The Dealey Plaza Earwitnesses
David Von Pein
bobr
> http://JFK-Archives.blogspot.com/2010/09/dealey-plaza-earwitnesses.html
Most people did hear 3 shots, but they were not the same three shots.
It depended on where they were located.
The 3rd and 4th shots were separated by about one quarter of a
second( 5 zapruder frames). The last two shots were designed to be
fired simultaneously for that very reason.
pjsp...@aol.com
> http://JFK-Archives.blogspot.com/2010/09/dealey-plaza-earwitnesses.html
Oy vey. You forget to take into account that many if not most of the
witnesses were not expecting a sound and did not know where the first
sound came from, and that many of them, such as Zapruder, identified
the likely source of the shots by what they heard and witnessed during
the second burst of gunfire.
As a result your argument that shots couldn't have come from two
locations, because so few said as much, falls on deaf ears.
Now, try and explain why so many said the last two shots were bang-
bang!
David Von Pein
>>> "Most people did hear 3 shots, but they were not the same three shots.
It depended on where they were located." <<<
My, my. How very fortunate for the conspirators who were framing Lee
Oswald.
David Von Pein
>>> "You forget to take into account that many if not most of the
witnesses were not expecting a sound and did not know where the first
sound came from, and that many of them, such as Zapruder, identified the
likely source of the shots by what they heard and witnessed during the
second burst of gunfire. As a result your argument that shots couldn't
have come from two locations, because so few said as much, falls on deaf
ears." <<<
Not at all. More than 75% of the witnesses said they heard THREE
SHOTS. Not two, or four, or one. But THREE.
And nearly all of those SAME witnesses said that all of those shots
came from just ONE DIRECTION.
This is easy math, Pat. Especially when factoring in what we see in
CE510:
http://history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh17/html/WH_Vol17_0124a.htm
HistorianDetective
> http://JFK-Archives.blogspot.com/2010/09/dealey-plaza-earwitnesses.html
Interesting on the one hand you are telling me that eye and ear witness
testimony is unreliable, yet on the other you are telling me to rely on
statistical analysis of a relatively small number of observations (from
those very same unreliable witnesses).
Perplexing.
JM/HD
David Von Pein
>>> "Interesting on the one hand you are telling me that eye and ear witness testimony is unreliable, yet on the other you are telling me to rely on statistical analysis of a relatively small number of observations (from those very same unreliable witnesses)." <<<
Yeah, but when you get over 100 people pretty much agreeing (almost
100%) on the following two things, these stats then become a bit more
reliable, wouldn't you agree? .....
NUMBER OF SHOTS FIRED -- 3 (OR FEWER).
NUMBER OF DIRECTIONS SHOTS WERE FIRED FROM -- 1.
Anthony Marsh
> On Sep 10, 10:52 pm, David Von Pein<davevonp...@aol.com> wrote:
>> http://JFK-Archives.blogspot.com/2010/09/dealey-plaza-earwitnesses.html
>
> Oy vey. You forget to take into account that many if not most of the
> witnesses were not expecting a sound and did not know where the first
> sound came from, and that many of them, such as Zapruder, identified
> the likely source of the shots by what they heard and witnessed during
> the second burst of gunfire.
>
Maybe the first shot was not as loud as the others.
Anthony Marsh
Great, so why do you need forensics at all? No need for an autopsy. Just
take a poll. You want to convict people based on how many witnesses said
what?
David Von Pein
>>> "Great, so why do you need forensics at all? No need for an autopsy. Just take a poll. You want to convict people based on how many witnesses said what?" <<<
Yeah, right Tony. I've never talked about anything but the Dealey
witnesses, have I? I'm basing my entire "LN" conclusion on ONLY those
witnesses, right?
~eyeroll~
And you're one to talk about "no need for an autopsy". You CTers
totally ignore the autopsy of President Kennedy. You have for 40+
years. You've GOT to ignore it. Otherwise, JFK was definitely hit only
twice, and only from behind. And no CTer would ever admit that in a
thousand years. (Except perhaps Pat Speer--partially.)
Anthony Marsh
>
>
>>>> "Great, so why do you need forensics at all? No need for an autopsy. Just take a poll. You want to convict people based on how many witnesses said what?"<<<
>
> Yeah, right Tony. I've never talked about anything but the Dealey
> witnesses, have I? I'm basing my entire "LN" conclusion on ONLY those
> witnesses, right?
>
I never said ENTIRE conclusions, but you are basing your opinion about
the number and spacing of shot entirely on an opinion poll.
> ~eyeroll~
>
> And you're one to talk about "no need for an autopsy". You CTers
Do I need to use emoticons for you to understand what is sarcasm?
Of course I believe in autopsies. But proper and legal autopsies, not
cover-ups by government lackeys.
> totally ignore the autopsy of President Kennedy. You have for 40+
I cite the autopsy all the time and we learned a lot from it. We learned
that the cover-up started very early.
> years. You've GOT to ignore it. Otherwise, JFK was definitely hit only
> twice, and only from behind. And no CTer would ever admit that in a
> thousand years. (Except perhaps Pat Speer--partially.)
>
No, the autopsy doctors botched it, maybe intentionally.
You seem to want to believe them despite the fact that every forensic
pathologist who has reviewed their work agrees that they botched it.
If the entrance wound was NOT where Humes et al said it was, your case
falls apart. It would have been thrown out of court.
>
pjsp...@aol.com
You are stretching it to say that these witnesses said that all of the
shots came from one direction. Reread the statements and testimony.
Count how many said they had a clear idea from where the first shot
was fired, and that the last two shots were fired from this same
place. Very few said this.
And while you're at it, count how many witnesses standing in front of
the TSBD thought the shots were fired from the TSBD. It was less than
half.
David Von Pein
>>> "You are basing your opinion about the number and spacing of shot entirely on an opinion poll." <<<
Wrong.
I guess Tony missed it when I posted CE510 in an earlier post:
http://history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh17/html/WH_Vol17_0124a.htm
>>> "The autopsy doctors botched it, maybe intentionally. You seem to want to believe them despite the fact that every forensic pathologist who has reviewed their work agrees that they botched it." <<<
And Tony Marsh wants to conveniently forget that every one of those
forensic pathologists (14 in total, not counting the 3 autopsy
surgeons) has come to the exact same conclusion about the President's
wounds after reviewing the medical evidence (regardless of whether
Humes, Finck, and Boswell "botched" the autopsy or not), with that
conclusion being:
JFK was shot twice, with both shots coming from behind.
Why do so many conspiracy mongers totally ignore those 14 pathologists?
claviger
Pat,
There were earwitnesses inside the building too. Some of them were
convinced the shots came from the building, others were not sure. Also,
eyewitnesses in the plaza saw a man shooting from the 6th floor window. At
least one of the porters on the 5th floor was convinced three shots came
from above his head. He was close enough to hear the bolt action and empty
hulls hit the floor. Therefore, these eyewitnesses corroborate the
earwitnesses whose auricular perception indicated the TSBD.
To show how significant the echoes and reverberations were Bowers, who
knew the plaza very well, thought the shots either came from the Triple
Underpass or the TSBD. So we can understand if a large number of witnesses
got it wrong. Bowers and Sitzman are two important eyewitnesses who were
well placed in an elevated position to observe the GK and saw no person
with a weapon firing on the motorcade or fleeing the scene with weapon in
hand. Neither one of these two witnesses had the impression any shots came
from the GK.
Given the significant echo factor we would expect some witnesses to get it
wrong. The eyewitnesses tell us which group got it right. They provide
confirmation the majority of earwitnesses were correct the shots came from
the TSBD behind the Limousine. Two witnesses recall all the shots came
from the same window.
Anthony Marsh
Guess what? The acoustical evidence also corroborates the three shots
from the sniper's nest. No more, no less. Exactly three. Coincidence?
Anthony Marsh
And you think the entrance wound being mislocated by 4 inches by the
autopsy doctors does not matter? As long as Kennedy was hit SOMEWHERE?
Anthony Marsh
> On Sep 11, 8:57 pm, David Von Pein<davevonp...@aol.com> wrote:
>>>>> "You forget to take into account that many if not most of the
>>
>> witnesses were not expecting a sound and did not know where the first
>> sound came from, and that many of them, such as Zapruder, identified the
>> likely source of the shots by what they heard and witnessed during the
>> second burst of gunfire. As a result your argument that shots couldn't
>> have come from two locations, because so few said as much, falls on deaf
>> ears."<<<
>>
>> Not at all. More than 75% of the witnesses said they heard THREE
>> SHOTS. Not two, or four, or one. But THREE.
>>
>> And nearly all of those SAME witnesses said that all of those shots
>> came from just ONE DIRECTION.
>>
>> This is easy math, Pat. Especially when factoring in what we see in
>> CE510:
>>
>> http://history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh17/html/WH_Vol17_0...
>
> You are stretching it to say that these witnesses said that all of the
> shots came from one direction. Reread the statements and testimony.
Go back to Six Seconds in Dallas.
> Count how many said they had a clear idea from where the first shot
> was fired, and that the last two shots were fired from this same
> place. Very few said this.
>
> And while you're at it, count how many witnesses standing in front of
> the TSBD thought the shots were fired from the TSBD. It was less than
> half.
>
Location could be a factor.
claviger
> http://JFK-Archives.blogspot.com/2010/09/dealey-plaza-earwitnesses.html
David,
There's a major contradiction between key eyewitnesses and the
majority of earwitnesses. A diverse group of eyewitness report seeing
and hearing a missed shot before JFK and JBC are wounded. These
witnesses are convinced the second shot hit the President in the back.
All seem to agree the third shot caused the devastating head injury.
With the help of the Zapruder film we can almost pinpoint the second
shot and third shots at z224 and z313. The Z-film speed ratio was 18.3
frames per second. That allows 89 frames between the second and third
shot, for a time lapse of 4.9 seconds. Is 5 seconds too long a gap to
give the auricular perception of two shots on top of each other, as in
bam-bam? I would think so. The longest time span should be 1 second to
give that impression, requiring a shot somewhere around z295.
To further complicate the situation, the relative time spacing
reported by earwitnesses comparing the first two shots and second two
shots requires a very early first shot miss somewhere around z130.
Some researchers believe the first shot missed the Limousine between
z160-190. If so, that is a problem in reconciling the auricular
perception by the majority of earwitnesses.
The baffling question is why did so many hear the "bam-bam" last two
shots and yet the Z-film does not support that perception? There are
only two scientific explanations but both require a lost first sound
by the majority of earwitnesses. The first obvious explanation is the
majority heard a shot-echo combination. That means they really only
heard two shots not three. If they did hear a first shot miss it did
not register in their memory perception.
The other scientific explanation is the first shot hit the President
in the back and two shots came around frame z313. However, there are
some obvious problems with that explanation. A number of witnesses
report hearing and seeing a first shot miss, the TSBD witnesses on the
fifth floor, and the eyewitnesses who saw a man shooting from the 6th
floor window.
Is it possible that so many witnesses reacted to the first loud pop as
a non lethal firecracker they mentally did not count it as a gunshot,
whereas the second two loud sounds plus echo were perceived as
gunshots? So there were 3 shots and one loud echo but the majority of
witnesses did not mentally connect the first loud sound to the next
three sounds.
So many witnesses report having no sense of danger at the first loud
pop. Does their memory disassociate the first sound with the later
sudden recognition of danger associated with the last group of sounds?
Somehow that doesn't seem possible, but studies have proved a sudden
unexpected situation can cause confusion in remembering details of
that experience.
markusp
> With the help of the Zapruder film we can almost pinpoint the second
> shot and third shots at z224 and z313.
Respectfully, z224 provides compelling visual evidence of when
Connally received his transiting chest wound. As for JFK receiving a
bullet in his back at the same frame, warranted speculation exists
that JFK received the back wound sooner than that, possibly while
concealed behind the Stemmons sign.
> Is 5 seconds too long a gap to
> give the auricular perception of two shots on top of each other, as in
> bam-bam? I would think so. The longest time span should be 1 second to
> give that impression, requiring a shot somewhere around z295.
I've long wondered the same thing --- what is the delay between
impulses that allows the listener to differentiate shots, versus
recalling them as a single shot? I selected a .wav file with a rifle
being shot outdoors. In Adobe Premier Pro (video editing software), I
then placed the sound at different intervals, starting with spacing
shots 1/16th of a second apart, then listening to it. Subsequently, I
increased the time between shots, up to 1 second apart. Unfortunately,
with all of my experience in film, video, and audio, I was able to
discern each one separately. I suppose this was because I knew ahead
of time what I would be hearing. My point here is that I would expect
different results from different people. Your estimate of up to 1
second seems a bit long.
> The baffling question is why did so many hear the "bam-bam" last two
> shots and yet the Z-film does not support that perception?
Again, it depends on the individual. By the second shot, people had
recognized the sound as gunfire, and this is what they recall more
vividly. Also, even if the head shot sequence contained a salvo of
gunshots, the shot spacing would again be too close to observe
earwitness reactions that demonstrate discernability.
> only two scientific explanations but both require a lost first sound
> by the majority of earwitnesses.
There may be other explanations. All of the shots need not be audible.
If any type of suppression was employed, then attempting to reconcile
visual evidence with clearly audible gunfire will yield inconsistent
results.
> Is it possible that so many witnesses reacted to the first loud pop as
> a non lethal firecracker they mentally did not count it as a gunshot,
> whereas the second two loud sounds plus echo were perceived as
> gunshots?
Quite possible, and very likely.
> So many witnesses report having no sense of danger at the first loud
> pop. Does their memory disassociate the first sound with the later
> sudden recognition of danger associated with the last group of sounds?
Yes.
> Somehow that doesn't seem possible, but studies have proved a sudden
> unexpected situation can cause confusion in remembering details of
> that experience.
Yes, although it's relative to the experience. An unexpected situation
isn't necessarily one where you find yourself surrounded by gunfire.
When the sense of danger is recognized, the Fight-or-Flight response
can also tweak the senses, but again it sure doesn't translate into
accuracy when providing testimony.
~Mark
Anthony Marsh
> On Sep 11, 12:52 am, David Von Pein<davevonp...@aol.com> wrote:
>> http://JFK-Archives.blogspot.com/2010/09/dealey-plaza-earwitnesses.html
> David,
>
> There's a major contradiction between key eyewitnesses and the
> majority of earwitnesses. A diverse group of eyewitness report seeing
> and hearing a missed shot before JFK and JBC are wounded. These
> witnesses are convinced the second shot hit the President in the back.
> All seem to agree the third shot caused the devastating head injury.
>
> With the help of the Zapruder film we can almost pinpoint the second
> shot and third shots at z224 and z313. The Z-film speed ratio was 18.3
> frames per second. That allows 89 frames between the second and third
> shot, for a time lapse of 4.9 seconds. Is 5 seconds too long a gap to
> give the auricular perception of two shots on top of each other, as in
> bam-bam? I would think so. The longest time span should be 1 second to
> give that impression, requiring a shot somewhere around z295.
>
The 5 second gap is corroborated by the fact that Oswald's gun jammed
and the timing on the DPD tape.
claviger
> Respectfully, z224 provides compelling visual evidence of when
> Connally received his transiting chest wound. As for JFK receiving a
> bullet in his back at the same frame, warranted speculation exists
> that JFK received the back wound sooner than that, possibly while
> concealed behind the Stemmons sign.
Howard Donahue speculated a fragment from the first missed shot struck the
President who physically and verbally reacted to this flesh wound.
According to Donahue the President was already in the posture of raising
his arms when the second bullet penetrated the upper back and exited his
throat.
> Your estimate of up to 1 second seems a bit long.
I agree. That estimate was being generous to the witnesses. It's the
longest time gap I can imagine and still have witnesses perceive it as
back-to-back. One second would also be too fast for LHO to recycle his
bolt action and fire another shot, therefore a second weapon must be
involved.
> Again, it depends on the individual. By the second shot, people had
> recognized the sound as gunfire, and this is what they recall more
> vividly. Also, even if the head shot sequence contained a salvo of
> gunshots, the shot spacing would again be too close to observe
> earwitness reactions that demonstrate discernability.
Some witnesses gave testimony that could possibly indicate that kind of
discernability: S M Holland, A J Millican, R G Skelton, J C Price, J R
Worrell, and perhaps Jean Hill. Contrary to those witness perceptions were
experienced riflemen J E Romack, C F Brehm, and J B Connally.
> There may be other explanations. All of the shots need not be audible.
> If any type of suppression was employed, then attempting to reconcile
> visual evidence with clearly audible gunfire will yield inconsistent
> results.
True, and some CTs believe a silenced weapon was involved. However, why so
many witnesses heard the audible sounds differently is a curious subset of
the overall experience.
claviger
This is a small subset of earwitnesses. These six eyewitnesses saw the
rifle in the sixth floor window and heard it go off. Here is their
impression of how many shots were fired:
H L BRENNAN 2 shots
R H JACKSON 3 shots
MRS E CABELL 3 shots
J N CRAWFORD 3 shots
A L EUINS 4 shots
J R WORRELL 4 shots
They were next to the building and heard the shots from close
proximity. With such a small group of earwitnesses there is a
surprising lack of agreement on how many shots were fired.
Another witness close to the building, A L ROWLAND, mentions the
significant echo effect which made it difficult to locate where the
shots were coming from.
Anthony Marsh
> Mark,
>
>> Respectfully, z224 provides compelling visual evidence of when
>> Connally received his transiting chest wound. As for JFK receiving a
>> bullet in his back at the same frame, warranted speculation exists
>> that JFK received the back wound sooner than that, possibly while
>> concealed behind the Stemmons sign.
>
> Howard Donahue speculated a fragment from the first missed shot struck the
> President who physically and verbally reacted to this flesh wound.
> According to Donahue the President was already in the posture of raising
> his arms when the second bullet penetrated the upper back and exited his
> throat.
>
How did this bullet get through his hands up in front of his throat
without damaging them?
Dave Yandell
Howard Donahue's theory was a load of libelous crap. It rested largely
on a gunsmith deciding that he knew wound forensics better than
forensic pathologists did.
It is conclusively refuted by the Bronson film, in which Hickey can be
seen NOT shooting JFK in the head at the time of the head shot.
St. Martin's Press found this out to their major chagrin when they had
to make an out of court payment to settle the libel suit based on the
widespread recycling of Donahue's garbage in buff compendia, smut
magazines, and other fine sources. (Hickey's lawyers had missed the 1-
year statute of limitations deadline for the suit on the book itself,
but the case was reinstated based on the book's having been the source
for more recent defamations.)
It is shocking to see anyone still peddling this load of codswallop.
Anthony Marsh
I suspect that certain people do not really believe it but just
promote it to stir up trouble and disrupt newsgroups.
claviger
I only mentioned Donahue’s theory of a physical reaction to the first
shot, which could be completely accurate separate from the rest of his
theory. It was simply a comment in passing and not meant to change the
topic of this conversation, since there is a recent thread devoted to
this carefully researched theory. However, I relish the opportunity to
discuss the Donahue theory under any circumstances so why don’t we
continue this conversation on that thread?
The Donahue Theory
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.assassination.jfk/browse_thread/thread/dfde25ab5868b042#