a clear shot and instead waited until his
> target passed under the branches of the tree when he had neither a clear
> line of sight nor a clear line of fire. Oswald had plenty of time in the
> SN before the limo arrived to consider his options and decide when he
> would take his shot. It would have been quite easy for him to see that he
> would have a brief opportunity to fire a clear shot after the limo turned
> the corner and before it went under the tree. Wby would he elect to take
> that first shot when his target would be obscured? A shot at Z186 is just
> one more nonsensical argument for a nonsensical theory.
Wrong questions. You will never have answers to speculative questions.
You have to look at the evidence. Really, that is what it is about. It
is not about anything else.
BTW, I will be leaving tomorrow for about a month so this may be my last
post for a while.
Andrew Mason
>
>
Anthony Marsh
While he hidden behind the sign maybe? Duh!
>>
>> In none of the other witness accounts do
>> we have such good collaboration where
>> they describe what they heard or observed
>> and what they did and have this
>> collaborated with the Zapruder film.
>
> You have to be kidding.
>
> There are dozens of witnesses whose accounts fit with the Zfilm but not
> with the first shot miss. One example: Mary Woodward.
>
Then you will dismiss Mary Woodward as a kook because she said the shots
came from the grassy knoll.
Willis hocked his slide set to the public.
> really have to believe Willis. Just look at where all the witnesses put
> the first shot:
All? Sure, all 21. Out of 900. That qualifies as ALL to you?
And you wonder why you are not taken seriously?
> http://www.dufourlaw.com/JFK/first_shot_location_witnesses.PDF
>
> Andrew Mason
Anthony Marsh
You got caught with your pants down and so you pretend that everything
is ok and your pants are still up. None of your blathering supports your
claim that everyone believed the shot was after Z-240 until the SBT was
born. Each time you try to defend that claim you end up revealing how
stupid it was. Now you say that Specter already knew that Connally could
not have been shot after Z-240. Duh! That undermines your claim.
That was before the SBT.
And they did not know about the problem with the tree until they did the
survey which Specter recommended.
> Andrew Mason
>
>>
>
Anthony Marsh
So you claim. But you have not taken any steps to prove that the jiggle
analysis is junk science while others have corroborated it. The HSCA
accepted it as valid. Alvarez proved that gunshots can produce jiggles
in the film.
> No one has ever taken many series of varying numbers of shots to see if
> jiggle analysis can pinpoint the timing. Until that happens, it is not
That is exactly what Alvarez did. The fact that you are unaware it
explains why you are behind.
> science. It is properly called junk science because it clutters the
> field and confuses people as to what is really science and what is not.
>
No one calls it junk science except for you, because you have not
researched it.
> Andrew Mason
Anthony Marsh
Not to everyone. The CIA analysis proposed a shot hitting Kennedy at
Z-190 then another shot hitting Connally at Z-264.
> Lots of disagreement about how much before Z240 JBC was hit, but you have
> provided no reference which indicates that anybody at any time believed
> JBC had been hit after Z240.
>
That is why I routinely dismiss him as not being a serious researcher.
He simply misstates historical facts in order to support his wacky theories.
> There were a number of problems with the 3 shot, 3 hit scenario besides
> the tree. JFK and JBC were both clearly reacting to a wound too close
At that point none of them knew about the problem of the tree and at
which specific Zapruder frame the view was blocked.
> together to have been hit by seperate bullets from the same bolt action
> rifle. If they had been hit by seperate shots, one or the other had to
No, no one pointed out the two men reacting at the same time. The
testimony they had was that Kennedy was hit by the first bullet and
Connally was hit by the second bullet. No one testified that they were
both hit by the same bullet. Humes came up with his own SBT to try to
solve the problem. The WC rejected it.
> have had a significant delayed reaction or there had to be two guns. Then
> there was the problem of explaining what happened to the bullet that
> exited JFK's throat. I suspect that is the issue that triggered the
They knew that there was a problem because the back wound was lower than
the throat wound. They discussed that in secret.
If the bullet was traveling upwards it could miss Connally.
> thought process that resulted in the SBT. The SBT resolved all the
Well, it certainly created the SBT that Humes and all the other doctors
proposed. They could not imagine that the bullet coming out of Kennedy
could miss Connally.
> problematic issues, The problem with the intervening tree, the
> simultaneous reactions of JFK and JBC, and the whereabouts of the bullet
No one proposed a simultaneous reaction.
They did not yet know about the tree.
> exiting JFK's throat. I'm sure they never even considered your late hit on
> JBC because that would have been as ludicrous then as it is now. It was
Humes et al considered two separate hits to JBC.
Andrew Mason
>> Where do you see him turning around to see JFK?
>
> First of all, Connally did not say he turned and
> looked back at JFK. He said he almost turned back
> far enough to see JFK, but could not quite see him.
> And starting around Z162, Connally turns to his
> right, and taking into account he could look another
> 70 degrees to his right, he could have almost seen
> JFK. There any frame after frame 170 to 200 shows
> him facing right.
But if someone is trying to see someone else they turn their head to
face them. You cannot make out detail with peripheral vision. He said he
was trying to see JFK but COULD NOT see him out of the corner of his
eye. You are saying that he wanted to see him but could not see him
because he was not turning his head relative to his shoulders! That is
absurd, if you think about it.
The turn at z170-200 is not one that you could look at and say: "see,
JBC is straining to see JFK". If you can't admit that, you are not being
objective.
The reason: she heard the last two shots were very close together, much
closer than the first two. It is impossible to have that shot spacing
and have JFK missed by the first shot. He is obviously hit by z225 so if
that was the second shot, there is 5 seconds between the last two shots
and probably 8 to 10 seconds between the first two, in order to fit that
spacing.
She said she was hazy about what happened after the first shot. But she
was very clear what happened before: JFK and Jackie turned toward them
and smiled and waved. Where do you see that happen?
Not quite. He said it was AFTER the first shot and before any other
shots. In estimating the amount of time after he thought it was "it was
ALMOST simultaneously with the shot--the shot was just a fraction ahead
of my picture". He did not say a "fraction of a second".
He was clear that it was before the shot though. Willis said his
photograph was simultaneous with it and it caused him to press the
trigger so his photo was slightly after.
> And some of the others thought their photograph
> was within a fraction of a second of the first
> shot. But since these photographs range from Z186
> though Z255, they all can't be right, can they?
Sure they can. But you have to ask the right question. The quesion is
not "how many seconds separated your photo from the first shot". The
question is: "was your photo taken before or after the first shot". The
key is whether there is consistency in when in relation to their photo
the shot occurred: ie. before or after. People are much more accurate in
recalling events than in providing opinions about measurements. You know
that from your own experience.
> Some of them honestly thought there photograph
> came right with the first shot. But some of them
> have to be mistaken.
Altgens said his was a fraction after - ALMOST simultaneous - ie. not
simultaneous but a short time before. To Altgens, 2-3 seconds may not
have seemed like a long time. Why does his estimate of time have any
bearing on whether he was correct in his recollection of the much
simpler recollection of the order of the shot and his photo.
>
> Why can't they all be mistaken?
Why does your DNA profile not match mine? For each of the 13 loci in
that profile the change of you and I having a match may be as little as
1 in 5. When a DNA match occurs, it is possible that each one of those
loci could be a false match - but not 13. Individual false positives are
possible but the chance of all 13 is 1: 5^13 or about 1 in 1.2 billion.
In the case of witnesses observing JFK after the first shot, there are
many possible recollections that they could have if they were just
guessing or really bad observers - which you seem to suggest they were.
Let's assume they did not see JFK react - that he really smiled and
waved to Mary Woodward after the first shot. There are many things - at
least 5 wrong things - they could have said happened after the first
shot. If they were all so bad in observing, why did they all have the
same wrong observation? For that to happen by random chance, the odds
are 1:5^21 = 1 in 477 trillion.
>
> Being a former major in the army means nothing.
> I'm not talking about anyone consciously lying.
> What I am talking about is that photographers
> won't tend to err on the high side when they
> estimate the interval between their photograph
> and the first shot. That is the likely reason
> for all these photographers believing their
> photograph came within a second of the first shot
> when we know these photographs were separated by
> many seconds from the Zapruder film.
>
> As far as the photographers bracketing the first
> shot between Z186 and Z255, what if they did not
> hear the first shot.
You mean that "horrible ear-shattering noise" described by Mary Woodward?
> What if the first shot was
> muffled because the muzzle was inside the room,
> so it was heard by some but not by others,
> particularly those without a directly line of
> sight to the muzzle? What if they aren't really
> talking about the first shot, but the second
> shot, at Z222?
The problem is that this didn't happen. There is an enormous amount of
evidence as to the first shot was very audible. JBC certainly said he
heard it and knew it was a rifle shot. It prompted John Wiseman who was
staning on Main Street over a block away and around a corner to run to
see what was happening:
WC 19 H 535 (Decker exhibit). Wiseman was standing in front of the
Sheriff’s office, which is on Main Street, half a building from the
corner of Main and Houston, when he heard the first shot. “I ran
at once to the corner of Houston and Main Street and out into the street
when the second and third shots rang out”.
>
> Is this a possibility we should just ignore?
Yes.
>
> Would not witnesses behind the limousine, like
> Mr. Willis, have a harder time hearing a muffled
> shot, compared to witnesses farther up, like
> his daughter, or those inside the limousine?
> Remember there was the noise of all the other
> vehicles and motorcycles.
>
You can't just make stuff up. You need evidence. The evidence is not there.
Andrew Mason
bigdog
Can you reference any statement, memo, etc. which documents that anyone on
the WC EVER thought that JBC was shot through the torso after Z240?
Everything you have posted so far indicates they always believed it came
before Z240.
>
>
> > There were a number of problems with the 3 shot, 3 hit scenario besides
> > the tree. JFK and JBC were both clearly reacting to a wound too close
> > together to have been hit by seperate bullets from the same bolt action
> > rifle. If they had been hit by seperate shots, one or the other had to
> > have had a significant delayed reaction or there had to be two guns. Then
> > there was the problem of explaining what happened to the bullet that
> > exited JFK's throat. I suspect that is the issue that triggered the
> > thought process that resulted in the SBT.
> > The SBT resolved all the
> > problematic issues, The problem with the intervening tree, the
> > simultaneous reactions of JFK and JBC, and the whereabouts of the bullet
> > exiting JFK's throat.
>
> Except that it required rejecting large bodies of consistent evidence.
>
There was nothing consistent about witness accounts of the shooting. It is
only when you cherry pick specific groups and interpret what they said to
your own liking that you get a consistent account.
> > I'm sure they never even considered your late hit on
> > JBC because that would have been as ludicrous then as it is now. It was
> > just too plainly obvious JBC had been hit well before Z271. To even
> > consider your scenario, they would have had to disbelieve what they saw in
> > the Z-film. Of course they didn't do that nor should they have.
>
> Not according to Belin. The test firing by the FBI of the MC was done
> fairly early. They knew what the minimum time between shots was. Based
> on witness evidence and the zfilm they thought the first shot was
> somewhere around the time JFK disappears behind the sign - around
> z200-210. They did not perceive a timing problem until Belin came up
> with hit "expert".
>
> Until the "expert" evidence limited the shot to JBC to before z240, they
> assumed the time between the first and second shot was longer than 2.3
> seconds. Read Belin, Chapter 7.
>
That still doesn't indicate they thought JBC was hit after Z240. The could
clearly see that he was. Until they got data about the minimum firing
time, a first shot between Z200 and Z210 followed by a second in the late
Z230s was plausible. Once they learned that the rifle could not have been
fired twice in that amount of time, they knew a shot in that time frame
was incompatible with a second shot before Z240. That meant that if JFK
and JBC had been hit by seperate shots, a premise they were still acting
under, the first shot had to come earlier. You have given us nothing to
indicate they ever considered the possibility that JBC was hit after Z240
because they could clearly see he was hit earlier. Again I ask, can you
point to anything at all that indicates anyone on the WC, including the
staff, ever thought JBC was shot after Z240?
Anthony Marsh
>
>> Although there was clear ear witness
>> consensus that there were three shots,
>> I could be persuaded that the consensus
>> was wrong if there were not other
>> corroboration of the 3 shot scenario.
>> The most compelling to me is the
>> observable reaction of JBC coupled with
>> his statement. We can see him doing
>> exactly what he said he did. Virtually
>> every part of JBC's account can be
>> verified in the Z-film with the minor
>> exception that he though he had got
>> back to a forward facing position when
>> he was hit and the Z-film shows he had
>> not quite reached that position.
>
> True. Connally's testimony combined with
> the support of the Zapruder film showing
> him doing what he describes, does make it
> quite likely that there was an early
> shot miss. He's an eyewitness and
> eyewitnesses can be mistaken, but his
> account of what he was doing does match
> very well with the Zapruder film.
>
Exactly. Connally testified that he HEARD the first shot, which he thought
hit Kennedy and then he did not hear the second shot which he knew hit
him. He also specified frame 230, which is corroborated by the Zapruder
film. That leaves us to guess how much earlier the first shot was which
hit Kennedy. If Connally guessed it was so quickly that it was an
automatic firing, do we have to assume it WAS an automatic firing? Do you
happen to remember which automatics fire the M-C rounds?
> In none of the other witness accounts do
> we have such good collaboration where
> they describe what they heard or observed
> and what they did and have this
> collaborated with the Zapruder film.
>
> Many witnesses, like Jean Hill's evolving
> story was flatly contradicted by film and
> pictures, like her immediately rushing
> through the motorcade in pursuit of a
> possible Grassy Knoll gunman, a powerful
> sign of what years of people asking
> leading questions can do to someone's
> memory.
As usual, when you try to debunk someone you misquote their story to
ridicule them.
>
> The nearest equivalent is photographers
> who report the first shot came just when
> they took there picture, but since we have
> statements to that effect for the Z180's
> or Z190's, but also for Altgens Z255
> photograph, such statements don't time
> stamp events very well. Everyone thinks
> their picture was historically vital,
> taken within a fraction of a second
> of the first shot.
>
Maybe by working backwards and forwards from known setpoints you can
arrive at a likely time.
> In conclusion, my saying that there was
> only an 80% chance of an early shot miss
> around Z160 was not based on any calculations,
Oh, we thought you got that from the HSCA!
> but was really based on my trying to avoid a
> very common error where people overestimate
> the probability of a scenario they believe
> is true. Most everyone always say that there
> is a 99% chance that they are right. Andrew
> Mason believes there is a 99% chance that
> Connally was wounded around Z271.
> Robert Harris believes there is a 99% chance
> for a missed shot around Z285.
>
> But, perhaps, the first shot miss may be a
> good scenario to have almost maximum
> confidence in. But not as good as the
> Z220-224 SBT scenario. Not only is the
> Z220-224 scenario reasonably well supported
> by Connally's account (within a half second),
Now you can't even specify which frame it was.
Not much of a theory.
Anthony Marsh
Again, the theory was tested and proved correct. The only question is
again what criteria are used to decide which jiggles indicate a shot.
Cherry picking.
Selection bias.
Did they say they all reacted in the same way?
Anthony Marsh
>
>> Where do you see him turning around to see JFK?
>
> First of all, Connally did not say he turned and
> looked back at JFK. He said he almost turned back
> far enough to see JFK, but could not quite see him.
There you go again, misrepresenting the historical record. Connally said
that he turned to look in the back seat and saw that Kennedy had slumped.
He never said that he saw Kennedy being hit by the bullet.
http://home.comcast.net/~the-puzzle-palace/Connally.htm
> And starting around Z162, Connally turns to his
> right, and taking into account he could look another
> 70 degrees to his right, he could have almost seen
> JFK. There any frame after frame 170 to 200 shows
> him facing right.
>
So from that you conclude that Kennedy was hit before frame 200?
So, you accept everything that Mary Woodward said as the absolute proof?
You agree and SEE for yourself that Mrs. Kennedy stood up in the car? Why
didn't you quote the part of her story where she said the shots came from
the grassy knoll? You have to agree with that also, don't you?
> Now, admittedly, it's hard to interpret exactly
> what she means. The "President started slumping"
> could refer to just after Z222, when he leaned
> well forward with his fists raised high. But it
> could also refer to Z312, when JFK fell backwards.
>
No, she is clearly talking about the back shot, not the head shot.
> If this slump refers to Z222, then her account
> matches well with Connally's and the Zapruder
> film. The only error would be that third shot
If she is talking about Z-210, then her account
matches well with Connallys and the Zapruder
film.
But Connally can not be seen behind the sign for several frames. Someone
probably has a theory that that's when he turned around and shot the
President.
> ***************************************************
>
>>> Everyone thinks their picture was historically
>>> vital, taken within a fraction of a second
>>> of the first shot.
>
>> You are just making this up. Do you really think
>> that these photographers would do that? Willis?
>> He was an ex Major in the army. He never bothered
>> to sell his photographs to the media. But you do
>> not really have to believe Willis. Just look at
>> where all the witnesses put the first shot
>
> Well, Altgens thought his photograph, at Z255,
> was within a fraction of a second of the first
> shot (so that means no earlier than Z237).
Fraction?
> And some of the others thought their photograph
> was within a fraction of a second of the first
Fraction?
> shot. But since these photographs range from Z186
> though Z255, they all can't be right, can they?
> Some of them honestly thought there photograph
> came right with the first shot. But some of them
> have to be mistaken.
>
> Why can't they all be mistaken?
>
> Being a former major in the army means nothing.
> I'm not talking about anyone consciously lying.
> What I am talking about is that photographers
> won't tend to err on the high side when they
> estimate the interval between their photograph
> and the first shot. That is the likely reason
> for all these photographers believing their
> photograph came within a second of the first shot
> when we know these photographs were separated by
> many seconds from the Zapruder film.
>
> As far as the photographers bracketing the first
> shot between Z186 and Z255, what if they did not
> hear the first shot. What if the first shot was
> muffled because the muzzle was inside the room,
Impossible.
> so it was heard by some but not by others,
Some might hear the shockwave while others would not.
> particularly those without a directly line of
> sight to the muzzle? What if they aren't really
> talking about the first shot, but the second
> shot, at Z222?
>
> Is this a possibility we should just ignore?
>
> Would not witnesses behind the limousine, like
> Mr. Willis, have a harder time hearing a muffled
> shot, compared to witnesses farther up, like
> his daughter, or those inside the limousine?
Huh? I don't care about your muffled shot theory, most would hear the
extremely loud shock wave. The Army actually did some tests on this,
muffling the muzzle blast on supersonic shots. It causes some confusion,
but most people can tell it is a rifle shot.
> Remember there was the noise of all the other
> vehicles and motorcycles.
>
Junk.
bigdog
They wouldn't need testimony to tell them that. They had the Z-film. I
maintain the Zapruder's camera was the most reliable witness we have to
the shooter but unfortunately that witness was deaf. I wouldn't expect
anyone to testify to the SBT. Who could possibly know that. It was only
after reviewing the Z-film and comparing it with the testimony of numerous
witnesses that they arrived at the SBT through deductive reasoning. They
began with the premise that the 3 shots hit Kennedy-Connally-Kennedy but
no matter how they tried, no matter when they placed the three shots, they
couldn't make it work. I don't know when the light bulb went on in
somebody's head that one shot might have hit both men or what triggered
that idea, but that was the only way to make LN theory work. Without it
you have two shooters. To placate the dissenting commisioners, the final
draft of the WCR stated that the SBT was not necessary to the fundamental
finding that LHO acted alone. That is the one major bone of contention I
have with the WCR. The SBT is the lynchpin of the LN theory. Without it,
you have conspiracy. This is one point I think we can agree on. I would
love to have heard how the dissenting commisioners thought it went down if
not according to the SBT. Unfortunately, Warren did not run the Commission
like SCOTUS and did not assign someone to write a dissenting opinion.
> > have had a significant delayed reaction or there had to be two guns. Then
> > there was the problem of explaining what happened to the bullet that
> > exited JFK's throat. I suspect that is the issue that triggered the
>
> They knew that there was a problem because the back wound was lower than
> the throat wound. They discussed that in secret.
> If the bullet was traveling upwards it could miss Connally.
>
If the bullet was traveling upward, it meant JFK was shot from street
level. An upward transit assumes JFK was sitting with his torso
perfectly vertical.
> > thought process that resulted in the SBT. The SBT resolved all the
>
> Well, it certainly created the SBT that Humes and all the other doctors
> proposed. They could not imagine that the bullet coming out of Kennedy
> could miss Connally.
>
> > problematic issues, The problem with the intervening tree, the
> > simultaneous reactions of JFK and JBC, and the whereabouts of the bullet
>
> No one proposed a simultaneous reaction.
> They did not yet know about the tree.
>
> > exiting JFK's throat. I'm sure they never even considered your late hit on
> > JBC because that would have been as ludicrous then as it is now. It was
>
> Humes et al considered two separate hits to JBC.
>
>
>
> > just too plainly obvious JBC had been hit well before Z271. To even
> > consider your scenario, they would have had to disbelieve what they saw in
> > the Z-film. Of course they didn't do that nor should they have.- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
Anthony Marsh
Silly you. So what? You still do not address my point. We've had the
Zapruder film for 30 years and you guys still can't agree.
> maintain the Zapruder's camera was the most reliable witness we have to
> the shooter but unfortunately that witness was deaf. I wouldn't expect
> anyone to testify to the SBT. Who could possibly know that. It was only
Connally could have if it had really happened. Nellie could have if it
had really happened.
> after reviewing the Z-film and comparing it with the testimony of numerous
> witnesses that they arrived at the SBT through deductive reasoning. They
No, inductive reasoning. The only other possible solution that Specter
could imagine was conspiracy and that wouldn't do.
> began with the premise that the 3 shots hit Kennedy-Connally-Kennedy but
> no matter how they tried, no matter when they placed the three shots, they
> couldn't make it work. I don't know when the light bulb went on in
> somebody's head that one shot might have hit both men or what triggered
> that idea, but that was the only way to make LN theory work. Without it
Various WC lawyers had been considering that idea in April 1964. Read
the internal memos.
> you have two shooters. To placate the dissenting commisioners, the final
> draft of the WCR stated that the SBT was not necessary to the fundamental
> finding that LHO acted alone. That is the one major bone of contention I
> have with the WCR. The SBT is the lynchpin of the LN theory. Without it,
> you have conspiracy. This is one point I think we can agree on. I would
Jeez, don't tell me you figured that out all by yourself. Can you name
anyone who believes that Oswald was the lone shooter who does not need a
SBT?
> love to have heard how the dissenting commisioners thought it went down if
> not according to the SBT. Unfortunately, Warren did not run the Commission
> like SCOTUS and did not assign someone to write a dissenting opinion.
>
>>> have had a significant delayed reaction or there had to be two guns. Then
>>> there was the problem of explaining what happened to the bullet that
>>> exited JFK's throat. I suspect that is the issue that triggered the
>>
>> They knew that there was a problem because the back wound was lower than
>> the throat wound. They discussed that in secret.
>> If the bullet was traveling upwards it could miss Connally.
>>
>
> If the bullet was traveling upward, it meant JFK was shot from street
> level. An upward transit assumes JFK was sitting with his torso
> perfectly vertical.
>
No, it doesn't. It means the bullet was deflected up off the top of T-1.
Anthony Marsh
> WhiskyJoe wrote:
>>> Where do you see him turning around to see JFK?
>>
>> First of all, Connally did not say he turned and
>> looked back at JFK. He said he almost turned back
>> far enough to see JFK, but could not quite see him.
>> And starting around Z162, Connally turns to his
>> right, and taking into account he could look another
>> 70 degrees to his right, he could have almost seen
>> JFK. There any frame after frame 170 to 200 shows
>> him facing right.
>
> But if someone is trying to see someone else they turn their head to
No, they don't. Connally said that he turned to TRY to see the President.
> face them. You cannot make out detail with peripheral vision. He said he
No one said anything about detail.
> was trying to see JFK but COULD NOT see him out of the corner of his
> eye. You are saying that he wanted to see him but could not see him
> because he was not turning his head relative to his shoulders! That is
> absurd, if you think about it.
>
The head leads the shoulders.
Silly.
> In the case of witnesses observing JFK after the first shot, there are
> many possible recollections that they could have if they were just
> guessing or really bad observers - which you seem to suggest they were.
> Let's assume they did not see JFK react - that he really smiled and
> waved to Mary Woodward after the first shot. There are many things - at
> least 5 wrong things - they could have said happened after the first
> shot. If they were all so bad in observing, why did they all have the
> same wrong observation? For that to happen by random chance, the odds
> are 1:5^21 = 1 in 477 trillion.
>
Silly.
> Sheriff�s office, which is on Main Street, half a building from the
> corner of Main and Houston, when he heard the first shot. �I ran
> at once to the corner of Houston and Main Street and out into the street
> when the second and third shots rang out�.