Myers Response to Holland's theory

[John McAdams]

http://jfkfiles.blogspot.com/2016/11/hollands-magic-bullet.html
.John
-----------------------
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/home.htm

[Ralph Cinque]

Here is how I treated it on the OIC blog:

http://oswaldinthedoorway.blogspot.com/2016/12/heres-gem.html

As I said, Max Holland is a pompous clown.

[Robert Harris]

Holland could be right. JFK's reactions captured in the
Towner film are certainly strange and he could have been
nicked by debris from a missed shot that hit the pavement.

But the 800 lb elephant that both Holland overlooks is, that
if a shot was fired then, it could only have come from a
suppressed weapon.

Like the shot at 223, no one heard it and it certainly didn't
provoke visible startle reactions by the limo passengers,
like we see following the shots at 285 and 313.

Kennedy's early reactions are indeed, strange. He began to
wave but within a fraction of a second, snapped his hand
back, balling it into a fist.

Then, following a sequence of missing frames, he can be seen
after he had fallen to his left and then straightened up. You
can see the reactions at the beginning of this presentation.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cvqCtaBkyyE&t=1741s





Robert Harris

[Jason Burke]

Unlike Chief Ralph Cinque, the Shining Light in JFKland.

[bigdog]

On Wednesday, December 7, 2016 at 12:02:39 AM UTC-5, Robert Harris wrote:
> Holland could be right. JFK's reactions captured in the
> Towner film are certainly strange and he could have been
> nicked by debris from a missed shot that hit the pavement.
>
> But the 800 lb elephant that both Holland overlooks is, that
> if a shot was fired then, it could only have come from a
> suppressed weapon.
>
> Like the shot at 223, no one heard it and it certainly didn't
> provoke visible startle reactions by the limo passengers,
> like we see following the shots at 285 and 313.
>

"The great and powerful Oz has spoken".

[Brian Roselle]

On Wednesday, December 7, 2016 at 12:02:39 AM UTC-5, Robert Harris wrote:

Awhile back I looked for testimony that included a land mark or photo
associated with it to better “anchor” the first shot
testimony in time/place. The reason I did this was in an effort to lower
the variability of the first shot testimonies. For example, testimony like
“the first shot happened just as the limo turned the corner and
was straightening out going down Elm” could be interpreted to be
in any location about half a block long from the corner all the way to the
Stemmons sign!

Using a subset of testimony that included anchor points, “anchored
testimony”, would be expected to still have some variability, but
should greatly reduce the variability of testimony from memory alone that
was not associated to a location or photo, and better hone in on the first
shot location.

The attached is a summary of anchored testimony I found using a variety of
perspectives/angles, and plots their line of sight/view at that time.
All these reported first shots were not only early, but definitely were
heard, and all except Willis at slide #5 were directly in front of the
TSBD, in a surprisingly tightly grouped bunch.

It does however look like the average limo location using these would have
put the limo in between the traffic light mast and the oak tree from the
perspective of the sixth floor sniper nest.

https://docs.google.com/viewer?a=v&pid=sites&srcid=ZGVmYXVsdGRvbWFpbnxianJtaXNjZGF0YXR8Z3g6ZDA3MzY2MDc4OGQwMTM

[Mark OBLAZNEY]

How could he be right? Ralph said he was a pompous clown, and who
believes that sort anyway?

[Ralph Cinque]

Harris: You think Holland may be right because of JFK's reactions? That
his reactions tell you that he may have been nicked by debris from a
missed shot?

You think that's how research works? That it's like Imagination Day at
Kindergarten?

Listen up, Harris: There is a place for speculation in research, but it
has to be firmly tethered to something real, something concrete, something
truly reliable. Your speculation doesn't come close to doing that. It's
just fanciful nonsense.

Clowns to the left of me, jokers to the right....

[bigdog]

Interesting although at best it just gives us a range. It doesn't tell us
precisely when the bullet was fired. I doubt we will ever know exactly
when that first shot was fired and whether it struck an intervening object
or was just simply a bad shot. It is as the title of the documentary
indicated The Lost Bullet.

[Jason Burke]

On 12/8/2016 1:17 PM, Ralph Cinque wrote:
> Harris: You think Holland may be right because of JFK's reactions? That
> his reactions tell you that he may have been nicked by debris from a
> missed shot?
>
> You think that's how research works? That it's like Imagination Day at
> Kindergarten?

No, Ralph. Everything you've *ever* posted IS Imagination Day at
Kindergarten.

[bigdog]

On Thursday, December 8, 2016 at 4:17:27 PM UTC-5, Ralph Cinque wrote:
> Harris: You think Holland may be right because of JFK's reactions? That
> his reactions tell you that he may have been nicked by debris from a
> missed shot?
>
> You think that's how research works? That it's like Imagination Day at
> Kindergarten?
>
> Listen up, Harris: There is a place for speculation in research, but it
> has to be firmly tethered to something real, something concrete, something
> truly reliable. Your speculation doesn't come close to doing that. It's
> just fanciful nonsense.
>
> Clowns to the left of me, jokers to the right....
>

Bob, it should tell you something when it is Ralph Cinque who has to set
you straight.

[Anthony Marsh]

The acoustical evidence does. Z-180.

> when that first shot was fired and whether it struck an intervening object
> or was just simply a bad shot. It is as the title of the documentary
> indicated The Lost Bullet.
>

Maybe it hit the moon. Maybe it hit little Ronnie Fuller.

[stevemg...@yahoo.com]

True, but when Ralph Cinque says that speculation has to be connected to
something substantive then the world has been turned upside down.

Hey, two Oswalds, two Cinques?

[Robert Harris]

> associated with it to better ???anchor??? the first shot
> testimony in time/place.

But testimony will not answer your question, Brian.

Even the WC has confirmed that "most" witnesses only heard
one of the shots fired prior to the very end of the attack,
when they heard two, fired close together..

Riding in the limo, Greer, Kellerman, Mrs. Connally, Jackie
and John Connally, ALL reported exactly the same thing, ONE
early shot, prior to the very end of the attack.

John Connally was the most definitive of those witnesses. He
HEARD the first audible shot, probably fired circa 150-160,
but only FELT the next one, which was fired at 223.

Suppressors were introduced in this country in 1909 and used
in both WW1 and WW2, by snipers on both sides.

At least one of the early shots came from a suppressed
weapon. There is just no other logical explanation.




Robert Harris

> The reason I did this was in an effort to lower
> the variability of the first shot testimonies. For example, testimony like

> ???the first shot happened just as the limo turned the corner and
> was straightening out going down Elm??? could be interpreted to be

> in any location about half a block long from the corner all the way to the
> Stemmons sign!
>

> Using a subset of testimony that included anchor points, ???anchored
> testimony???, would be expected to still have some variability, but

[Anthony Marsh]

Pointless point. No one claimed that silencers were never used in 1963.
Which rifle do you want them used on?

> At least one of the early shots came from a suppressed weapon. There is
> just no other logical explanation.
>

Yes, there is. Fouling shot.

[Brian Roselle]

Yes, I would agree with that, testimony alone probably wouldn’t be
enough to be convincing. I really did that study to see how that type of
testimony would align with the other study on analyzing voluntary reaction
time from early Zapruder film reactions to back calculate a stimulus
occurrence time.

>
> Even the WC has confirmed that "most" witnesses only heard
> one of the shots fired prior to the very end of the attack,
> when they heard two, fired close together..
>
> Riding in the limo, Greer, Kellerman, Mrs. Connally, Jackie
> and John Connally, ALL reported exactly the same thing, ONE
> early shot, prior to the very end of the attack.
>
> John Connally was the most definitive of those witnesses. He
> HEARD the first audible shot, probably fired circa 150-160,
> but only FELT the next one, which was fired at 223.
>
> Suppressors were introduced in this country in 1909 and used
> in both WW1 and WW2, by snipers on both sides.
>
> At least one of the early shots came from a suppressed
> weapon. There is just no other logical explanation.
>
> Robert Harris

As to the time spacing of shots two and three, I think this suffers from a
similar thing I worried about for the location of the first shot when
looking at just general first shot testimony (i.e. variability of
testimony). Without a given anchor point or a bench mark, there is no
definitive standard/reference/definition of how much people meant when
they said shot two and three were closer together. Although perceived
closer together, this could make it hard to conclude exactly how much they
were separated from the first shot.

Here is Governor Connallys opinion about what closeness in shot timing is:

Mr. SPECTER. What is your best estimate as to the timespan between the
first shot which you heard and the shot which you heretofore characterized
as the third shot?

Governor CONNALLY. It was a very brief span of time; oh, I would have to
say a matter of seconds. I don't know, 10, 12 seconds. It was extremely
rapid, so much so that again I thought that whoever was firing must be
firing with an automatic rifle because of the rapidity of the shots; a
very short period of time.

It appears that for Governor Connally, the spacing between the first shot
and the third (the two shots he heard), was 10 to 12 seconds apart and he
defined this as extremely rapid.

Independent of all this though, in looking at this post I thought of
another possible explanation for last two shots bunching closer together
in some testimony: if there is a tendency in human nature to associate
event timing closer together based on an awareness that the events you are
hearing are interrelated.

That is to say if the first explosion was not recognized or associated with a shot at all, but then awareness that subsequent explosions were shots, I wonder if there could be a natural bias to not associate the first noise as close to the latter ones, and only later when realizing the first noise may have been a shot, trying to redefine what it was and when it was heard might result in some regression back in time because it was not originally associated with the later ones.

I’m not sure this possibility has ever been studied, but I took a quick look at a couple of testimony examples I can recall along these lines.

Bonny Ray Williams, James Jarman, and Amos Euins. These all later said they thought the last two shots were closer together and first sound was not a gun, but rather a firecracker or motorcycle backfire. Realization started to set in during the second and third explosion that shooting was likely going on. Here are some testimony snippets.

Bonny Ray Williams:
And then the thing that happened then was a loud shot--first I thought they were saluting the President, somebody even maybe a motorcycle backfire. The first shot--there was two shots rather close together. The second and the third shot was closer together than the first shot and the second shot, as I remember.
the first shot-**I really did not pay any attention to it, because I did not know what was happening.**
Mr. DULLES. I have one question. You have referred to three explosions that--one you thought was a backfire or a firecracker.
Mr. WILLIAMS. Yes, sir.

James Jarman:
Mr. JARMAN - After the motorcade turned, going west on Elm, then there was a loud shot, or backfire, as I thought it was then--I thought it was a backfire.
Mr. BALL - You thought it was what?
Mr. JARMAN - A backfire or an officer giving a salute to the President. **And then at that time I didn't, you know, think too much about it.**
And then the second shot was fired, and that is when the people started falling on the ground and the motorcade car jumped forward, and then the third shot was fired right behind the second one.
Mr. BALL - Were you still on your knees looking up?
Mr. JARMAN - Well, after the third shot was fired, I think I got up and I run over to Harold Norman and Bonnie Ray Williams, and told them, I said, I told them that it wasn't a backfire or anything, that somebody was shooting at the President.

Amos Euins:
Mr. SPECTER. Amos, when you heard the first shot, did you have any reaction or impression as to where the noise was coming from at that exact time?
Mr. EUINS. No, sir; not at the exact time. You know, because everybody else started looking around. ** So I just started looking around, thinking it was a backfire, just like everyone else.**

Those three dismissed the first noise as inconsequential, and only later determined it was a shot and also fairly different in timing from the final two.

Now let’s look at two individuals where they said they had the first noise pegged as a shot right away. Win Lawson and Governor Connally. In this case both of these individuals were very certain of what they heard, a gunshot, and they effectively had the shots nearly spaced equally. Win Lawson did think the third shot was a little closer to the second shot than the second was to the first. Governor Connallys timing is by difference: putting the timing from shot one to three as at least about 10 seconds, and using Zapruder film evaluation of shot two to three being about 4.9 seconds. Like Win Lawson, this also would put the third shot just a little closer to the second shot than the second was to the first.

This data does tend to align with the hypothesis I mentioned, but obviously much more research would need to be done to discern a trend. There may even be other explanations, but this is at least one alternate explanation to some perceived shot spacing other than additional shooters stationed somewhere around the Plaza using silencers on guns.

[Anthony Marsh]

> Yes, I would agree with that, testimony alone probably wouldn???t be

> enough to be convincing. I really did that study to see how that type of
> testimony would align with the other study on analyzing voluntary reaction
> time from early Zapruder film reactions to back calculate a stimulus
> occurrence time.
>

How many frames?

I guess that's one way to interpret what he said. So you think an
automatic rifle takes 12 seconds to fire 2 shots. Well, at least he ruled
out a muzzle loader.

> Independent of all this though, in looking at this post I thought of
> another possible explanation for last two shots bunching closer together
> in some testimony: if there is a tendency in human nature to associate
> event timing closer together based on an awareness that the events you are
> hearing are interrelated.
>

Are you impressed with Connally's testimony?
So do you agree with him that Kennedy was hit first and then he was hit
at about frame 230?

> That is to say if the first explosion was not recognized or associated with a shot at all, but then awareness that subsequent explosions were shots, I wonder if there could be a natural bias to not associate the first noise as close to the latter ones, and only later when realizing the first noise may have been a shot, trying to redefine what it was and when it was heard might result in some regression back in time because it was not originally associated with the later ones.
>

> I???m not sure this possibility has ever been studied, but I took a quick look at a couple of testimony examples I can recall along these lines.

>
> Bonny Ray Williams, James Jarman, and Amos Euins. These all later said they thought the last two shots were closer together and first sound was not a gun, but rather a firecracker or motorcycle backfire. Realization started to set in during the second and third explosion that shooting was likely going on. Here are some testimony snippets.
>
> Bonny Ray Williams:
> And then the thing that happened then was a loud shot--first I thought they were saluting the President, somebody even maybe a motorcycle backfire. The first shot--there was two shots rather close together. The second and the third shot was closer together than the first shot and the second shot, as I remember.
> the first shot-**I really did not pay any attention to it, because I did not know what was happening.**
> Mr. DULLES. I have one question. You have referred to three explosions that--one you thought was a backfire or a firecracker.
> Mr. WILLIAMS. Yes, sir.
>
> James Jarman:
> Mr. JARMAN - After the motorcade turned, going west on Elm, then there was a loud shot, or backfire, as I thought it was then--I thought it was a backfire.
> Mr. BALL - You thought it was what?
> Mr. JARMAN - A backfire or an officer giving a salute to the President. **And then at that time I didn't, you know, think too much about it.**
> And then the second shot was fired, and that is when the people started falling on the ground and the motorcade car jumped forward, and then the third shot was fired right behind the second one.
> Mr. BALL - Were you still on your knees looking up?
> Mr. JARMAN - Well, after the third shot was fired, I think I got up and I run over to Harold Norman and Bonnie Ray Williams, and told them, I said, I told them that it wasn't a backfire or anything, that somebody was shooting at the President.
>
> Amos Euins:
> Mr. SPECTER. Amos, when you heard the first shot, did you have any reaction or impression as to where the noise was coming from at that exact time?
> Mr. EUINS. No, sir; not at the exact time. You know, because everybody else started looking around. ** So I just started looking around, thinking it was a backfire, just like everyone else.**
>
> Those three dismissed the first noise as inconsequential, and only later determined it was a shot and also fairly different in timing from the final two.
>

> Now let???s look at two individuals where they said they had the first noise pegged as a shot right away. Win Lawson and Governor Connally. In this case both of these individuals were very certain of what they heard, a gunshot, and they effectively had the shots nearly spaced equally. Win Lawson did think the third shot was a little closer to the second shot than the second was to the first. Governor Connallys timing is by difference: putting the timing from shot one to three as at least about 10 seconds, and using Zapruder film evaluation of shot two to three being about 4.9 seconds. Like Win Lawson, this also would put the third shot just a little closer to the second shot than the second was to the first.

[bigdog]

FWIW, a single Z-frame covers about 56 milliseconds. Here is a Wikipedia
article about reflex responses and another by David Reitzes.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Startle_response

http://jfkassassination.net/jfkhit.htm

Connally's description of the time span of the shots doesn't square with
his thought that it was an automatic rifle. Automatic rifles typically
fire at rates of 600 rounds per minute and upward. In 10 seconds they
could fire 100 rounds. He probably meant a semi-automatic rifle which
requires one squeeze of the trigger for every shot fired. Semi-autos
automatically eject the previous shell and load the next round into the
chamber using the expended gas from the previous shot. The only action
required by the shooter between shots is to re-aim and squeeze the
trigger. Bolt action and lever action rifles require the shooter to
manually eject the previous round and load the next round into the
chamber. Any of the three types of the rifles described could fire 3
rounds in the time span Connally estimated so his analysis was faulty.

What we know from looking at ALL the various witnesses who weighed in on
the spacing of shots is that there is no agreement among them. If they are
correct that there were 3 shots there are three possible spacings. Evenly
spaced, first and second closer together, and second and third closer
together. We have groups of witnesses that describe each of the scenarios.
What we know for certain is that two of the three groups got it wrong so
relying on witnesses to determine the spacing of the shots is folly. As to
why the various groups disagreed is anybody's guess. One possibility is
multiple sounds from the same shot. The other which you touched on is that
some didn't recognize the first sound as a gun shot which might affect
their judgement. The Z-films tells us there was almost 5 seconds between
the two shots which hit JFK. It doesn't tell us how many seconds earlier
that first shot was fired. My best guess is just under 4 seconds, the key
word being "guess".

[Brian Roselle]

The voluntary reaction time study put the first shot at a theoretical z124
(half a second before z133).

The anchored testimony study mentioned in this thread included looking at
two scenarios in with five other data points, one with Willis slide #5 as
a result of the first shot and alternately Willis slide #4 as a result of
the first shot.

If using Willis slide #5 in the data, the average location of the limo at
the first shot appeared to be around z139 (15 frames different than the
voluntary reaction time study).

If using Willis slide #4 in the data, the average location of the limo at
the first shot appeared to be about at a theoretical z124 (basically
identical to the results of the voluntary reaction time study).

I do agree with you that the automatic rifle statement doesn’t
sound like a good description, but it’s just what he said at that
point.

>
> > Independent of all this though, in looking at this post I thought of
> > another possible explanation for last two shots bunching closer together
> > in some testimony: if there is a tendency in human nature to associate
> > event timing closer together based on an awareness that the events you are
> > hearing are interrelated.
> >
>
> Are you impressed with Connally's testimony?
> So do you agree with him that Kennedy was hit first and then he was hit
> at about frame 230?

I think that Conanlly could have memory errors or lapses after going
through that chaotic and horrifying experience. I am very cautious in
taking everything he says as being absolutely accurate. An example is
your z230 point. Personally, in analyzing the Zapruder film with high
resolution and using computers 50+ years after the fact, I think that
between z221 and z222 is a better estimate as to when a bullet reached the
limo and he got hit, not z230.

[Brian Roselle]

Those links and your discussion seem pretty good to me overall.

Just a couple of quick points related to the subjects on the links:

Typically studies report involuntary startle reaction time using
latencies. This is the average time to when the onset occurs. I think
many people have used these numbers as the reaction time you see something
happening. Nothing is seen at these time, they are latency times for
muscle groups. There are onset times, peak times and offset times to the
motions that follow. For the startle, one sees these kinetic motions after
latency. This is just a minor detail for folks using clinical numbers for
startle reaction time. The differences aren’t that huge, but
I’ve seen it said that a startle reaction is readily observed in
individual’s in 40-60 ms, (a latency for eye muscles) that is too
fast I believe. To keep it simple I generally just use a quarter second
(250 ms) or so for observing startle reactions.

And for voluntary reactions, separate from or following a startle, the
reaction time is typically significantly longer and dependent on the
awareness level of the stimulus happening.

[Anthony Marsh]

Of course not. I think he was exaggerating slightly. He did not time the
spacing. It was a general impression.

> fire at rates of 600 rounds per minute and upward. In 10 seconds they
> could fire 100 rounds. He probably meant a semi-automatic rifle which
> requires one squeeze of the trigger for every shot fired. Semi-autos

Exactly. Are YOU the very first person to figure that out?
SHould we credit you with that discovery?

> automatically eject the previous shell and load the next round into the
> chamber using the expended gas from the previous shot. The only action
> required by the shooter between shots is to re-aim and squeeze the
> trigger. Bolt action and lever action rifles require the shooter to
> manually eject the previous round and load the next round into the
> chamber. Any of the three types of the rifles described could fire 3
> rounds in the time span Connally estimated so his analysis was faulty.

I don't think he had time to analyze it. It was a first impression.

[Anthony Marsh]

It's just just Connally's memory. He studied much better Zapruder frames
than we were allowed to see. The WC agreed with him about frame 230.

[bigdog]

The doctor who testified at the ABA mock trial estimated the startle
response by JFK and JBC would be 200 milliseconds which is slightly less
that four frames. Similar to what you are using. The problem is the Z-film
is a poor tool for measuring events which are typically measured in
milliseconds. For the sake of argument let's say the 200 millisecond
estimate is fairly accurate. The simultaneous reactions by JFK and JBC
seen in Z226 could be in response to an event which occurred late in the
exposure of Z222, early in Z223, or in the brief gap between frames when
no exposure was being made. That is about as precise as we can get given
what we have to work with. If one really wants to quibble, JFK and JBC
were struck a few milliseconds apart but given the degree of precision
which is possible with the Z-film, for all intents and purposes we can say
they were hit simultaneously.

> And for voluntary reactions, separate from or following a startle, the
> reaction time is typically significantly longer and dependent on the
> awareness level of the stimulus happening.

There are reflexive response times which are pretty much automatic and
cognitive ones which are more deliberate. Connally's head turn at Z164 was
likely a cognitive one in response to hearing the first shot. What we
don't know is how quickly his reaction was in response to the shot. Did he
turn he instant he heard the shot or was there a pause where he said to
himself, "Hey, that sounded like a rifle", and then he turned his head.
That's one of the things that makes it so hard to pinpoint the instant the
first shot was fired. There are judgement calls to be made and for most of
them there is more than one reasonable judgement.