1963: 11 Seconds in Dallas

137 views
Skip to first unread message

John McAdams

unread,
Feb 17, 2007, 1:33:42 AM2/17/07
to
On the History News Network, an essay from Max Holland and Johann Rush
that puts the first shot in Dealey Plaza much *earlier* than anybody
else has.

http://hnn.us/articles/35445.html

.John

The Kennedy Assassination Home Page
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/home.htm

Andrew Mason

unread,
Feb 17, 2007, 9:53:31 AM2/17/07
to
John McAdams wrote:


Further comments: This is an extension of Posner's early shot theory and
the authors make the same errors in looking at the witness evidence of
an early shot as Posner did.

For example, they acknowledge that TE Moore was a very good witness
pointing to a 1998 interview in which he said that JFK was opposite a
highway marker. They interpret that, as did Posner, as a reference to a
signpost in the concrete at the corner almost in front of the front door
of the TSBD. There are two problems with this because Moore gave a
statement on January 10, 1964 to the FBI saying that the sign was the
Thorton Freeway sign (which the president is opposite at around
z200-205), AND Moore said that JFK appeared to be hit by the shot!
The statement reads:

"By the time President KENNEDY had reached the Thornton Freeway sign, a
shot was fired and Mr. MOORE observed the President slumping forward in
the Presidential car." See CE2102, 24 H 543
http://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh24/pdf/WH24_CE_2102.pdf


So not only is this not an early shot, it was not a miss! (Many others
put the first shot in that same location and said JFK reacted to it, so
Moore's statement fits with the rest of the witness evidence).

They ignore Betzner's evidence that the first shot occurred just after
his z186 shot, Phil Willis' evidence that it occurred at the instant of
his z202 shot or that Zapruder said the first shot occurred as the car
was about half way down from the corner to where he was. Connally said
it was about 150-200 feet down Elm. All the witnesses in the VP car said
they had turned the corner and were going down Elm. The car is still
turning at z180 and isn't even at the corner when these authors say the
first shot occurred. All occupants of the VP follow-up car say it
occurred when their car was in its turn. It is still on Houston in z160
let alone z107. And they ignore the fact that at least 16 witnesses said
that JFK reacted to the first shot by moving left and/or slumping
forward or bringing his hands to his neck while none said they observed
that he kept on waving as we see in the zfilm from z133 to z204.

But they got the shot pattern evidence right, so I can't be too hard on
these guys.

Andrew Mason


Andrew Mason

unread,
Feb 17, 2007, 9:54:07 AM2/17/07
to
John McAdams wrote:

Now this is interesting. He posits this theory because believes so many
witnesses can't possibly be mistaken about the shot pattern. And of
course he is right about what this means to the first shot if there was
a shot at z224. If there was a shot at z224 the first shot had to be
before Zapruder started filming the limo, which I have said many times!!
- its just math. My point is that that conclusion is not tenable so the
shot at z224 has to be reassessed. Besides, 4 seconds (224-313) is
hardly "rapid succession" as many recalled.

Andrew Mason

David Von Pein

unread,
Feb 17, 2007, 9:54:39 AM2/17/07
to
An interesting theory.

Although such an early first shot would mean that John Connally's
"first-shot right turn" (which IMO begins at about Z164) would have
occurred approx. 3 to 4 seconds after he heard the first shot. ....

"We had gone, I guess, 150 feet, maybe 200 feet, I don't recall how
far it was, heading down to get on the freeway....we had just made the
turn, well, when I heard what I thought was a shot. I heard this noise
which I immediately took to be a rifle shot. I instinctively turned to
my right because the sound appeared to come from over my right
shoulder."

~~~~~~~

In one breath Connally says "150-200 feet"; but then says "we had just
made the turn". So we have a choice there. Hard to know. Although
Connally might consider two-thirds of a football field in distance the
same as "just {after making} the turn". It's a subjective thing I
suppose.

Of course, a first shot occurring when the limo was practically in the
Elm/Houston intersection probably wouldn't go over too well with the
many witnesses who claim that JFK was HIT by that first shot and threw
his hands up to his throat almost immediately after being hit with
that shot.

Such a "first-shot hit" to Kennedy would mean an absurdly-lengthy
delay for JFK to react to the "hit" -- about 6 to 7 seconds. As it is,
a "hit" to JFK at Z190-Z200 (as many CTers believe) equates to a still-
too-long (IMO) delay in an initial JFK reaction of 2 seconds or so.

Plus, any type of "first shot hit JFK" theory (with the shot coming 11
seconds prior to the Z313 head shot, should any CTer wish to combine
some elements of this new theory with their own theories) is utterly
impossible anyway, given the fact we can see (via the Z-Film) that JFK
has definitely NOT been hit as of Z187, because he's still smiling and
waving in the Z180s.

My gut instinct is still telling me, though, that the Z160 first-shot
timeline is closer to being correct -- based on Connally's
"immediately" recognizing this shot as a rifle shot and his reaction
of "instinctively" turning to his right as a result of this shot at
approx. Z164 and also based on the "Rifle Always Pointing Southwest"
manner in which Oswald pre-arranged those rifle-rest boxes in the
window.

IMO, Oswald placed those boxes in that window in such a manner so that
he had every intention from the get-go of ONLY shooting at the
President after the car was well onto Elm Street....which also makes
sense from the standpoint that the SS agents would, by that time, all
have their backs to the assassin, making quick return fire very
difficult.

Plus: What about Tague's injury? Is the "traffic pole" shot supposed
to also double as the Tague shot?

I know a lot of people favor the idea that a head-shot fragment hit
James Tague by the Underpass. But I just can't totally buy into that
theory. That bullet was darn-near completely spent by the time it
reached the windshield (which a large fragment couldn't even
penetrate).

I just find it hard to believe that a fragment would have enough
energy after striking JFK's head to get out to Tague's position on
Main Street, chip that curb, and then send shards up to draw blood on
Tague's cheek.

I don't completely rule out that possibility....but I favor the "first-
shot miss at Z160 hit Tague" theory. It just makes more sense in the
long run to me. YMMV.

Anyway, the "traffic pole" theory is an intriguing one. However, the
official WC Exhibit (CE886; linked below) doesn't seem to show any
obstruction in the shooter's line of sight. Of course, if the picture
had been snapped a second or so on either side of this "A" position in
CE886, perhaps the "traffic pole" would be in the picture. .....

http://216.122.129.112/dc/user_files/4662.jpg

http://history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh18/html/WH_Vol18_0050a.htm


Here's a really good view of what Oswald would have had in his way
(obstruction-wise) if he had fired a shot while the car was near the
intersection of Elm & Houston (this is CE875, part of the SS album of
photos during the SS re-staging of events in December 1963):

http://i15.tinypic.com/48cnaqr.jpg

http://history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh17/html/WH_Vol17_0453b.htm


James K. Olmstead

unread,
Feb 17, 2007, 2:30:10 PM2/17/07
to
Several problems are not addressed in the article.

1. One major problem being "other" photos/film footage*, that shows the limo
at the same point (as indicated by article, of the limo) and the 6th floor window,
which does NOT show a "shooter" in the 6th floor window.

*I do not know off hand the film and photos........by "name" but I'm sure
those who have studied the available material can provide the examples.

The article avoids any mention of these other photos or films.

2. Due to the trajectory need to fire a shot at this point the shooter would be
exposed, the rifle extending outside* of the window between the boxes
and the window edge.

*Take a look at the tripod mounted camera rifle photo, used for the recreation
sequence and traverse the barrel to face the "sign post/limo" at this point and
about half of the rifle would be extended outside the window.

Exam of all photos and films taken and examined do not show any object that
remotely resembles the muzzle of the rifle extending outside the window.

See Hughes study by HSCA as the major effort to consider the rifles muzzle
position.

3. Position A.........is only a starting point for ALL possible shooting sequences.

There has to be a starting point for all sequence considerations.

4. There is NO physical evidence supporting this as being the first shot position.
Photographic evidence counters the consideration of a shooter firing at this
time.

5. A shot fired at this time would require major adjustment by the shooter to
re-position himself for the second and third shots.

6. The conflict surrounding the two large fragments* recovered from the limo,
along with CE 399, has a major impact on the consideration of ANY MISSED SHOT.

One has to prove beyond any and all doubt that the nose fragment and the base
fragment recovered are the same bullet, for any missed shot consideration.

No mention of this conflict is included in the article. That conflict needs to be
resolved before any consideration of a missed shot can be made.

jko

"John McAdams" <john.m...@marquette.edu> wrote in message news:45d6a17b...@mcadams.posc.mu.edu...

Anthony Marsh

unread,
Feb 17, 2007, 2:30:28 PM2/17/07
to
Andrew Mason wrote:
> John McAdams wrote:
>
>> On the History News Network, an essay from Max Holland and Johann Rush
>> that puts the first shot in Dealey Plaza much *earlier* than anybody
>> else has.
>>
>> http://hnn.us/articles/35445.html
>>
>> .John
>>
>> The Kennedy Assassination Home Page
>> http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/home.htm
> Now this is interesting. He posits this theory because believes so many
> witnesses can't possibly be mistaken about the shot pattern. And of
> course he is right about what this means to the first shot if there was
> a shot at z224. If there was a shot at z224 the first shot had to be
> before Zapruder started filming the limo, which I have said many times!!

No, your math is off.

Anthony Marsh

unread,
Feb 17, 2007, 2:31:07 PM2/17/07
to

Coincidentally, Z-160 just happens to be where the HSCA's interpretation
of the acoustical evidence places the first shot.

r2bz...@sbcglobal.net

unread,
Feb 17, 2007, 2:33:56 PM2/17/07
to
> http://history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh18/html/WH_Vol18_0...

>
> Here's a really good view of what Oswald would have had in his way
> (obstruction-wise) if he had fired a shot while the car was near the
> intersection of Elm & Houston (this is CE875, part of the SS album of
> photos during the SS re-staging of events in December 1963):
>
> http://i15.tinypic.com/48cnaqr.jpg
>
> http://history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh17/html/WH_Vol17_0...


***The staged convertible on upper Elm photo.

Imagine this as being the presidential limo, with the Secret Service
follow car right behind. The follow car would have been seemingly
beside the wall of the reflecting pool.
This would likely have been the point at which or moment just after
which
Oswald would likely have felt it safe to position himself to fire at
the limo.
>From this point, at the speed at which the limo was traveling, would
JFK been
behind the tree? Would it have been practical that he be ready to
take a shot
prior to the tree?


As for the shard that hit Mr. Tague, no one has bothered to do a test
of ricochetting bullets off a street at assumed angles that a missed
first shot or missed second shot would likely have hit the pavement or
a tree branch, then the pavement. Would such a bullet fragment? If
so, in what manner?

***Ron Judge


cdddraftsman

unread,
Feb 17, 2007, 2:34:30 PM2/17/07
to
On Feb 17, 6:54 am, "David Von Pein" <davevonp...@aol.com> wrote:
> http://history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh18/html/WH_Vol18_0...

>
> Here's a really good view of what Oswald would have had in his way
> (obstruction-wise) if he had fired a shot while the car was near the
> intersection of Elm & Houston (this is CE875, part of the SS album of
> photos during the SS re-staging of events in December 1963):
>
> http://i15.tinypic.com/48cnaqr.jpg
>
> http://history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh17/html/WH_Vol17_0...

DVP hit the nail on the head :

" My gut instinct is still telling me, though, that the Z160
first-shot timeline is closer to being correct -- based on
Connally's "immediately" recognizing this shot as a rifle
shot and his reaction of "instinctively" turning to his right
as a result of this shot "

End .......

This is the only time that he made a quick turn of his head
and as he remembers it correctely , at or around Z-160 ,
any shot before this would mean that Oswald had actually
fired 4 shots and that is not very probable . .........tl

Andrew Mason

unread,
Feb 17, 2007, 2:35:09 PM2/17/07
to
David Von Pein wrote:

> An interesting theory.
>
> Although such an early first shot would mean that John Connally's
> "first-shot right turn" (which IMO begins at about Z164) would have
> occurred approx. 3 to 4 seconds after he heard the first shot. ....
>
> "We had gone, I guess, 150 feet, maybe 200 feet, I don't recall how
> far it was, heading down to get on the freeway....we had just made the
> turn, well, when I heard what I thought was a shot. I heard this noise
> which I immediately took to be a rifle shot. I instinctively turned to
> my right because the sound appeared to come from over my right
> shoulder."
>
> ~~~~~~~
>
> In one breath Connally says "150-200 feet"; but then says "we had just
> made the turn". So we have a choice there. Hard to know. Although
> Connally might consider two-thirds of a football field in distance the
> same as "just {after making} the turn". It's a subjective thing I
> suppose.

This is a point the Posner overlooks as well. 150 feet down Elm is a
long way past Point A,

But one thing that these authors miss is that the limo was never in
position A. If you look at the reconstruction, the photo of the limo at
position A is not in the centre lane. All the cars turn in the centre
lane as we can see the VP and VP follow-up car doing in the zfilm. This
view from the SN never occurred!
http://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh18/html/WH_Vol18_0050a.htm


>
> Of course, a first shot occurring when the limo was practically in the
> Elm/Houston intersection probably wouldn't go over too well with the
> many witnesses who claim that JFK was HIT by that first shot and threw
> his hands up to his throat almost immediately after being hit with
> that shot.
>
> Such a "first-shot hit" to Kennedy would mean an absurdly-lengthy
> delay for JFK to react to the "hit" -- about 6 to 7 seconds. As it is,
> a "hit" to JFK at Z190-Z200 (as many CTers believe) equates to a still-
> too-long (IMO) delay in an initial JFK reaction of 2 seconds or so.
>
> Plus, any type of "first shot hit JFK" theory (with the shot coming 11
> seconds prior to the Z313 head shot, should any CTer wish to combine
> some elements of this new theory with their own theories) is utterly
> impossible anyway, given the fact we can see (via the Z-Film) that JFK
> has definitely NOT been hit as of Z187, because he's still smiling and
> waving in the Z180s.
>
> My gut instinct is still telling me, though, that the Z160 first-shot
> timeline is closer to being correct -- based on Connally's
> "immediately" recognizing this shot as a rifle shot and his reaction
> of "instinctively" turning to his right as a result of this shot at
> approx. Z164 and also based on the "Rifle Always Pointing Southwest"
> manner in which Oswald pre-arranged those rifle-rest boxes in the
> window.
>

But that does not solve the problem of the shot pattern which these
authors are quite convinced was real.

> IMO, Oswald placed those boxes in that window in such a manner so that
> he had every intention from the get-go of ONLY shooting at the
> President after the car was well onto Elm Street....which also makes
> sense from the standpoint that the SS agents would, by that time, all
> have their backs to the assassin, making quick return fire very
> difficult.
>

Good point. At that point, the follow-up car would be facing the TSBD
and he would have 8 agents looking right at him.

> Plus: What about Tague's injury? Is the "traffic pole" shot supposed
> to also double as the Tague shot?
>
> I know a lot of people favor the idea that a head-shot fragment hit
> James Tague by the Underpass. But I just can't totally buy into that
> theory. That bullet was darn-near completely spent by the time it
> reached the windshield (which a large fragment couldn't even
> penetrate).

How can we be sure it was a large fragment that hit the windshield?

>
> I just find it hard to believe that a fragment would have enough
> energy after striking JFK's head to get out to Tague's position on
> Main Street, chip that curb, and then send shards up to draw blood on
> Tague's cheek.

The curb was not chipped, according to the FBI report on the curb which
refers to it as a mark. So what Tague felt must have been a bullet
fragment that bounced off the curb. That would not have much energy.

A close-up photograph of the curb section taken by the FBI shows a
scratch but no concrete missing: Shaneyfelt Exhibit 34, WC 21 H 482
http://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh21/html/WH_Vol21_0253b.htm

Andrew Mason

r2bz...@sbcglobal.net

unread,
Feb 17, 2007, 9:12:08 PM2/17/07
to


***
From the article:

<<<<Several agents in the Secret Service car tail-gating the presidential
limousine made remarkably similar observations. "As we completed the left
turn and on a short distance, there was a shot," recalled agent Samuel
Kinney, driver of the follow-up Cadillac, in his written account. 18 "Just
prior to the shooting the presidential car turned left at the intersection
and started down an incline . . . . After a very short distance I heard a
loud report which sounded like a firecracker," wrote agent George Hickey.
19 The "president's car and the follow-up car had just completed their
turns and both were straightening out," wrote agent Paul Landis in his
November 1963 report. "At this moment I heard what sounded like the report
of a high- powered rifle from behind me, over my right shoulder."20

Contacted just a few days ago, Paul Landis reiterated his clear
recollection that the first shot occurred before the presidential
limousine had traveled very far down Elm.21 No one's memory was more
exacting, though, than that of T.E. Moore, a Dallas County clerk who was
standing on Elm Street. As Moore recalled in Larry Sneed's outstanding
book No More Silence, a 1998 compilation of oral histories about the
assassination, "There was a highway marker sign right in front of the Book
Depository, and as the president got around to that, the first shot was
fired." >>>>


Both these agents stated in their written report, that they turned to the
rear after hearing the first shot. In the Algens photo, both an be seen
looking to the rear, but in the Zapruder film, neither can be seen looking
back up Elm street, or in the process of doing so. The recollection that
they had just completed the turn onto Elm, before hearing the first shot,
is likely incorrect. In addition, at least one of the agents in Johnson's
Secret Service follow car said that they had just completed the turn onto
Elm when the first shot rang out. That would place the Presidential limo
further down the street than the above agents comments would indicate.

Zapruder said that he heard a shot and saw President Kennedy slump over to
his left. He did not say that he heard a shot before he began filming the
presidential limo on Elm or that he heard a second shot and saw President
Kennedy slump over to his left.

***Ron Judge

Andrew Mason

unread,
Feb 17, 2007, 11:54:56 PM2/17/07
to
cdddraftsman wrote:

Unfortunately, cases are not solved by gut instinct. They are solved by
examining the evidence, which is what these authors tried to do. They
concluded that the first shot must have been at virtual frame z107 (ie
26/18.3ths seconds before Z started filming) because the shot pattern
evidence necessitates a shot that early if the second shot was at z224.

They concluded that the shot pattern evidence could not possibly be all
wrong. But they just couldn't let go of a shot at z224. That is their
mistake.

There is as much evidence for a shot at z107 as there is for one at z224,
and there is a lot of evidence against both, if one cares to look at the
evidence.

Andrew Mason

pjsp...@aol.com

unread,
Feb 18, 2007, 12:20:10 AM2/18/07
to
On Feb 16, 10:33 pm, john.mcad...@marquette.edu (John McAdams) wrote:

Holland's theory is one of the most embarrassingly foolish ever presented,
CT or LNT. EVERY witness in the area of his proposed first shot, as well
as many to the west of this location, stated that the limo had passed them
when the first shot rang out. Question: will his fellow single-assassin
theorists refute his nonsense, so they don't get lumped in with his
silliness, as CTS like Josiah Thompson and Robert Groden were forced to do
when their fellow CTs jumped on the alteration train? Or will they just
let it rest, and pretend that Holland's credible, when he's clearly
willing to believe ANYTHING short of the obvious truth that the earwitness
statements, when studied with the Zapruder film, suggests a conspiracy


Andrew Mason

unread,
Feb 18, 2007, 11:04:44 AM2/18/07
to
As an LNer I would certainly distance myself from any suggestion of an
early first shot miss. But I don't see anything about this theory that
is any less supported than the early first shot miss of Posner. The LN
hypothesis of a first shot miss provides fertile ground for CTers, for
sure. But that is only if JBC was hit in the back by a second shot
before z240 and, according to the evidence that didn't occur. So the
demise of the SBT does not imply a second shooter at all.

Andrew Mason

David Von Pein

unread,
Feb 18, 2007, 11:34:50 AM2/18/07
to
Another thing that doesn't bode well for the very early first shot is
when we compare the following two pictures (and the reactions of the
SS men). In the Phil Willis slide....no SS men are turned toward the
TSBD in reaction to hearing a shot. In Jim Altgens' photo, two SS men
are turned directly toward the TSBD.

Altgens equates to about Z255, after the second (SBT) shot has gone
through both victims. I think Willis' pic equates to Z202, which would
be 5.17 seconds after any proposed "traffic pole" shot, and yet
there's not a sign of "awareness" of this shot by the SS. That's a
pretty lengthy delay. .....

http://www.ratical.org/ratville/JFK/images/GoD12.gif

http://www.kennedy-attentat.de/bilder/altgens1.jpg


Sammy, G.

unread,
Feb 18, 2007, 11:35:34 AM2/18/07
to
Andrew, wouldn't a shot as early as 133-150 mean that all the Secret Service
agents would have to watch and listen to shots being fired for nearly 10
seconds with out responding? I just can't believe this to be possible!
Hang-over or not.
Greer hears something, a shot? Looks back and sees the President in some
sort of duress. Then after having had nearly 10 seconds to contemplate his
actions, heroically STEPS ON THE BRAKES!
That dog won't hunt.

Thanks

Sammy, G.

Thanks Sammy, G.
"Andrew Mason" <a.m...@dufourlaw.com> wrote in message
news:12tdsq6...@corp.supernews.com...

Sammy, G.

unread,
Feb 18, 2007, 11:35:56 AM2/18/07
to
Well if DVP is right, it's to bad JBC wasn't driving the limo. JBC said he
recognized the sound as a shot almost immediately. It took Greer nearly 10
more seconds just to hit the brakes. SHEESH

Thanks

Sammy, G.
"cdddraftsman" <cdddra...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1171732221....@m58g2000cwm.googlegroups.com...

r2bz...@sbcglobal.net

unread,
Feb 18, 2007, 7:20:24 PM2/18/07
to
> Andrew Mason- Hide quoted text -
>


***There is plenty of evidence for a shot at Circa Z224. The expression
on Connally's face changed. The movement of his jacket. The jumping of
his right arm during the immediate frames following Z224. The violent
movement of his torso during that time. The look of shock on JFK's face
at Z225. The simultaneous arm movements of both men. The sudden rapid
movement of 2 men, who moments before had been sitting passively.

***Ron Judge


Andrew Mason

unread,
Feb 18, 2007, 7:23:54 PM2/18/07
to
David Von Pein wrote:
> Another thing that doesn't bode well for the very early first shot is
> when we compare the following two pictures (and the reactions of the
> SS men). In the Phil Willis slide....no SS men are turned toward the
> TSBD in reaction to hearing a shot. In Jim Altgens' photo, two SS men
> are turned directly toward the TSBD.
>
> Altgens equates to about Z255, after the second (SBT) shot has gone
> through both victims. ]

Altgens said it was after the first shot and before any other. I don't
see the SS men in the followup car turning around before the limo passes
behind the Stemmons sign.


>I think Willis' pic equates to Z202, which would
> be 5.17 seconds after any proposed "traffic pole" shot, and yet
> there's not a sign of "awareness" of this shot by the SS. That's a
> pretty lengthy delay. .....

Especially when Paul Landis standing on the right rear running board of
the follow-up car said upon hearing the first shot he immediately glanced
at the president and saw him lean and then looked back and scanned the
TSBD and crowd and looked down at the tires of the president's car before
any other shot. You can't see him look back at all before z207 but you
sure see him looking back and to the right in the Altgens photo.

Also, you can see SA Rufus Youngblood riding in the front right seat of
the VP car right in front of LBJ climbing on top of LBJ (you can see
Ladybird but not LBJ). Here is what Youngblood said:

Mr. SPECTER. Yes, please. Will you describe just what occurred as the
motorcade proceeded past the intersection of Houston and Elm Streets?

Mr. YOUNGBLOOD. Well, the crowd had begun to diminish, looking ahead and
to the right the crowd became spotty. I mean it wasn’t continuous at all,
like it had been. As we were beginning to go down this incline, all of a
sudden There was an explosive noise. I quickly observed unnatural movement
of crowds, like ducking or scattering, and quick movements in the
Presidential followup car. So I turned around and hit the Vice President
on the shoulder and hollered, get down, and then looked around again and
saw more of this movement, and so I proceeded to go to the back seat and
get on top of him.

I then heard two more shots. But I would like to say this. I would not be
positive that I was back on that back seat before the second shot. But the
Vice President himself said I was. But-then in hearing these two more
shots, I again had seen more movement, and I think someone else hit a
siren-I heard the noise of a siren.


If he was on top of LBJ by the time of the second shot, Altgens photo must
have been taken, just as he said, after the first and before any other
shot.

Andrew Mason

Andrew Mason

unread,
Feb 18, 2007, 7:25:13 PM2/18/07
to
Sammy, G. wrote:

> Andrew, wouldn't a shot as early as 133-150 mean that all the Secret Service
> agents would have to watch and listen to shots being fired for nearly 10
> seconds with out responding? I just can't believe this to be possible!
> Hang-over or not.
> Greer hears something, a shot? Looks back and sees the President in some
> sort of duress. Then after having had nearly 10 seconds to contemplate his
> actions, heroically STEPS ON THE BRAKES!
> That dog won't hunt.
>
> Thanks
>
> Sammy, G.

Sammy, see my previous post on the Re: 1963: 11 Seconds in Dallas thread.
There is a lot of evidence it doesn't fit with.

Andrew Mason

pjsp...@aol.com

unread,
Feb 18, 2007, 9:02:08 PM2/18/07
to
On Feb 18, 8:04 am, Andrew Mason <a.ma...@dufourlaw.com> wrote:

Holland has to ignore 90% of the witness statements to come up with
his foolish theory. LBJ, Ladybird, Yarborough, etc. all said they
were heading down Elm when the first shot was fired... In Holland's
world they would be in the turn.


Anthony Marsh

unread,
Feb 18, 2007, 9:06:49 PM2/18/07
to
Sammy, G. wrote:
> Well if DVP is right, it's to bad JBC wasn't driving the limo. JBC said he
> recognized the sound as a shot almost immediately. It took Greer nearly 10
> more seconds just to hit the brakes. SHEESH
>

Is that a typo? You meant to say hit the gas? Some people claim he hit
the brakes within 5 seconds.

Anthony Marsh

unread,
Feb 18, 2007, 9:06:59 PM2/18/07
to
Sammy, G. wrote:
> Andrew, wouldn't a shot as early as 133-150 mean that all the Secret Service
> agents would have to watch and listen to shots being fired for nearly 10
> seconds with out responding? I just can't believe this to be possible!
> Hang-over or not.

They reacted. Almost immediately. But they could not locate the shooter
behind them.

> Greer hears something, a shot? Looks back and sees the President in some
> sort of duress. Then after having had nearly 10 seconds to contemplate his
> actions, heroically STEPS ON THE BRAKES!

Again, did you mean steps on the gas?

eca...@tx.rr.com

unread,
Feb 19, 2007, 12:52:53 AM2/19/07
to
Another darn good post DVP.

BTW my friend James Tague who
lives near me thinks there
was a shot after the head
shot..
I have personally gone to the
exact spot where Tague was
standing and I promise, the
first shot miss theory makes
sense from Tague's position.
It's **DEAD-ON**
A perfect straight trajectory
to where Tague was standing
for what that's worth.. I
personally think (And my MOS
in the Army was "Gunner") that
while Oswald was tracking
Kennedy for the first shot the
tree interrupted his view at
the precise moment he decided
to squeeze off a round. A tree
deflection or an instant of
apprehension on the part of
Oswald as he suddenly saw the
tree, are both possibilities.
But Connally's abrupt head to
the right at circa 158-160 (if
I recall correctly) is solid
evidence for that scenario.

Ed 1926Feb1807

> http://history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh18/html/WH_Vol18_0...


>
> Here's a really good view of what Oswald would have had in his way
> (obstruction-wise) if he had fired a shot while the car was near the
> intersection of Elm & Houston (this is CE875, part of the SS album of
> photos during the SS re-staging of events in December 1963):
>
> http://i15.tinypic.com/48cnaqr.jpg
>

> http://history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh17/html/WH_Vol17_0...

eca...@tx.rr.com

unread,
Feb 19, 2007, 12:53:24 AM2/19/07
to

Ed 1926Feb1807

> http://history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh18/html/WH_Vol18_0...


>
> Here's a really good view of what Oswald would have had in his way
> (obstruction-wise) if he had fired a shot while the car was near the
> intersection of Elm & Houston (this is CE875, part of the SS album of
> photos during the SS re-staging of events in December 1963):
>
> http://i15.tinypic.com/48cnaqr.jpg
>

> http://history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh17/html/WH_Vol17_0...

Andrew Mason

unread,
Feb 19, 2007, 10:52:07 AM2/19/07
to
r2bz...@sbcglobal.net wrote:

That is all very good but unless it fits with the rest of the evidence
it isn't what happened, according to the evidence. Now it may be that
all the evidence is wrong. I am sure it has happened at least once in
the history of the universe somewhere, but that's about it. Let me put
it this way, if the FBI was trying to figure out what a terrorist cell
was planning, would you want them sticking to a theory that did not fit
at all with what their informants were saying?

Andrew Mason


Andrew Mason

unread,
Feb 19, 2007, 10:52:31 AM2/19/07
to
r2bz...@sbcglobal.net wrote:

JBC said he reacted to the first shot. He just said he wasn't hit by it.
As far as the jumping hand is concerned, it really doesn't fit the SBT.
The path of the bullet is downward from the chest to the wrist. If the
hand is hit with it down over near his thigh so the trajectory fits, the
wrist would have to go down if the bullet moved it. I see the wrist
going up at z225-8. I am not sure how a downward moving bullet is
supposed to do that.

Andrew Mason


Andrew Mason

unread,
Feb 19, 2007, 10:53:17 AM2/19/07
to
pjsp...@AOL.COM wrote:

Exactly. But the same holds true for a shot at z160. The VP car is still
in its turn at z180. The VP followup car had completed its turn,
according to its occupants and it was parallel to the TSBD. It is still
in its turn at z191.

Andrew Mason

Sammy, G.

unread,
Feb 19, 2007, 10:53:44 AM2/19/07
to

"Anthony Marsh" <anthon...@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:45d8d3ef$1...@mcadams.posc.mu.edu...

> Sammy, G. wrote:
>> Andrew, wouldn't a shot as early as 133-150 mean that all the Secret
>> Service agents would have to watch and listen to shots being fired for
>> nearly 10 seconds with out responding? I just can't believe this to be
>> possible! Hang-over or not.
>
> They reacted. Almost immediately. But they could not locate the shooter
> behind them.

When would "immediately" be Tony(the Altgens photo was taken approx. 6
seconds *AFTER* this alleged first shot)? Only a few(if that) even looked to
the rear. Did they just stand there on the running boards looking backwards
and confused for 6 full seconds after having heard a shot)? Motorcades are
loud. newspaper reporters and onlookers were continuously shouting at the
President. Prove ANY of these "reactions" were due to the sound of a rifle
report. If you call swiveling your head a reaction, that's fine. However,
after having heard shot(s) fired, I would expect just a tad more out of a
trained group of professional Presidential body guards. Until Clint
Hill(whom I've read was a last minute "add on"((?)leapt from the left
running board, not one observable move was made to protect the President,
PERIOD! Accepting a shot(a miss or otherwise) in the Z-133-150 area,
requires us to believe at least one of three scenarios. A). The SS was so
derelict of duty, to the point one has to suspect retardation. B). That
virtually ALL OF THEM were "in on it". C). There was not a shot anywhere
near this early.

We see Hill take action at approximately Z-313. The ONLY other observable
response(other than your alleged protective "swiveling" of the heads by the
SS)would be Greer who actually stepped on the BRAKES. 313-133=180 frames.
Divide by 18.3, you get 9.8 seconds. If the SS could muster no more than a
swiveling of the head for 10 seconds after hearing the first shot, then
little Linda Willis did more than they did to protect the President. At
least she was running towards JFK when she started her "protective
swiveling(rotflmao)"!

I believe I've said enough Tony. However, in addition to the points I've
made, there is a vast and varied amount of REAL EVIDENCE that makes the
"first shot Z-133-150" theory absolutely untenable. Even a "missed Z-160
shot" would portray the SS agents as being "stunned into dereliction' for
nearly 8.5 seconds. These are NOT arbitrary assumptions, they're real
numbers, real timeframes, think about it. Count out loud, start with
BANG,........ one thousand and one,........ one thousand and two........
I'm not interested in quibbling over whether or not one agent drew an AR-15,
or that one said "get us out of here(well after 313)." There were simply no
ATTEMPTS, none, nadda, to physically protect the President, prior to Hills
actions(subsequent to((approx.))Z-313). I just cannot accept this baloney,
nor do I accept that ALL the agents were this inept, and or complicit.

Thanks

Sammy, G.

Sammy, G.

unread,
Feb 19, 2007, 12:42:54 PM2/19/07
to
I'm guilty of exaggerating here Tony. I was just attempting to show the
ridiculousness of claiming a shot as early as Z-133-150. I know Greer only
briefly hit the brakes, however if there were a recognized first shot that
early, it makes him and the rest of the SS agents actions seem ludicrous.
This is just one of many circumstances, that make a Z-133-150 shot basically
impossible.

Thanks

Sammy, G.


"Anthony Marsh" <anthon...@comcast.net> wrote in message

news:45d8d2a6$1...@mcadams.posc.mu.edu...

Anthony Marsh

unread,
Feb 19, 2007, 5:02:08 PM2/19/07
to
Sammy, G. wrote:
> "Anthony Marsh" <anthon...@comcast.net> wrote in message
> news:45d8d3ef$1...@mcadams.posc.mu.edu...
>> Sammy, G. wrote:
>>> Andrew, wouldn't a shot as early as 133-150 mean that all the Secret
>>> Service agents would have to watch and listen to shots being fired for
>>> nearly 10 seconds with out responding? I just can't believe this to be
>>> possible! Hang-over or not.
>> They reacted. Almost immediately. But they could not locate the shooter
>> behind them.
>
> When would "immediately" be Tony(the Altgens photo was taken approx. 6
> seconds *AFTER* this alleged first shot)? Only a few(if that) even looked to

Who is talking about a very early shot? I said they reacted to the shot
they HEARD and recognized as a shot. The shot at Z-230. They reacted
within one second of that shot.

> the rear. Did they just stand there on the running boards looking backwards
> and confused for 6 full seconds after having heard a shot)? Motorcades are

If you look at other films and photos you can see for yourself that they
were not turned around looking for 6 seconds before Z-225. Silly notion
not supported by the photographic record.

> loud. newspaper reporters and onlookers were continuously shouting at the
> President. Prove ANY of these "reactions" were due to the sound of a rifle

Who in the world is wacky enough to claim that the public shouting is a
reaction to hearing shots?

> report. If you call swiveling your head a reaction, that's fine. However,
> after having heard shot(s) fired, I would expect just a tad more out of a
> trained group of professional Presidential body guards. Until Clint


What exactly would you expect? You want them to pull their guns and
shoot some little old lady on the sidewalk?

> Hill(whom I've read was a last minute "add on"((?)leapt from the left
> running board, not one observable move was made to protect the President,

Why do you say that Clint Hill was a last minute add-on?

> PERIOD! Accepting a shot(a miss or otherwise) in the Z-133-150 area,
> requires us to believe at least one of three scenarios. A). The SS was so

Another agent also made a move to jump off the Queen Mary, but was
called back. Clint Hill was the forward most agent on the left side and
thus in the correct place to jump off and run up to the limo, as he had
done on other occasions.

> derelict of duty, to the point one has to suspect retardation. B). That
> virtually ALL OF THEM were "in on it". C). There was not a shot anywhere
> near this early.
>

You really expect the agents IN the Queen Mary to jump out and start
firing randomly?

> We see Hill take action at approximately Z-313. The ONLY other observable

YOU see Hill start his action at about Z-313? Show me. Prove it.

> response(other than your alleged protective "swiveling" of the heads by the
> SS)would be Greer who actually stepped on the BRAKES. 313-133=180 frames.

I alleged nothing about "protective" swivelling. I merely noted that a
couple of the agents heard a shot and reacted to it.

> Divide by 18.3, you get 9.8 seconds. If the SS could muster no more than a

Where do you get your 133?

> swiveling of the head for 10 seconds after hearing the first shot, then
> little Linda Willis did more than they did to protect the President. At
> least she was running towards JFK when she started her "protective
> swiveling(rotflmao)"!

She was not running towards JFK. She was running alongside the path of
the limo. The Willis family had started down on Houston and was running
to catch up with the limo.

>
> I believe I've said enough Tony. However, in addition to the points I've
> made, there is a vast and varied amount of REAL EVIDENCE that makes the
> "first shot Z-133-150" theory absolutely untenable. Even a "missed Z-160

Whose theory of a first shot Z-133-150? Not mine. I have pointed out
several problems with that theory as well.

> shot" would portray the SS agents as being "stunned into dereliction' for
> nearly 8.5 seconds. These are NOT arbitrary assumptions, they're real

If there was a shot that early, everyone in Dealey Plaza missed it.

> numbers, real timeframes, think about it. Count out loud, start with
> BANG,........ one thousand and one,........ one thousand and two........
> I'm not interested in quibbling over whether or not one agent drew an AR-15,
> or that one said "get us out of here(well after 313)." There were simply no
> ATTEMPTS, none, nadda, to physically protect the President, prior to Hills
> actions(subsequent to((approx.))Z-313). I just cannot accept this baloney,
> nor do I accept that ALL the agents were this inept, and or complicit.
>

So you are impressed with Vincent Palamara's theory that the SS was in
on the conspiracy and conspired to not protect the President. Then how
do you explain Clint Hill? Did he not get the memo? Or was he too honest
to be bought off?

pjsp...@aol.com

unread,
Feb 19, 2007, 7:34:23 PM2/19/07
to

Ed, look again. The first shot miss is totally out of line with Tague's
position. Tague was in line with the head shot at 313, and I agree with
Sturdivan and Rahn that the fragment striking the curb could have been
from the head shot. Tague is right, however. There WAS a shot after the
head shot. Check the testimony of the closest witnesses. Hill, Moorman,
Hudson, Summers, Brehm, all heard a shot after the head shot. A number of
the Secret Service Agents heard two shots close together and couldn't
remember which one was the head shot. Hmmm.. There was absolutely
positively not a 5 second gap before a final head shot. Anyone who pushes
such a scenario has either never studied the eyewitness statements, or is
fooling himself.


pjsp...@aol.com

unread,
Feb 19, 2007, 7:34:53 PM2/19/07
to
On Feb 18, 8:04 am, Andrew Mason <a.ma...@dufourlaw.com> wrote:


Andrew, I'm a CT, but am absolutely convinced Connally is hit at 224. You
can see him wince. Those cherry-picking Connally's statements to establish
a scenario and ignoring those of the many other witnesses conveniently
overlook Connally's statements to Eddie Barker in a 1964 televised
interview. In this interview Connally makes clear that he turned to his
right after coming around the corner because the crowds had died down and
he was stretching. He also says he turned to his right AFTER being struck
and then fell back into Nellie's arms. People also tend to ignore the
statements of Mary Woodward, that the limousine occupants turned to their
right in response to her yelling at them. When one looks at the Z-film
one can see that the south side of Elm was nearly empty and that those in
the car would naturally turn to the larger more vocal crowd on the North
side. There was no first shot miss at 160. There was a first shot hit at
190.

Peter Fokes

unread,
Feb 19, 2007, 11:23:01 PM2/19/07
to
On Sat, 17 Feb 2007 06:33:42 GMT, john.m...@marquette.edu (John
McAdams) wrote:

>On the History News Network, an essay from Max Holland and Johann Rush
>that puts the first shot in Dealey Plaza much *earlier* than anybody
>else has.
>
>http://hnn.us/articles/35445.html
>
>.John

The testimony of Miss Hine seems to support this theory. She was
looking out of the TSBD. She saw the President's limo turn the corner,
and then, at the instant she saw the next car "coming up", she heard
the shots begin. Did she mean "coming up" Houston? If so, the shot
occurred just after the limo turned the corner but before the trailing
car had done so.

I see Rush and Holland have overlooked her testimony.

PF

Andrew Mason

unread,
Feb 20, 2007, 11:23:22 PM2/20/07
to
Peter Fokes wrote:

Hine's testimony is at 6 H 593
http://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh6/html/WC_Vol6_0202a.htm

This is one of the problems where there is a need for cross-examination.
It is not clear what she means by the "next car". She obviously can't mean
the President's followup car because it is right behind the President at
all times. There was no time when the President's car had turned onto Elm
and the followup car was coming up on Houston. The VP followup car was 2-3
carlengths behind. The occupants said the VP car had turned the corner and
was going down Elm when the first shot was heard. You can't build a case
on one witness who is contradicted (if indeed she is saying the VP car was
on Houston at the time of the first shot) by many others, all of whom had
a better recollection and were in a better position to observe where they
were.

Andrew Mason

Andrew Mason

unread,
Feb 20, 2007, 11:49:25 PM2/20/07
to

Of course you can see him react. The issue is whether he is doing that
in response to a shot that hit him in the back.

He said he immediately recognized it as a rifle shot and thought there
was an assassination unfolding so he turned around to see if JFK was
alright. Jackie was startled by him shouting "oh, no, no, no" which
Nellie said he shouted after the first shot and before he was hit by the
second shot.

Martin Shackleford has a good paper on lip reading the Zfilm at:
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/listen.htm
According to that paper he is saying it at z242-250 which means that is
before the second shot. Altgens said his z255 photo was also taken
before the second shot. JBC said he thought he said it "as he was shot"
but he said that it was in response to his fear that the President had
been hit). He also said that he said "oh, no, no, no" before he was shot
in a Life interview in 1966 (Life Magazine: Nov. 25/66). Before the HSCA
he initially said he said it before and then thought about it and said
that it must have been after he was shot. But he never wavered on his
statement that it was in response to his concern over the President,
which supports his wife's recollection and that of Altgens.


> Those cherry-picking Connally's statements to establish
> a scenario and ignoring those of the many other witnesses conveniently
> overlook Connally's statements to Eddie Barker in a 1964 televised
> interview. In this interview Connally makes clear that he turned to his
> right after coming around the corner because the crowds had died down and
> he was stretching. He also says he turned to his right AFTER being struck
> and then fell back into Nellie's arms.

He told his doctors, as did Nellie, that he was turned to the right when
hit. Dr. Shires: 6 H 108

> People also tend to ignore the
> statements of Mary Woodward, that the limousine occupants turned to their
> right in response to her yelling at them. When one looks at the Z-film
> one can see that the south side of Elm was nearly empty and that those in
> the car would naturally turn to the larger more vocal crowd on the North
> side. There was no first shot miss at 160. There was a first shot hit at
> 190.

You make a good point about Mary Woodward. I am sure that look is etched
in her mind. If I can remember exactly where I was in 5th grade class
and exactly what I was looking at (the PA system speaker) when the
announcer said "President Kennedy is dead"), I have no doubt the
President's glance to her (it looks quite clear at z193) being before
the first shot is a memory she and those with her will take to the
grave. For LNer's to ignore this (and lots of other similar clear,
confident recollections putting the first shot after z190, such as Jane
Berry, John Chism, TE Moore, Gloria Calvery, Karen Westbrook etc) is
difficult to understand.

However, Mary Woodward also said that the last two shots were close
together: Woodward: FBI report, CE2084, WC, 24 H 520. “There seemed to
be a pause of a few seconds and then there were two more loud
noises...”. In a 1988 interview by Nigel Turner for the film "The Men
Who Killed Kennedy", Mary Woodward stated: “The second two shots were
immediate --- it was almost as if one were an echo of the other -- they
came so quickly. The sound of one did not cease until the second shot.”
… “and then the third shot came very, very quickly, on top of the second
one”

That appears to be seared into her memory as well. That pretty much
eliminates says that there was only one shot up to z224. As you say, one
can't cherry pick the evidence. Particularly when at least 43 others
said they heard the same thing.

Andrew Mason

Anthony Marsh

unread,
Feb 21, 2007, 3:32:33 PM2/21/07
to

Why did you attempt to quote? Is that exactly what Connally actually
said? Is that even what Connally himself claimed that he said. Have any
lip readers watched the Zapruder film and verified that this is exactly
what he said and when?
In my opinion, there is simply not enough time between the shots for
Connally to say those exact words.

> Martin Shackleford has a good paper on lip reading the Zfilm at:
> http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/listen.htm
> According to that paper he is saying it at z242-250 which means that is
> before the second shot. Altgens said his z255 photo was also taken
> before the second shot. JBC said he thought he said it "as he was shot"
> but he said that it was in response to his fear that the President had
> been hit). He also said that he said "oh, no, no, no" before he was shot
> in a Life interview in 1966 (Life Magazine: Nov. 25/66). Before the HSCA
> he initially said he said it before and then thought about it and said
> that it must have been after he was shot. But he never wavered on his
> statement that it was in response to his concern over the President,
> which supports his wife's recollection and that of Altgens.
>

That's what Life said that Connally said.

http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,940490-3,00.html

But is that what Connally himself said that he said or what his wife
remembering hearing him say?
What did Nellie testify that Connally said?

> Mr. CORNWELL. That will be fine.
> Mrs. CONNALLy. I heard--you know how we were seated in the car, the
> President and Mrs. Kennedy, John was in front of the President and I was seated
> in front of Mrs. Kennedy--I heard a noise that I didn't think of as a gunshot. I
> just heard a disturbing noise and turned to my right from where I thought the
> noise had come and looked in the back and saw the President clutch his neck with
> both hands.
> He said nothing. He just sort of slumped down in the seat. John had turned
> to his right also when we heard that first noise and shouted, "no, no, no," and
> in the process of turning back around so that he could look back and see the
> President--I don't think he could see him when he turned to his right--the
> second shot was fired and hit him. He was in the process of turning, so it hit
> him through this shoulder, came out right about here. His hand was either right
> in front of him or on his knee as he turned to look so that the bullet went
> through him, crushed his wrist and lodged in
>
>
>
>
> 41
>
> his leg. And then he just recoiled and just sort of slumped in his seat.

"No, no, no."

What did Connally himself testify that he said?

> Mr. CORNWELL. Thank you, very much.
> Governor, let me ask you the same question. What is your memory of the
> events? What did you see and hear? What happened after the limousine started
> down Elm Street and passed underneath the Texas School Book Depository?
> Mr. CONNALLY. Mr. Cornwell, we had just turned to Elm. We had gone, I
> suspect, oh, 150, 200 feet when I heard what I thought was a rifle shot and I
> thought it came from--I was seated right, as you know, the jump seat right in
> front of the President, and they have a fairly straight back on them so I was
> sitting up fairly erect. I thought the shot came from back over my right
> shoulder, so I turned to see if I could catch a sight of the President out of
> the corner of my eye because I immediately had, frankly, had fear of an
> assassination because I thought it was a rifle shot.
> I didn't think it was a blowout or explosion of any kind. I didn't see the
> President out of the corner of my eye, so I was in the process of, at least I
> was turning to look over my left shoulder into the back seat to see if I could
> see him. I never looked, I never made the full turn. About the time I turned
> back where I was facing more or less straight ahead, the way the car was moving,
> I was hit. I was knocked over, just doubled over by the force of the bullet. It
> went in my back and came out my chest about 2 inches below and the left of my
> right nipple. The force of the bullet drove my body over almost double and when
> I looked, immediately I could see I was just drenched with blood. So, I knew I
> had been badly hit and I more or less straightened up. At about this time, Nelly
> reached over and pulled me down into her lap.
> I was in her lap facing forward when another shot was fired. I only heard
> two shots. I did not hear the shot that hit me. I wasn't conscious of it. I am
> sure I heard it, but I was not conscious of it at all. I heard another shot. I
> heard it hit. It hit with a very pronounced impact, just [slap of hands] almost
> like that. Almost that loud a sound; it made a very, very strong sound.
> Immediately, I could see blood and brain tissue all over the interior of the
> car and all over our clothes. We were both covered with brain tissue, and there
> were pieces of brain tissue as big as your little finger. It was something that
> was unmistakable. There was no question in my mind about what it was.
>
>
>
>
> 43
>
> About this moment in time, Roy Kellerman, who was the Secret Service agent
> sitting in the right-front seat, pushed, apparently was pushing some buttons on
> the panel, doing what, I don't know. I heard him say, "Let's get out of here
> fast," and the car lurched forward then. Bill Greer was the driver. He
> accelerated it tremendously.
> When I was hit, or shortly before I was hit--no, I guess it was after I was
> hit--I said first, just almost in despair, I said, "no, no, no, just thinking
> how tragic it was that we had gone through this 24 hours, it had all been so
> wonderful and so beautifully executed. The President had been so marvelously
> received and then here, at the last moment this great tragedy. I just said, "no,
> no, no, no".
> Then I said right after I was hit, I said, "My God, they are going to kill us
> all." ....

"No, no, no, no."

SO, where did you get your "Oh, no, no, no"?

Mary Woodward also wrote in her newspaper column that the shots came
from behind her. That was removed from later editions when they realized
that she had been standing in front of the grassy knoll.

Peter Fokes

unread,
Feb 21, 2007, 3:53:06 PM2/21/07
to
On 20 Feb 2007 23:23:22 -0500, Andrew Mason <a.m...@dufourlaw.com>
wrote:

>Peter Fokes wrote:
>
>> On Sat, 17 Feb 2007 06:33:42 GMT, john.m...@marquette.edu (John
>> McAdams) wrote:
>>
>>
>>>On the History News Network, an essay from Max Holland and Johann Rush
>>>that puts the first shot in Dealey Plaza much *earlier* than anybody
>>>else has.
>>>
>>>http://hnn.us/articles/35445.html
>>>
>>>.John
>>
>>
>> The testimony of Miss Hine seems to support this theory. She was
>> looking out of the TSBD. She saw the President's limo turn the corner,
>> and then, at the instant she saw the next car "coming up", she heard
>> the shots begin. Did she mean "coming up" Houston? If so, the shot
>> occurred just after the limo turned the corner but before the trailing
>> car had done so.
>>
>> I see Rush and Holland have overlooked her testimony.
>>
>> PF
>>
>
>Hine's testimony is at 6 H 593
>http://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh6/html/WC_Vol6_0202a.htm

I know it well. She strikes me as a fine witness. Very credible.

>This is one of the problems where there is a need for cross-examination.
>It is not clear what she means by the "next car". She obviously can't mean
>the President's followup car because it is right behind the President at
>all times.

Cross-examination? She was questioned by the WC.
Her testimony seems very credible to me.

You jump to a conclusion when you state "she obviously can't mean the
President's follow-up car". Indeed she can, and very likely does mean
the President's follow-up car precisely because it is the "next" car.

You fail to take into account Miss Hine's "frame of reference." Unlike
many witnesses, Miss Hine's frame of reference is clearly delineated.
Unlike witnesses peering from windows on the south side of the TSBD,
Miss Hine has her head stuck out a window on the east side of the
building. The wall of the building would cut off her view of objects
as they moved west.

Her main view would be the motorcade as it proceeded up Houston St.
Indeed, her recollection of the events is determined by her "view"
from this position. She is focussed on the motorcade as it travels up
Houston. As the cars turn left and out of her view, her focus changes
immediately to the next object in view. (Reminds me of a chorus line
where the dancers approach the audience in a single vertical line
stretching towards the back of the stage before lead dancer turns and
reveals the next dancer and so on).

It wouldn't matter how close the next car was to the Presidential
limo, from her viewpoint and frame of reference, the next object would
appear when the previous one turned left and REVEALED the very next
object in the motorcade.

> There was no time when the President's car had turned onto Elm
>and the followup car was coming up on Houston.

Excuse me Andrew, but that is nonsense. If there was "no time" then
the follow-up car would have been on top or underneath the
Presidential limo. The two vehicles were not in the same location at
the same time.


> The VP followup car was 2-3
>carlengths behind. The occupants said the VP car had turned the corner and
>was going down Elm when the first shot was heard. You can't build a case
>on one witness who is contradicted (if indeed she is saying the VP car was
>on Houston at the time of the first shot) by many others, all of whom had
>a better recollection and were in a better position to observe where they
>were.

I disagree with your opinion that others were in a better position. In
fact, by the very nature of HER FRAME OF REFERENCE, objects
disappeared from her view. In addition, she was one of the closest
people to the SOURCE of the shots. That is important. The sound of the
shots was extremely loud to her, so loud in fact that she described
them as "vibrating" the building.

She is an excellent, credible witness whose very location and sight
line augments her testimony.

I am not building any "case" on one witness. I did suggest that Rush
and Holland overlooked her testimony.


PF


>
>Andrew Mason
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

Anthony Marsh

unread,
Feb 21, 2007, 5:04:44 PM2/21/07
to
Sammy, G. wrote:
> I'm guilty of exaggerating here Tony. I was just attempting to show the
> ridiculousness of claiming a shot as early as Z-133-150. I know Greer only
> briefly hit the brakes, however if there were a recognized first shot that
> early, it makes him and the rest of the SS agents actions seem ludicrous.
> This is just one of many circumstances, that make a Z-133-150 shot basically
> impossible.
>

Two things. First, I would hope that everyone sees how ridiculous an
early shot at Z-133-150 is. Second, very few people heard and reacted to
the first shot that was fired. That does not, however, make an early
missed shot impossible.

Anthony Marsh

unread,
Feb 21, 2007, 5:14:25 PM2/21/07
to

FWIW, Don Thomas aligns the acoustical evidence so that there is a shot
at Z-224. But I believe he thinks Kennedy was hit earlier.

> can see him wince. Those cherry-picking Connally's statements to establish
> a scenario and ignoring those of the many other witnesses conveniently
> overlook Connally's statements to Eddie Barker in a 1964 televised
> interview. In this interview Connally makes clear that he turned to his
> right after coming around the corner because the crowds had died down and
> he was stretching. He also says he turned to his right AFTER being struck
> and then fell back into Nellie's arms. People also tend to ignore the
> statements of Mary Woodward, that the limousine occupants turned to their
> right in response to her yelling at them. When one looks at the Z-film
> one can see that the south side of Elm was nearly empty and that those in
> the car would naturally turn to the larger more vocal crowd on the North
> side. There was no first shot miss at 160. There was a first shot hit at
> 190.
>

Are you relying on the acoustical evidence?


>
>


Anthony Marsh

unread,
Feb 21, 2007, 10:42:26 PM2/21/07
to
Peter Fokes wrote:
> On Sat, 17 Feb 2007 06:33:42 GMT, john.m...@marquette.edu (John
> McAdams) wrote:
>
>> On the History News Network, an essay from Max Holland and Johann Rush
>> that puts the first shot in Dealey Plaza much *earlier* than anybody
>> else has.
>>
>> http://hnn.us/articles/35445.html
>>
>> .John
>
> The testimony of Miss Hine seems to support this theory. She was
> looking out of the TSBD. She saw the President's limo turn the corner,
> and then, at the instant she saw the next car "coming up", she heard
> the shots begin. Did she mean "coming up" Houston? If so, the shot
> occurred just after the limo turned the corner but before the trailing
> car had done so.
>

Nonsense. The follow-up car was only 5 feet behind the President's
limousine. What she meant was that the limousine had just passed
underneath her position and the next car was just coming underneath her
position. Remember that the limousine was 21 feet long, plus the 5 feet
gap gives you a difference of 26 feet.

Peter Fokes

unread,
Feb 21, 2007, 11:28:08 PM2/21/07
to
On Wed, 21 Feb 2007 15:53:06 -0500, Peter Fokes<jp...@toronto.hm>
wrote:

I forgot to add that imo it would be much more difficult for the
occupants of a moving vehicle to pinpoint the exact location of the
first shot.

A stationary observer would have an advantage in this regard.

Well, stationary in a "relative" sense since we are all moving.

Recall your experience when sitting at the window of a train and
thinking your train was moving, only to find that it was the train on
the next track that was moving and not your train.

The probability of accurately determining the time/location of a shot
is lower for a witness who is "moving" rather than one who has a good
view and is stationary.

:-)

PF

David Von Pein

unread,
Feb 22, 2007, 12:05:48 AM2/22/07
to
Abe Zapruder's WFAA interview is interesting too (in a manner that
doesn't do Holland's theory any favors)......

"...The motorcade made it's turn....and when it got about half way
down there, I heard a shot. And the President slumped, like this. Then
I heard another shot or two, I couldn't tell whether it was one or
two, and then I saw the President's head practically open up..." -- A.
Zapruder; WFAA-TV interview; 11/22/63*

* = Quoted from my own memory of that interview; slight paraphrasing
in there; but the main crux of the quote is definitely seen above.


Andrew Mason

unread,
Feb 22, 2007, 12:06:34 AM2/22/07
to
Peter Fokes wrote:

Hine's testimony is at 6 H 593

http://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh6/html/WC_Vol6_0202a.htm

This is one of the problems where there is a need for cross-examination.

It is not clear what she means by the "next car". She obviously can't mean
the President's followup car because it is right behind the President at

all times. There was no time when the President's car had turned onto Elm
and the followup car was coming up on Houston. The VP followup car was 2-3

carlengths behind. The occupants said the VP car had turned the corner and

was going down Elm when the first shot was heard. You can't build a case

on one witness who is contradicted (if indeed she is saying the VP car was
on Houston at the time of the first shot) by many others, all of whom had
a better recollection and were in a better position to observe where they
were.

Andrew Mason


Andrew Mason

unread,
Feb 22, 2007, 12:21:04 AM2/22/07
to

Of course you can see him react. The issue is whether he is doing that

in response to a shot that hit him in the back. He said he immediately
recognized it as a rifle shot and thought there was an assassination
unfolding so he turned around to see if JFK was alright. Jackie was
startled by him shouting "oh, no, no, no" which Nellie said he shouted

after the first shot and before he was hit by the second shot. Martin

Shackleford has a good paper on lip reading the Zfilm at:
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/listen.htm

According to that he is saying it at z242-250 which means that is before

the second shot. Altgens said his z255 photo was also taken before the
second shot. JBC said he thought he said it "as he was shot" but he said
that it was in response to his fear that the President had been hit).

>Those cherry-picking Connally's statements to establish


> a scenario and ignoring those of the many other witnesses conveniently
> overlook Connally's statements to Eddie Barker in a 1964 televised
> interview. In this interview Connally makes clear that he turned to his
> right after coming around the corner because the crowds had died down and
> he was stretching. He also says he turned to his right AFTER being struck
> and then fell back into Nellie's arms.

He told his doctors, as did Nellie, that he was turned to the right when
hit.

> People also tend to ignore the

> statements of Mary Woodward, that the limousine occupants turned to their
> right in response to her yelling at them. When one looks at the Z-film
> one can see that the south side of Elm was nearly empty and that those in
> the car would naturally turn to the larger more vocal crowd on the North
> side. There was no first shot miss at 160. There was a first shot hit at
> 190.

You make a good point about Mary Woodward. I am sure that look is etched

in her mind. If I can remember exactly where I was in 5th grade class
and exactly what I was looking at (the PA system speaker) when the
announcer said "President Kennedy is dead"), I have no doubt the
President's glance to her (it looks quite clear at z193) being before
the first shot is a memory she and those with her will take to the
grave. For LNer's to ignore this (and lots of other similar clear,

confident recollections putting the first shot well after z160) is
difficult to understand.

However, Mary Woodward also said that the last two shots were very close

together: Woodward: FBI report, CE2084, WC, 24 H 520. “There seemed to
be a pause of a few seconds and then there were two more loud noises...”.

In a 1988 interview by Nigel Turner for the film "The Men Who Killed
Kennedy", Mary Woodward stated: “The second two shots were immediate ---
it was almost as if one were an echo of the other -- they came so
quickly. The sound of one did not cease until the second shot.” … “and
then the third shot came very, very quickly, on top of the second one”

That appears to be seared into her memory as well. That pretty much
eliminates a second shot at z224. As you say, one can't cherry pick the

Peter Fokes

unread,
Feb 22, 2007, 12:23:52 AM2/22/07
to
On 22 Feb 2007 00:05:48 -0500, "David Von Pein" <davev...@aol.com>
wrote:

So .... Holland/Rush are really postulating a 4-shot theory, right?

They just don't know that they are CTs disguised as LNs ....

.... and they talk about CTs unable to agree with one another!

LNs are standing on opposite sides of the Grand Canyon!


PF
>

Andrew Mason

unread,
Feb 22, 2007, 12:48:27 AM2/22/07
to
Anthony Marsh wrote:

Is the issue whether he said "oh" before "no, no, no" or "no" before
"no, no, no"?

It is difficult to be sure since "no" and "oh" may have sounded very
similar. But Jackie said "But then suddenly Governor Connally was yelling,
“Oh, no, no, no.”after the "noise" 5 H 180. Nellie said "I recall John
saying, “Oh, no, no, no.” Then there was a second shot, and it hit John,"
4 H 147. JBC said "I immediately, when I was hit, I said, “Oh, no, no,
no.” And then I said, “My God, they are going to kill us all.” 4 H 139.

He may have omitted the "oh" when testifying before the HSCA, but after 15
years minor details can be forgotten.

Andrew Mason

Andrew Mason

unread,
Feb 22, 2007, 10:33:05 AM2/22/07
to
Peter Fokes wrote:

In an inquiry, there is only commission counsel. Counsel's examination
is just to get the witness' story. There is no one to cross-examine the
witness to challenge them on their recollections. Cross-examination
tests the witness' memory the confidence with which she recalls the
memory. When I see a witness statement that does not fit with any other
witness statement I wish someone had challenged her on her recollection.
That's just my training. She may have said, "I can't really be sure if
it was the car immediately behind the President" or "I may have been
distracted for a few seconds." or whatever. In any event, her
recollections fits with no one else's and simply cannot be correct.

I think you better look at the turn. It was a very wide
turn:

http://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh17/html/WH_Vol17_0452b.htm

If the SS car was 10-12 feet behind the President's limo (as Greer
maintained) it was turning when the limo was turning. There was never a
time when the President's limo had completed the turn and the SS
followup car was still "coming up" Houston.

>
>
>>The VP followup car was 2-3
>>carlengths behind. The occupants said the VP car had turned the corner and
>>was going down Elm when the first shot was heard. You can't build a case
>>on one witness who is contradicted (if indeed she is saying the VP car was
>>on Houston at the time of the first shot) by many others, all of whom had
>>a better recollection and were in a better position to observe where they
>>were.

BTW, I meant the VP car, not the VP followup car.

>
>
> I disagree with your opinion that others were in a better position. In
> fact, by the very nature of HER FRAME OF REFERENCE, objects
> disappeared from her view. In addition, she was one of the closest
> people to the SOURCE of the shots. That is important. The sound of the
> shots was extremely loud to her, so loud in fact that she described
> them as "vibrating" the building.
>
> She is an excellent, credible witness whose very location and sight
> line augments her testimony.
>
> I am not building any "case" on one witness. I did suggest that Rush
> and Holland overlooked her testimony.

I don't know how you can say she is an excellent credible witness. The
only way to make that assessment is to compare her evidence with others
and see if others support her. None do.

And my point is that one witness whose evidence is contradicted by a
wealth of other consistent evidence is not much use. She may have had a
good view, but one needs a bit more information to assess what she said
she saw. If, for example she said that the next car was a white
convertible car she would actually be consistent with what the rest of
the witnesses said. The Cabell car was just starting the turn and facing
the SN when the first shot occurred, according the occupants of that
car, which fits with the position the occupants of the VP followup car
said they were in (paralled to the TSBD), the VP car (made the turn and
going down Elm), the SS car, the Limo and witnesses along both sides of Elm.

Andrew Mason

>
>
> PF
>
>
>
>>Andrew Mason
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>

Andrew Mason

unread,
Feb 22, 2007, 5:51:07 PM2/22/07
to

So is this a scientific theory or just your musings? These cars were
going 8-10 mph around that corner. That isn't very fast.

Besides, any doubts about the reliability is answered by the consistency
of their recollections. Are these witnesses in the VP car all going to
mistakenly believe they were going down an incline on Elm St when the
first shot sounded when they were really on Houston looking north at the
TSBD?

Andrew Mason

Andrew Mason

unread,
Feb 22, 2007, 6:04:22 PM2/22/07
to
David Von Pein wrote:

Ok. And how, exactly, that Zapruder's recollection support a z160 first
shot miss?

Andrew Mason

Anthony Marsh

unread,
Feb 22, 2007, 7:45:46 PM2/22/07
to

Yes, but the issue is about you pretending to quote something and where
that quote came from and the claim about who originated that quote. I
personally don't care what Connally yelled. He was in pain, in agony, in
distress, in shock. So, he could have yelled, "What the Hell was that" and
everyone cleaned up his language.

> It is difficult to be sure since "no" and "oh" may have sounded very
> similar. But Jackie said "But then suddenly Governor Connally was
> yelling, “Oh, no, no, no.”after the "noise" 5 H 180. Nellie said "I
> recall John saying, “Oh, no, no, no.” Then there was a second shot, and
> it hit John," 4 H 147. JBC said "I immediately, when I was hit, I said,
> “Oh, no, no, no.” And then I said, “My God, they are going to kill us
> all.” 4 H 139.
>

Yes, Jackie may have heard it that way. Then specify that you are talking
about what JACKIE remembers. Don't state it as a fact that this is exactly
what Connally actually said. Likewise his grammar about they are going to
kill us all.

> He may have omitted the "oh" when testifying before the HSCA, but after

David Von Pein

unread,
Feb 22, 2007, 11:26:13 PM2/22/07
to
>>> "How, exactly, {does} Zapruder's {WFAA-TV} recollection support a Z160
first-shot miss?" <<<

It doesn't specifically do that. And I never claimed it did, did I?

My point was that Zapruder's WFAA account does harm to HOLLAND'S "11
Seconds In Dallas" theory....which it does, via Mr. Z's words -- "About
halfway down there, I heard a shot" {meaning the FIRST shot he heard,
based on what he said just after that "halfway" quote}.

But, as an aside, Zapruder's WFAA recollections certainly are CLOSER to
supporting a Z160 shot than a first shot that comes way down by the
Elm/Houston intersection. Would you not agree?


Andrew Mason

unread,
Feb 23, 2007, 12:45:08 AM2/23/07
to

Not really. They are both completely inconsistent with Zapruder's
recollection. I don't see JFK slumping and moving his hands "like this"
anywhere around z160. I see him waving and smiling. Holland might suggest
that Zapruder's recollection is closer to supporting his theory eg. he was
startled by the first shot at z106 and in the ensuing 4 seconds recovered
enough to shake it off and start smiling and waving again.

Andrew Mason


pitbul...@gmail.com

unread,
Aug 7, 2020, 9:16:47 PM8/7/20
to
This is the “smoking gun” everybody was looking for but
nobody could see. Max Holland and Johann Rush have solved the JFK
assassination by proving the Zapruder film wasn’t the time clock
on the shooting everybody thought it was. Oswald didn’t fire three
shots in six seconds, he fired three shots in eleven seconds. The first
shot glanced off a traffic light pole. The second shot went through
President Kennedy and Governor Connelly. The third shot was fatal.

The proverbial “smoking gun” in this case turned out to be
the most viewed piece of film in the world. The 26 second Zapruder film.
For 44 years, most people have presumed that his home movie captured the
assassination in its entirety. This presumption has led to wild
speculations, wrong leads, and false conclusions.

We now know the Zapruder film does not depict an assassination about to
commence. It shows one that had already started.

ON NOVEMBER 22, 1963 LEE HARVEY OSWALD FIRED THREE SHOTS FROM ONE RIFLE
AND KILLED PRESIDENT KENNEDY IN DALLAS, TX. END OF STORY.

JFK conspiracy “die hards” will forever keep looking at
irrelevant, insignificant, and proven falsehoods to keep their delusional
conspiracy theories alive. They are cursed to keep looking and wandering
the earth trying to find something that isn’t there. I understand
the psychology behind their pursuits. Still it’s sad.


John Corbett

unread,
Aug 8, 2020, 8:33:37 AM8/8/20
to
Max Holland didn't prove anything. He proposed an unproven theory. We have
no definitive proof of exactly when the first shot was fired although
everyone has their own opinion. While Holland's theory is a possibility,
it requires us to believe Connally reacted very slowly to the first shot,
turning his head about three seconds after hearing the shot. That's hard
to accept.

The six second time frame was never a conclusion of the Warren Commission.
It was just one of several possible scenarios they offered. A six second
time frame seems to have become cemented as the WC's conclusion in the
public's mind, probably because of the book Six Seconds in Dallas by
Josiah Thompson which was published several years after the WC. Few lone
assassin proponents hold to that theory. Most now realize it was likely
the first shot that missed and that the time span for all three was in the
8-9 second time frame.

Anthony Marsh

unread,
Aug 8, 2020, 10:14:24 PM8/8/20