At "JFK Facts"....

[David Von Pein]

JEFFERSON MORLEY SAID:

In a huffy blog post, "Ballistics and the Truth" [linked below], Dale
Meyers [sic] and Todd Vaughn [sic] unload on Max Holland's
reinterpretation of Abraham Zapruder's film, accusing him of "irrational
logic, mockery, and distain (sic) for the truth."

http://jfkfiles.blogspot.com/2015/06/hollands-deflection-ballistics-and-truth.html

The shaky orthography and effortless condescension, all too familiar in
the JFK arena, tends to obscure Meyers [sic] and Vaughn's [sic] strongest
argument:

The accounts of most Dealey Plaza eyewitnesses do not corroborate Holland's
timing of the first shot at JFK's limousine.

One person I want to hear from is Luke Haag. .... Has anybody seen Haag's
presentation? Know about his background?

http://jfkfacts.org/assassination/news/11-seconds-in-dallas-max-holland-comes-under-fire-for-his-jfk-theory/


DAVID VON PEIN SAID (although Morley, as of this moment on 6/14/15 refuses
to post this at his site):

Jeff, it would be nice if you could correctly spell Dale Myers' and Todd
Vaughan's names. You got them both wrong.

And here is the "Cold Case JFK" program featuring Haag....
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3XlTbRzxO-s

----------------------

And Jeff Morley then decided to misspell the names of both Myers and
Vaughan yet again in another "JFK Facts" thread which was started the next
day. ~shrug~....

http://jfkfacts.org/assassination/experts/max-holland-responds-to-meyers-and-vaughn-about-dealey-plaza/

Not a big deal, I suppose. But if I were Dale Myers or Todd Vaughan, I'd
find it rather annoying (times two).

My own name is misspelled frequently on the Internet by people who
certainly know how to spell it correctly by just looking at the name at
the top of my posts. I look at it as a form of disrespect in a way.
Particularly if the same person does it over and over again.

[bigdog]

I doubt we will ever be able to pin down with any precision when that
first shot was fired. The forensic evidence is inconclusive and the
witness evidence is contradictory. While I do not embrace Holland's
theory, I can't logically dismiss it either. I would give it a definite
maybe. My own GUESS is early Z150s, but a guess is all that is.

[pjsp...@aol.com]

It's rare that I find myself in firm agreement with Myers, but in this
case we're pretty much in sync. While there are a lot questions in this
case, and a lot of possibilities, the evidence is quite clear that no
audible shot was fired when the limo was down by the traffic light. It is
also clear, moreover, that Max has played some games with "his" witnesses
to make it seem as if this isn't true. Myers' anger, for once, is
well-placed.

[Allan G. Johnson]

I agree, B.D. I think the most interesting and compelling thing about
Holland's theory is his observation of the SS Agent in the follow up car
jump seat standing behind the driver. He said he responded to the first
shot by looking to his left and down at the outside of the car. You can
clearly see him doing that in the Zapruder film just as the limo is first
seen (from 133 to 155, in the sprocket area of the film). Allowing for a
1/2 second reaction time, that puts him hearing the first shot very close
to frame 133 or before.

There are MANY witnesses that place the first shot just as the limo
completed the Elm St. turn. That puts the street light pole into play,
the limo had to pass right under the horizontal bar just as it completed
it's turn. Also, you can see Rosemary Willis with her head turned way
before frame 160. Oswald most likely was standing up or leaning to his
left at the first shot due to the arrangement of the boxes being set up
for a more down range shot, another reason it was a difficult shot Another
thing to consider is that the bullet, if it hit the pole or part of a
tree, could have fragmented into 3 large pieces. The copper jacket
deflecting onto the street next to the limo causing sparks and 2 large
lead fragments being deflected down range, one hitting on Elm St. and the
other hitting the Commerce St. curb near Tague. Holland theorized it was
one fragment doing both, even ricocheting off the grass.

At frame 133, JFK clearly starts to drop his waving hand and look to his
left at Jackie (as if reacting to something), then goes back to waving.
At this same time, Connally looks to his right, then to his left, then
back to his right, just as he said he did. If you view the film with the
thought that the first shot was just fired at the time the limo is first
seen (or just before), it gives you a different perspective on what you're
seeing.

[Anthony Marsh]

Well, at least you keep it after he started filming again when we can SEE
the limo.

Max wants to move it to the gap when Zapruder had stopped filming. That
only feeds the alterations who will then say that is why Zapruder was
filming continuously and the FBI/CIA/NPIC/LIFE/Illuminati cut out the
first shot.

[tom...@cox.net]

bigdog <jecorb...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> On Monday, June 15, 2015 at 11:20:47 AM UTC-4, David Von Pein wrote:
> > JEFFERSON MORLEY SAID:

> >=20

> > In a huffy blog post, "Ballistics and the Truth" [linked below],

> > Dale=20 Meyers [sic] and Todd Vaughn [sic] unload on Max Holland's=20

> > reinterpretation of Abraham Zapruder's film, accusing him of

> > "irrational=
> =20

> > logic, mockery, and distain (sic) for the truth."

> >=20
> > http://jfkfiles.blogspot.com/2015/06/hollands-deflection-ballistics-and
> > -t=
> ruth.html
> >=20

> > The shaky orthography and effortless condescension, all too familiar

> > in=
> =20

> > the JFK arena, tends to obscure Meyers [sic] and Vaughn's [sic]

> > strongest=
> =20
> > argument:
> >=20

> > The accounts of most Dealey Plaza eyewitnesses do not corroborate

> > Holland=
> 's=20

> > timing of the first shot at JFK's limousine.

> >=20

> > One person I want to hear from is Luke Haag. .... Has anybody seen

> > Haag's=
> =20

> > presentation? Know about his background?

> >=20
> > http://jfkfacts.org/assassination/news/11-seconds-in-dallas-max-holland
> > -c=
> omes-under-fire-for-his-jfk-theory/
> >=20
> >=20

> > DAVID VON PEIN SAID (although Morley, as of this moment on 6/14/15

> > refuse=
> s=20

> > to post this at his site):

> >=20

> > Jeff, it would be nice if you could correctly spell Dale Myers' and

> > Todd=
> =20

> > Vaughan's names. You got them both wrong.

> >=20

> > And here is the "Cold Case JFK" program featuring Haag....

> > https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3D3XlTbRzxO-s
> >=20
> > ----------------------
> >=20
> > And Jeff Morley then decided to misspell the names of both Myers and=20

> > Vaughan yet again in another "JFK Facts" thread which was started the

> > nex=
> t=20
> > day. ~shrug~....
> >=20
> > http://jfkfacts.org/assassination/experts/max-holland-responds-to-meyer
> > s-=
> and-vaughn-about-dealey-plaza/
> >=20

> > Not a big deal, I suppose. But if I were Dale Myers or Todd Vaughan,

> > I'd=
> =20

> > find it rather annoying (times two).

> >=20
> > My own name is misspelled frequently on the Internet by people who=20

> > certainly know how to spell it correctly by just looking at the name

> > at=
> =20
> > the top of my posts. I look at it as a form of disrespect in a way.=20

> > Particularly if the same person does it over and over again.
>
> I doubt we will ever be able to pin down with any precision when that
> first shot was fired. The forensic evidence is inconclusive and the
> witness evidence is contradictory. While I do not embrace Holland's
> theory, I can't logically dismiss it either. I would give it a definite
> maybe. My own GUESS is early Z150s, but a guess is all that is.

===========================================================================
===== this keeps you in alignemt with the guesses of the warren commission
! ! ! !
======================================================================

--
-------------------- http://NewsReader.Com/ --------------------
Usenet Newsgroup Service $9.95/Month 30GB

[bigdog]

I think it's possible Holland could be partially right. An early first
shot wouldn't necessarily mean a strike on the traffic bar. It maybe that
the first shot just missed. It would have been by far the most difficult
of the three shots even though it was the closest. Oswald would have been
firing almost straight down at a target moving abruptly across rather than
down his line of fire as was the case for the later shots. He likely would
have had to raise up out of his kneeling or sitting position to fire that
steeply. If the shot was as early as Holland proposes, it would have
required Oswald to track the target as it was making the 120 degree turn
adding to the difficulty of trying to keep the sights on JFK whether he
was using the scope or the fixed sights. In addition his target was about
to move under the tree forcing him to rush the shot. None of these would
have been an issue for the next two shots. He had a clear line of sight at
a target moving almost directly away from him greatly reducing the
relative movement of the target to the line of fire.

Why did Oswald take that early shot with all its inherent difficulties.
Maybe he calculated that a bad shot had a better chance than no shot at
all so why not go for it. He could still take the later shots if that one
missed which it seems it most certainly did.

I find it difficult to draw any conclusions from the movement by the
occupants other than Connally who later told us exactly what he heard and
what he was thinking and his account squares with what we see him doing.
Other than that, interpreting the movement of the passengers is a
subjective exercise that is best left to Harris.

[OHLeeRedux]

tom...@cox.net

How is anyone supposed to read this garbage?

[Anthony Marsh]

Another good reason for why we needed to SEE the original film with the
sprocket holes.The first was to confirm that the third cyclist did not
continue up Houston and miss the turn.

> 1/2 second reaction time, that puts him hearing the first shot very close
> to frame 133 or before.
>

Something like that.
Prove exactly when he started to react and how long it took him to react
and you'll get closer.
Can you start talking about frame 312 + .7 seconds?

> There are MANY witnesses that place the first shot just as the limo
> completed the Elm St. turn. That puts the street light pole into play,
> the limo had to pass right under the horizontal bar just as it completed
> it's turn. Also, you can see Rosemary Willis with her head turned way

But you never read my old messages about that. You don't know how to
search the old messages. Neither did Max.

> before frame 160. Oswald most likely was standing up or leaning to his
> left at the first shot due to the arrangement of the boxes being set up

Something like that. Did you know that the HSCA considered that
difference and had the tests shots fired first with the muzzle in the
plane of the window and then pulled back 2 feet? Which condition matched
the DPD tape best?

> for a more down range shot, another reason it was a difficult shot Another
> thing to consider is that the bullet, if it hit the pole or part of a
> tree, could have fragmented into 3 large pieces. The copper jacket

Maybe, but no test has duplicated that.

> deflecting onto the street next to the limo causing sparks and 2 large
> lead fragments being deflected down range, one hitting on Elm St. and the
> other hitting the Commerce St. curb near Tague. Holland theorized it was
> one fragment doing both, even ricocheting off the grass.
>

You actually think the 3 fragments were:
A. the intact copper jacket
B. a large lead core fragment
C. a small lead core fragment
?

Where did your fragments go? Show them to me.
Or did they just melt in thin air?
Have you seen the fragments recovered from the limo?

[Anthony Marsh]

I wouldn't call it anger, but Myers is right that Max has not proved his
theory. But do you understand the concept that just because they are all
WC defenders does not mean they automatically agree on everything 100%?
Max's theory does not have to tell exactly when the first shot was
fired. But he is correct that the traffic light support bar blocks a
shot and was a hindrance. I pointed that out long before he did. But he
took it too far and claimed that the missed shot hit it.
Then he goes all Posner by imagining a deflection and pealing off the
bullet jacket.
And ignores some basic facts that we've know from 1963. But there's no
need for a cat fight, just a discussion.
2 people can see something different from either side and both might
havd half the answer.

[tom...@cox.net]

bigdog <jecorb...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> On Tuesday, June 16, 2015 at 10:00:08 PM UTC-4, Allan G. Johnson wrote:
> > On Monday, June 15, 2015 at 11:52:19 PM UTC-4, bigdog wrote:
> > > On Monday, June 15, 2015 at 11:20:47 AM UTC-4, David Von Pein wrote:
> > > > JEFFERSON MORLEY SAID:

> > > >=20

> > > > In a huffy blog post, "Ballistics and the Truth" [linked below],

> > > > Dale=
> =20
> > > > Meyers [sic] and Todd Vaughn [sic] unload on Max Holland's=20

> > > > reinterpretation of Abraham Zapruder's film, accusing him of

> > > > "irratio=
> nal=20

> > > > logic, mockery, and distain (sic) for the truth."

> > > >=20
> > > > http://jfkfiles.blogspot.com/2015/06/hollands-deflection-ballistics
> > > > -a=
> nd-truth.html
> > > >=20

> > > > The shaky orthography and effortless condescension, all too

> > > > familiar =
> in=20

> > > > the JFK arena, tends to obscure Meyers [sic] and Vaughn's [sic]

> > > > stron=
> gest=20
> > > > argument:
> > > >=20

> > > > The accounts of most Dealey Plaza eyewitnesses do not corroborate

> > > > Hol=
> land's=20

> > > > timing of the first shot at JFK's limousine.

> > > >=20

> > > > One person I want to hear from is Luke Haag. .... Has anybody seen

> > > > Ha=
> ag's=20

> > > > presentation? Know about his background?

> > > >=20
> > > > http://jfkfacts.org/assassination/news/11-seconds-in-dallas-max-hol
> > > > la=
> nd-comes-under-fire-for-his-jfk-theory/
> > > >=20
> > > >=20

> > > > DAVID VON PEIN SAID (although Morley, as of this moment on 6/14/15

> > > > re=
> fuses=20

> > > > to post this at his site):

> > > >=20

> > > > Jeff, it would be nice if you could correctly spell Dale Myers' and

> > > > T=
> odd=20

> > > > Vaughan's names. You got them both wrong.

> > > >=20

> > > > And here is the "Cold Case JFK" program featuring Haag....

> > > > https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3D3XlTbRzxO-s
> > > >=20
> > > > ----------------------
> > > >=20

> > > > And Jeff Morley then decided to misspell the names of both Myers

> > > > and=
> =20

> > > > Vaughan yet again in another "JFK Facts" thread which was started

> > > > the=
> next=20
> > > > day. ~shrug~....
> > > >=20
> > > > http://jfkfacts.org/assassination/experts/max-holland-responds-to-m
> > > > ey=
> ers-and-vaughn-about-dealey-plaza/
> > > >=20

> > > > Not a big deal, I suppose. But if I were Dale Myers or Todd

> > > > Vaughan, =
> I'd=20

> > > > find it rather annoying (times two).

> > > >=20

> > > > My own name is misspelled frequently on the Internet by people

> > > > who=20 certainly know how to spell it correctly by just looking at
> > > > the name =
> at=20

> > > > the top of my posts. I look at it as a form of disrespect in a

> > > > way.=
> =20

> > > > Particularly if the same person does it over and over again.

> > >=20

> > > I doubt we will ever be able to pin down with any precision when

> > > that=
> =20

> > > first shot was fired. The forensic evidence is inconclusive and

> > > the=20 witness evidence is contradictory. While I do not embrace
> > > Holland's=20 theory, I can't logically dismiss it either. I would
> > > give it a definite=
> =20

> > > maybe. My own GUESS is early Z150s, but a guess is all that is.

> >=20

> > I agree, B.D. I think the most interesting and compelling thing

> > about=
> =20

> > Holland's theory is his observation of the SS Agent in the follow up

> > car=
> =20

> > jump seat standing behind the driver. He said he responded to the

> > first=
> =20

> > shot by looking to his left and down at the outside of the car. You

> > can=
> =20

> > clearly see him doing that in the Zapruder film just as the limo is

> > first=
> =20

> > seen (from 133 to 155, in the sprocket area of the film). Allowing for

> > a=
> =20

> > 1/2 second reaction time, that puts him hearing the first shot very

> > close=
> =20
> > to frame 133 or before.=20
> >=20

> > There are MANY witnesses that place the first shot just as the

> > limo=20 completed the Elm St. turn. That puts the street light pole
> > into play,=
> =20

> > the limo had to pass right under the horizontal bar just as it

> > completed=
> =20

> > it's turn. Also, you can see Rosemary Willis with her head turned

> > way=20 before frame 160. Oswald most likely was standing up or leaning
> > to his=
> =20

> > left at the first shot due to the arrangement of the boxes being set

> > up=
> =20

> > for a more down range shot, another reason it was a difficult shot

> > Anothe=
> r=20

> > thing to consider is that the bullet, if it hit the pole or part of

> > a=20 tree, could have fragmented into 3 large pieces. The copper
> > jacket=20 deflecting onto the street next to the limo causing sparks
> > and 2 large=20 lead fragments being deflected down range, one hitting
> > on Elm St. and the=
> =20

> > other hitting the Commerce St. curb near Tague. Holland theorized it

> > was=
> =20

> > one fragment doing both, even ricocheting off the grass.

> >=20

> > At frame 133, JFK clearly starts to drop his waving hand and look to

> > hi=
> s=20

> > left at Jackie (as if reacting to something), then goes back to waving.

> > =
> =20

> > At this same time, Connally looks to his right, then to his left,

> > then=20 back to his right, just as he said he did. If you view the
> > film with the=
> =20

> > thought that the first shot was just fired at the time the limo is

> > first=
> =20

> > seen (or just before), it gives you a different perspective on what

> > you'r=
> e=20

===========================================================================
===== CONNALLY DIDN'T TURN INTO A POSITION TO RECEIVE THE THROAT SHOT UNTIL
MUCH LATWR !! STUDY THE FILM FRAME BY FRAME ! !
===========================================================================

[Allan G. Johnson]

Observing witness reactions and interpreting them are two different
things for sure. People react in different ways with different reaction
times. The more accurate information you have to work the better chance
there is to arrive and some reasonable conclusions.

Another consideration is observing JFK's reactions. At the point in
the film where the limo first appears (frame 133), JFK is beginning to
lower his right waving hand (around 140) and look to his left at Jackie,
as if responding to something, the same time the SS agent in the followup
car is looking down and to his left. JFK then looks back to his right and
goes back to waving (before frame 160). He has no unusual movements or
reactions until being struck by the second shot. These reactions tend to
support the first shot happening between frames 133 and way before 160.

Although Connally gave ambiguous accounts of what he heard, saw and did
at the time of the shots being fired, he was consistent in his description
of looking to his right, then turning to his left and then looking back to
his right. This is clearly shown in the film. The only question is what
he was reacting to and when. He was sure he heard the first shot and he
was sure it didn't hit him. How long it took him to turn, and relating
that to when the shot was fired, is hard to determine based on his
reactions. He also had a delayed reaction in being hit with the second
shot remember, and that influenced his recollection of when he was
actually hit. One thing for certain, the first shot was fired and missed
on or before 160, based on reactions of occupants in the cars,
eyewitnesses and earwitnesses.

[Anthony Marsh]

Something like that. Very close.
I believe that Max's theory stipulates that the limo had straightened
out after completing the turn.

> Why did Oswald take that early shot with all its inherent difficulties.
> Maybe he calculated that a bad shot had a better chance than no shot at
> all so why not go for it. He could still take the later shots if that one
> missed which it seems it most certainly did.
>

I think the shooter was unfamiliar with Dealey Plaza and didn't notice
the traffic light support bar until it suddenly blocked a clear shot and
caused him to panic and shoot too quickly.

[pjsp...@aol.com]

This just isn't accurate. Chapters 5 through 9 at patspeer.com comprise
the largest collection of witness statements yet assembled. When taken in
total, they make it quite clear the first shot (heard by those claiming to
hear three shots) did not miss. I mean, think about it, if Kennedy had
happily resumed waving after the first shot, wouldn't someone have noticed
this?

Nobody did. Because it didn't happen.

[FSHG]

JFK's Presidential Special Assistant and Appointments Secretary Ken
O'Donnell was sitting directly behind SS followup car SS Agent Driver Sam
Kinney.

The next SS Agent behind the driver was George Hickey, so, you may want to
re-read Hickey's statements (again?/for the 1st time?) because your Hickey
time stamping claim of "133 to 155" of the shot reactions that Hickey,
himself, stated he performed is incorrect by several seconds as documented
in the Zapruder film and additional photos.

SS Agent Hickey stated that just before his hearing the first shot that he
could hear he was looking and facing leftward while leaning leftward.
Facing leftward and body-leaning leftward/forward/downward is exactly as
we can see Hickey in the Zapruder film and exactly as we can see him in
the Hugh Betzner # 3 photo captured simultaneously at Z-186:
http://www.jfkassassinationgallery.com/albums/userpics/10001/Betzner_Large.jpg

(Betzner stated that he captured his Z-186 photo, then, had just started
to advance the film in his camera when he heard the first shot he could
hear, after Z-186)

Then, immediately after the first shot that weapons-experienced Hickey
heard, he clearly stated that he then started very quickly in his head
turn to his right and forward (while straightening-up) = after the first
shot he could hear he first turned rightward to face forward towards
President Kennedy = and Hickey's facing forward, towards JFK, is also
exactly as we can see Hickey time stamped in the Phil Willis # 5 photo
snapped simultaneously at Z-202, and, already, into his rapidly reacting
within one-second after the Betzner photo:
http://www.jfkassassinationgallery.com/displayimage.php?pid=796&fullsize=1

(WWII military veteran officer Phil Willis stated to the day he passed-on
that his Z-202 photo was involuntarily snapped when a shot immediately
before Z-202 so startled him that the shot caused him to snap the button
on his camera)

Hickey's 0.16-second, Z-196-starting, to, 199-facing-forward, sudden
straightening-up and very quick head turn towards his president is clearly
seen in the following animated Zapruder frames:
http://img838.imageshack.us/img838/1524/hickeyshotheadsnap.gif

If we allow 0.25-second for Hickey to, first, hear the shot, then,
neurologically sense the shot, then, brain interpret, then, just barely
start his quick, physical, impulsive head snap that started at Z-196, it
is precisely determinative for us that Hickey responded to a blast or
shock wave that he first could hear, at the latest, at Z-191 to 192, while
JFK was still hidden under that large southern live oak tree.

Exactly like many other witnesses (and exactly like the Warren Commission
admitted in its report about the witnesses it recorded statements from),
the last 2 shots that Hickey could hear were bunched much closer together
than the first 2 shots he could hear. (even though the current WC
apologists theory tries to believe the last 2 shots were over 46% further
apart than the first 2 shots)

[bigdog]

On Friday, June 19, 2015 at 12:44:48 PM UTC-4, pjsp...@AOL.COM wrote:
>
> This just isn't accurate. Chapters 5 through 9 at patspeer.com comprise
> the largest collection of witness statements yet assembled. When taken in
> total, they make it quite clear the first shot (heard by those claiming to
> hear three shots) did not miss. I mean, think about it, if Kennedy had
> happily resumed waving after the first shot, wouldn't someone have noticed
> this?
>

Nothing is clear from the collection of witness statements because the
witness statements are so contradictory. The only way you make anything
clear is to cherry pick just witnesses that fit a particular viewpoint but
that is false clarity. The best witness is Zapruder's camera because it
had perfect recall, but unfortunately, no sound. We can seen the obvious
reactions by JFK and JBC immediately after the shot that struck them both
and we see the devasting effect of the head shot so that is unmistakable.
The best clue as to when the missed shot was fired is to see the reaction
of JBC to it. The Z-film corroborates his testimony regarding his reaction
to the first shot and the movements he made just before he was hit by the
second shot. Unfortunately it doesn't tell us how quickly he reacted to
that first shot. Was it instantaneous or more deliberate. That is the
reason we cannot and likely never will pinpoint that missed shot.

It does seem puzzling why some people made defintive reactions to that
first shot while other seemed oblivious to it. I think JFK was in that
latter group. Probably the best explanation is that many didn't recognize
the first sound as a gunshot but as a firecracker or a motorcycle
backfire. The Z-film shows that some still did not realize they were
gunshots even after the second shot hit JFK. One man is seen continuing to
clap as a wounded JFK rides past him.

> Nobody did. Because it didn't happen.

Some people did. SS agent Bennett testified that he heard the first shot,
turned to look at JFK and saw the second shot strike him on the back. His
account should be given great credibility because he wrote it on AF1 on
the way back to Washington and it shows he knew about the back wound even
though no one at Parkland was aware of it. The only way Bennett could have
known about it is if he saw it hit JFK and he saw that after hearing the
first shot.

[Anthony Marsh]

"As if"? Don't be a Harris.

> car is looking down and to his left. JFK then looks back to his right and
> goes back to waving (before frame 160). He has no unusual movements or
> reactions until being struck by the second shot. These reactions tend to
> support the first shot happening between frames 133 and way before 160.
>

Ok, kool. So we got a new theory this week. Tell us the space of YOUR shots.

> Although Connally gave ambiguous accounts of what he heard, saw and did
> at the time of the shots being fired, he was consistent in his description
> of looking to his right, then turning to his left and then looking back to
> his right. This is clearly shown in the film. The only question is what

No. He gave different accounts at different times.

http://www.the-puzzle-palace.com/Connally.htm

[bigdog]

On Friday, June 19, 2015 at 8:33:40 PM UTC-4, FSHG wrote:
>
> Exactly like many other witnesses (and exactly like the Warren Commission
> admitted in its report about the witnesses it recorded statements from),
> the last 2 shots that Hickey could hear were bunched much closer together
> than the first 2 shots he could hear. (even though the current WC
> apologists theory tries to believe the last 2 shots were over 46% further
> apart than the first 2 shots)
>

There is no consensus among WC defenders as to exactly when the first shot
was fired since there simply is no definitive evidence that allows us to
pinpoint that first shot. Reasonable arguments can be made for a wide
range of possible times that first shot was fired, but no one has been
able to establish that with certitude. Holland's explanation would be
consistent with those witnesses who said the last two shots were closer
together. That is certainly a possibility. I believe it is simply more
likely the earwitnesses were hearing multiple sounds from that headshot
that they interpreted as two seperate shots very close together, but that
too is nothing more than an educated guess.

[Allan G. Johnson]

On Friday, June 19, 2015 at 8:33:40 PM UTC-4, FSHG wrote:

According to Hickeys's original report, he stated that he heard
something that sounded like firecrackers just a very short distance after
the limo turned left onto Elm St. (way before 191-196). He stated "I
stood up and looked to my right and rear in an attempt to identify it".
In the Zapruder film you don't see this. At 133, when the limo first
appears, he is already standing up by then and looks to his left and down
and then goes back to his right and forward around 196. This is more
evidence of the first shot happening just at or just before 133. He is
turning to his right at around 196, but I don't believe it's because of a
reaction to a shot. To believe that you would have to conclude two
shooters, because there would not be enough time between 191 and 223 (time
JFK and JBC were hit) to get off 2 shots (around 1.75 seconds).

If you review the SS reenactment film and compare it with the Zapruder
film you can make some timing observations and maybe conclusions. In the
SS film the limo passes under the streetlight pole just as it completes
it's left turn. The followup car, a few feet behind, would still be in
the process of completing the turn. In the Zapruder film, the limo is
going straight (at the start, 133) and the followup car is just about to
straighten out, it appears to be just completing the turn. This would
place the limo just under the streetlight pole at 133 or before. This
would match what Hickey observed when he said he stood up and looked right
after hearing the first shot, it must have occurred just before the limo
appeared on the film because you don't see him look right and he is
already standing up. The streetlight pole is still a likely obstruction
in firing the first shot.

[Anthony Marsh]

Or maybe he helped pull JFK out of the limo and FELT the bullet hole.

[Anthony Marsh]

That makes absolutely no sense. President Chen was shot and he didn't
notice and his security didn't notice.

[bigdog]

Naturally, being a conspiracy hobbyist, you will reach for the least
logical, least likely explanation. Are we supposed to believe that Bennett
didn't really see the bullet strike JFK in the back but discovered it by
feeling it when he pulled JFK out of the limo? And then he decided to make
up the story about seeing the bullet strike JFK when he wrote his report
on AF1? Or should we believe that Bennett's report was an honest
reflection about what he saw and heard during the shooting? One of these
explanations is believeable and the other is pure fantasy. But give a
choice, conspiracy hobbyists will always choose the fantasy over that
which is credible.

[Anthony Marsh]

Nonsense, Hickey did not stand up while they were on Elm Street.
And YOU do not get to name the frames.

> In the Zapruder film you don't see this. At 133, when the limo first
> appears, he is already standing up by then and looks to his left and down
> and then goes back to his right and forward around 196. This is more

No. Maybe you've never seen the Zapruder film. We never see him standing up.

> evidence of the first shot happening just at or just before 133. He is
> turning to his right at around 196, but I don't believe it's because of a
> reaction to a shot. To believe that you would have to conclude two
> shooters, because there would not be enough time between 191 and 223 (time
> JFK and JBC were hit) to get off 2 shots (around 1.75 seconds).
>

The acoustical evidence found two shots separated by 1.66 seconds. The
HSCA was able to fire that quickly.
You need to do a little reading before you start shooting your mouth off.

> If you review the SS reenactment film and compare it with the Zapruder
> film you can make some timing observations and maybe conclusions. In the
> SS film the limo passes under the streetlight pole just as it completes
> it's left turn. The followup car, a few feet behind, would still be in
> the process of completing the turn. In the Zapruder film, the limo is
> going straight (at the start, 133) and the followup car is just about to
> straighten out, it appears to be just completing the turn. This would
> place the limo just under the streetlight pole at 133 or before. This
> would match what Hickey observed when he said he stood up and looked right
> after hearing the first shot, it must have occurred just before the limo
> appeared on the film because you don't see him look right and he is
> already standing up. The streetlight pole is still a likely obstruction
> in firing the first shot.
>

Why don't you also look at the Dorman film instead of guessing?

>

[Allan G. Johnson]

Also, if somehow you can reasonably conclude or prove that the first
shot was fired at frame 133 or before, or just assume it for the sack of
argument, it is the only option that offers an explanation for all the
reactions that follow on film. Hickey, JFK, Connally, Rosemary Willis,
etc. all reacted after 133, some sooner than later, but none more than 1
1/2 seconds apart. If you use 160 as the time of the first shot (the last
possible opportunity to shoot at the limo from the 6th floor before it
passed under the tree), then you can't explain why Hickey started to turn
left to see if a firecracker hit the side of the car, JFK lowering his
hand and looking left, Connally looking left then right, Rosemary Willis
turning her head and slowing down, etc. all these reactions happened just
at or after 133 and way before 160. What were they reacting to if the
shot fired at 160? If the shot fired at or before 133 it explains what
they're reacting to, they just had different reacting times.

There is also the film itself, it shows a clear frame 133 and 135, but
frame 134 is very blurred. That could be due to Zapruder hearing and
reacting to the first shot. But, it could also be due to the camera
moving just as Zapruder restarted the filming.

[Allan G. Johnson]

Wrong A.M. Hickey is a full head and shoulders above the person
sitting next to him and is clearly seen above the windshield frame, he
also SAID he stood up to look around, was he lying? He may not have been
standing completely up on his feet but is definitely an upright position.
What Zapruder film are you looking at?
The Dorman film was not shot from the s.e. 6th floor window, it has a
slightly different camera angle. It does show Rosemary Willis running
with her head looking forward until she reaches the streetlight pole when
she then goes off the film. This again shows she didn't react to hearing
a loud noise, by turning her head and starting to slow down, until after
she passed the light pole, and also contradicts those people who claim she
always had her head turned.

[bigdog]

I think movements of the people you mention may well be in reaction to the
sound of a gunshot. However no matter how many times I watch the Z-film
I've never seen any movement by JFK himself that indicates he was even
aware the sound was a gunshot. The raising and lowering of his right hand
and his turn to the right seem to me to be only to wave at the few
remaining spectators on Elm St. He seems oblivious to that first shot. My
guess is that he like a number of witnesses didn't recognize the first
blast as a gunshot but either a motorcycle backfire or a firecracker. Had
he thought it was a gunshot I think he would have instantly realized he
was the probable target and his reaction would probably have been to get
Jackie and his head down and out of harm's way as best he could.

[Anthony Marsh]

False assumption. The limo could still be seen before and 160.

> left to see if a firecracker hit the side of the car, JFK lowering his

Nonsense.

> hand and looking left, Connally looking left then right, Rosemary Willis
> turning her head and slowing down, etc. all these reactions happened just

She always had her head turned. What about when she STOPPED in reaction
to hearing a shot.

> at or after 133 and way before 160. What were they reacting to if the
> shot fired at 160? If the shot fired at or before 133 it explains what
> they're reacting to, they just had different reacting times.
>

Maybe. But it doesn't depend on frame 133.

> There is also the film itself, it shows a clear frame 133 and 135, but
> frame 134 is very blurred. That could be due to Zapruder hearing and
> reacting to the first shot. But, it could also be due to the camera
> moving just as Zapruder restarted the filming.
>

Again, can you ever answer my questions or are you just here to babble?
Have you read the HSCA jiggle analysis? Did you read my Web page? If you
don't want to have a dialogue, don't post here.

[Anthony Marsh]

On 6/22/2015 12:10 PM, bigdog wrote:
> On Saturday, June 20, 2015 at 8:51:31 PM UTC-4, Anthony Marsh wrote:
>> On 6/20/2015 11:22 AM, bigdog wrote:
>>>
>>> Some people did. SS agent Bennett testified that he heard the first shot,
>>> turned to look at JFK and saw the second shot strike him on the back. His
>>> account should be given great credibility because he wrote it on AF1 on
>>> the way back to Washington and it shows he knew about the back wound even
>>> though no one at Parkland was aware of it. The only way Bennett could have
>>> known about it is if he saw it hit JFK and he saw that after hearing the
>>> first shot.
>>
>> Or maybe he helped pull JFK out of the limo and FELT the bullet hole.
>
> Naturally, being a conspiracy hobbyist, you will reach for the least
> logical, least likely explanation. Are we supposed to believe that Bennett

Prove that Bennet saw exactly where the bullet hit. What are you so
rabid to prove? We all agree there was a back wound.

> didn't really see the bullet strike JFK in the back but discovered it by
> feeling it when he pulled JFK out of the limo? And then he decided to make
> up the story about seeing the bullet strike JFK when he wrote his report
> on AF1? Or should we believe that Bennett's report was an honest

Bennet's job was not to go to the autopsy and tell the doctors what to
do. Greer and Kellerman were assigned to stay with the body. Not Hill,
not Ready, not Hickey.

> reflection about what he saw and heard during the shooting? One of these
> explanations is believeable and the other is pure fantasy. But give a
> choice, conspiracy hobbyists will always choose the fantasy over that
> which is credible.
>

You are imagining things again.

[mainframetech]

In this case the fantasy is in the WCR. The Z-film can't be trusted
since it was shown to have been altered by witness and by separate
analyses:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AAtEdEaXBtQ
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XCigDMyHisE

Chris

[mainframetech]

Don't trust the Z-film, it's been altered at certain points and is also
missing frames. Proven by witness and by separate analyses:

[mainframetech]

As usual, a lot of philosophy and little evidence. The Z-film cannot be
used to determine timings or even some events, since it was altered as
proven by witness and separate analyses.

Chris

[mainframetech]

and of course, there is the problem of the altered-film, proven by a
witness to the original film, and by separate analysis:

The witness:
https://vimeo.com/102327635

the analyses:

[mainframetech]

One of the things that Connally couldn't do was tell you who fired the
shots in his direction. That sure wasn't Oswald based on our discussion
of the timings of the people seen in the window of the TSBD.

Chris

[Anthony Marsh]

Yes, he was lying. But some people are lying about what he said.

> standing completely up on his feet but is definitely an upright position.

Fine, then don't say standing up.
Stop misusing words.

> What Zapruder film are you looking at?

A better one than you have.

> The Dorman film was not shot from the s.e. 6th floor window, it has a
> slightly different camera angle. It does show Rosemary Willis running
> with her head looking forward until she reaches the streetlight pole when
> she then goes off the film. This again shows she didn't react to hearing
> a loud noise, by turning her head and starting to slow down, until after
> she passed the light pole, and also contradicts those people who claim she
> always had her head turned.
>

The Dorman film shows Rose Mary clearly. And she always had her head
turned to her right. On another forum someone made a panorama showing
her running.

http://www.the-puzzle-palace.com/snapshot20100414181934.jpg

Rose Mary SAID she reacted to HEARING the loud shot. You don't have the
David Lui interview, do you? Must be a rhetorical question because you are
not a researcher. You don't even have Pictures of the Pain.

Lui, David, The Little Girl Must Have Heard, Dallas Times Herald, (about
June 3, 1979).

[Allan G. Johnson]

No one will know for sure what JFK was thinking or reacting to when he
dropped his right hand and looked to the LEFT at Jackie. Perhaps it was
in reaction to hearing the loud bang, not knowing exactly what it was and
not seeing anything unusual, he went back to waving to his right. If he
instantly recognized it as a gun shot, I'm sure he would have reacted
differently as you suggest. My point is that from the time the film
started to the time he was hit by the second shot, he DID react to
something starting at frame 140, and it was the ONLY time he stopped
waving, which is concurrent with reactions from other people on film.

Think of it this way BD, if you place the first shot at 133 or before,
everything seems to fit. 3 shots being fired, plenty of time to get the
shots off, more time between shots one and two then shots two and three,
reactions of people on film (Hickey, Rosemary, JFK, Connally, etc),
supports single bullet fact (if first shot missed and third shot hit head,
the second shot had to hit both Kennedy and Connally), first shot
deflecting off street light pole causing deflection of bullet fragments,
arrangement of the shells on the floor of the 6th floor, eyewitness
accounts of first shot fired just after limo turned onto Elm St., etc.
If you place the first shot at around 150 to 160, then you have to come up
with all kinds of different reasons to explain things and that's when the
arguments get off track.

[Allan G. Johnson]

The only thing you seem to do with regularity is disagree with what
anyone has to say about anything and nitpick your choice of certain parts
of subjects, which only shows that you misunderstood what the post was
trying to say. I can nitpik too, I think it just diverts the point of the
posts, but I'll bring this up anyway. You stated in your last post that
Hickey did not stand up while on Elm St. Really?, then who was that guy
with the AR-15 in the followup car after the shots were fired moving and
waving it around? Or will you just say that the limo and followup car
were never on Elm St.?

The more I read, investigate and research CT subjects and viewpoints,
the more ridiculous they become. Reading more CT books doesn't make you
more aware of truth, it makes you more aware of foolishness. Reading
garbage doesn't make you more enlightened, it just makes you an expert on
garbage.

[Anthony Marsh]

YOU can't be trusted. You've been altered by kook Websites.

[tom...@cox.net]

"Allan G. Johnson" <allan...@yahoo.com> wrote:

> On Wednesday, June 17, 2015 at 2:57:21 PM UTC-4, bigdog wrote:
> > On Tuesday, June 16, 2015 at 10:00:08 PM UTC-4, Allan G. Johnson wrote:
> > > On Monday, June 15, 2015 at 11:52:19 PM UTC-4, bigdog wrote:
> > > > On Monday, June 15, 2015 at 11:20:47 AM UTC-4, David Von Pein
> > > > wrote:
> > > > > JEFFERSON MORLEY SAID:

> > > > >=20

> > > > > In a huffy blog post, "Ballistics and the Truth" [linked below],

> > > > > Da=
> le=20
> > > > > Meyers [sic] and Todd Vaughn [sic] unload on Max Holland's=20

> > > > > reinterpretation of Abraham Zapruder's film, accusing him of

> > > > > "irrat=
> ional=20

> > > > > logic, mockery, and distain (sic) for the truth."

> > > > >=20
> > > > > http://jfkfiles.blogspot.com/2015/06/hollands-deflection-ballisti
> > > > > cs=
> -and-truth.html
> > > > >=20

> > > > > The shaky orthography and effortless condescension, all too

> > > > > familia=
> r in=20

> > > > > the JFK arena, tends to obscure Meyers [sic] and Vaughn's [sic]

> > > > > str=
> ongest=20
> > > > > argument:
> > > > >=20

> > > > > The accounts of most Dealey Plaza eyewitnesses do not corroborate

> > > > > H=
> olland's=20

> > > > > timing of the first shot at JFK's limousine.

> > > > >=20

> > > > > One person I want to hear from is Luke Haag. .... Has anybody

> > > > > seen =
> Haag's=20

> > > > > presentation? Know about his background?

> > > > >=20
> > > > > http://jfkfacts.org/assassination/news/11-seconds-in-dallas-max-h
> > > > > ol=
> land-comes-under-fire-for-his-jfk-theory/
> > > > >=20
> > > > >=20

> > > > > DAVID VON PEIN SAID (although Morley, as of this moment on

> > > > > 6/14/15 =
> refuses=20

> > > > > to post this at his site):

> > > > >=20

> > > > > Jeff, it would be nice if you could correctly spell Dale Myers'

> > > > > and=
> Todd=20

> > > > > Vaughan's names. You got them both wrong.

> > > > >=20

> > > > > And here is the "Cold Case JFK" program featuring Haag....

> > > > > https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3D3XlTbRzxO-s
> > > > >=20
> > > > > ----------------------
> > > > >=20

> > > > > And Jeff Morley then decided to misspell the names of both Myers

> > > > > an=
> d=20

> > > > > Vaughan yet again in another "JFK Facts" thread which was started

> > > > > t=
> he next=20
> > > > > day. ~shrug~....
> > > > >=20
> > > > > http://jfkfacts.org/assassination/experts/max-holland-responds-to
> > > > > -m=
> eyers-and-vaughn-about-dealey-plaza/
> > > > >=20

> > > > > Not a big deal, I suppose. But if I were Dale Myers or Todd

> > > > > Vaughan=
> , I'd=20

> > > > > find it rather annoying (times two).

> > > > >=20

> > > > > My own name is misspelled frequently on the Internet by people

> > > > > who=
> =20

> > > > > certainly know how to spell it correctly by just looking at the

> > > > > nam=
> e at=20

> > > > > the top of my posts. I look at it as a form of disrespect in a

> > > > > way.=
> =20

> > > > > Particularly if the same person does it over and over again.

> > > >=20

> > > > I doubt we will ever be able to pin down with any precision when

> > > > that=
> =20

> > > > first shot was fired. The forensic evidence is inconclusive and

> > > > the=
> =20

> > > > witness evidence is contradictory. While I do not embrace

> > > > Holland's=
> =20

> > > > theory, I can't logically dismiss it either. I would give it a

> > > > defini=
> te=20

> > > > maybe. My own GUESS is early Z150s, but a guess is all that is.

> > >=20

> > > I agree, B.D. I think the most interesting and compelling thing

> > > abou=
> t=20

> > > Holland's theory is his observation of the SS Agent in the follow up

> > > ca=
> r=20

> > > jump seat standing behind the driver. He said he responded to the

> > > firs=
> t=20

> > > shot by looking to his left and down at the outside of the car. You

> > > ca=
> n=20

> > > clearly see him doing that in the Zapruder film just as the limo is

> > > fir=
> st=20

> > > seen (from 133 to 155, in the sprocket area of the film). Allowing

> > > for=
> a=20

> > > 1/2 second reaction time, that puts him hearing the first shot very

> > > clo=
> se=20
> > > to frame 133 or before.=20
> > >=20

> > > There are MANY witnesses that place the first shot just as the

> > > limo=
> =20

> > > completed the Elm St. turn. That puts the street light pole into

> > > play,=
> =20

> > > the limo had to pass right under the horizontal bar just as it

> > > complete=
> d=20

> > > it's turn. Also, you can see Rosemary Willis with her head turned

> > > way=
> =20

> > > before frame 160. Oswald most likely was standing up or leaning to

> > > his=
> =20

> > > left at the first shot due to the arrangement of the boxes being set

> > > up=
> =20

> > > for a more down range shot, another reason it was a difficult shot

> > > Anot=
> her=20

> > > thing to consider is that the bullet, if it hit the pole or part of

> > > a=
> =20

> > > tree, could have fragmented into 3 large pieces. The copper

> > > jacket=20 deflecting onto the street next to the limo causing sparks
> > > and 2 large=
> =20

> > > lead fragments being deflected down range, one hitting on Elm St. and

> > > t=
> he=20

> > > other hitting the Commerce St. curb near Tague. Holland theorized it

> > > w=
> as=20

> > > one fragment doing both, even ricocheting off the grass.

> > >=20

> > > At frame 133, JFK clearly starts to drop his waving hand and look

> > > to =
> his=20

> > > left at Jackie (as if reacting to something), then goes back to

> > > waving.=
> =20

> > > At this same time, Connally looks to his right, then to his left,

> > > then=
> =20

> > > back to his right, just as he said he did. If you view the film with

> > > t=
> he=20

> > > thought that the first shot was just fired at the time the limo is

> > > firs=
> t=20

> > > seen (or just before), it gives you a different perspective on what

> > > you=
> 're=20
> > > seeing.
> >=20

> > I think it's possible Holland could be partially right. An early

> > first=20 shot wouldn't necessarily mean a strike on the traffic bar. It
> > maybe that=
> =20

> > the first shot just missed. It would have been by far the most

> > difficult=
> =20

> > of the three shots even though it was the closest. Oswald would have

> > been=
> =20

> > firing almost straight down at a target moving abruptly across rather

> > tha=
> n=20

> > down his line of fire as was the case for the later shots. He likely

> > woul=
> d=20

> > have had to raise up out of his kneeling or sitting position to fire

> > that=
> =20
> > steeply. If the shot was as early as Holland proposes, it would have=20

> > required Oswald to track the target as it was making the 120 degree

> > turn=
> =20

> > adding to the difficulty of trying to keep the sights on JFK whether

> > he=
> =20

> > was using the scope or the fixed sights. In addition his target was

> > about=
> =20

> > to move under the tree forcing him to rush the shot. None of these

> > would=
> =20

> > have been an issue for the next two shots. He had a clear line of sight

> > a=
> t=20
> > a target moving almost directly away from him greatly reducing the=20

> > relative movement of the target to the line of fire.

> >=20

> > Why did Oswald take that early shot with all its inherent

> > difficulties.=
> =20

> > Maybe he calculated that a bad shot had a better chance than no shot

> > at=
> =20

> > all so why not go for it. He could still take the later shots if that

> > one=
> =20

> > missed which it seems it most certainly did.

> >=20
> > I find it difficult to draw any conclusions from the movement by the=20

> > occupants other than Connally who later told us exactly what he heard

> > and=
> =20

> > what he was thinking and his account squares with what we see him

> > doing.=
> =20
> > Other than that, interpreting the movement of the passengers is a=20

> > subjective exercise that is best left to Harris.
>

> Observing witness reactions and interpreting them are two different
> things for sure. People react in different ways with different reaction
> times. The more accurate information you have to work the better chance
> there is to arrive and some reasonable conclusions.
>
> Another consideration is observing JFK's reactions. At the point in
> the film where the limo first appears (frame 133), JFK is beginning to
> lower his right waving hand (around 140) and look to his left at Jackie,
> as if responding to something, the same time the SS agent in the followup
> car is looking down and to his left. JFK then looks back to his right
> and goes back to waving (before frame 160). He has no unusual movements
> or reactions until being struck by the second shot. These reactions tend

> to support the first shot happening between frames 133 and way before
> 160.
>

> Although Connally gave ambiguous accounts of what he heard, saw and
> did at the time of the shots being fired, he was consistent in his
> description of looking to his right, then turning to his left and then
> looking back to his right. This is clearly shown in the film. The only
> question is what he was reacting to and when. He was sure he heard the
> first shot and he was sure it didn't hit him. How long it took him to
> turn, and relating that to when the shot was fired, is hard to determine
> based on his reactions. He also had a delayed reaction in being hit with
> the second shot remember, and that influenced his recollection of when he
> was actually hit. One thing for certain, the first shot was fired and
> missed on or before 160, based on reactions of occupants in the cars,
> eyewitnesses and earwitnesses.

"DELAYTED RECTION" ! ! ! !

FOUR INCHES OF HIS FIFTH RIB BECAME SECONDARY MISSLES CURSING THROUGH HIS
BODY AND HIS RIGHT WRIST BONE SHATTERED AND YOU THINK HE HAD A "DELAYED
REACTION ! ! ! YOU NEEED TO GO BACK TO SESAME STREET ! ! !
==========================================================================

[tom...@cox.net]

bigdog <jecorb...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> On Saturday, June 20, 2015 at 8:51:31 PM UTC-4, Anthony Marsh wrote:
> > On 6/20/2015 11:22 AM, bigdog wrote:
> > >
> > > Some people did. SS agent Bennett testified that he heard the first

> > > sho=

> t,
> > > turned to look at JFK and saw the second shot strike him on the back.

> > > H=

> is
> > > account should be given great credibility because he wrote it on AF1
> > > on the way back to Washington and it shows he knew about the back

> > > wound ev=

> en
> > > though no one at Parkland was aware of it. The only way Bennett could

> > > h=

> ave
> > > known about it is if he saw it hit JFK and he saw that after hearing

> > > th=
> e
> > > first shot.
> >=20

> > Or maybe he helped pull JFK out of the limo and FELT the bullet hole.
>
> Naturally, being a conspiracy hobbyist, you will reach for the least
> logical, least likely explanation. Are we supposed to believe that
> Bennett didn't really see the bullet strike JFK in the back but
> discovered it by feeling it when he pulled JFK out of the limo? And then
> he decided to make up the story about seeing the bullet strike JFK when
> he wrote his report on AF1? Or should we believe that Bennett's report
> was an honest reflection about what he saw and heard during the shooting?
> One of these explanations is believeable and the other is pure fantasy.
> But give a choice, conspiracy hobbyists will always choose the fantasy
> over that which is credible.

===========================================================================
===== LOOKS LIKE CORBETT DOESN'T TRUST THE SECRET SERVICE NOW I WONDER IF
HE CONSIDERS SOME OF THM AS "SUSPECTS" ? ? ? ?
===========================================================================
=====

--
-------------------- http://NewsReader.Com/ --------------------
Usenet Newsgroup Service $9.95/Month 30GB

[tom...@cox.net]

"Allan G. Johnson" <allan...@yahoo.com> wrote:

> On Saturday, June 20, 2015 at 7:54:57 PM UTC-4, bigdog wrote:
> > On Friday, June 19, 2015 at 8:33:40 PM UTC-4, FSHG wrote:

> > >=20

> > > Exactly like many other witnesses (and exactly like the Warren

> > > Commissi=
> on=20

> > > admitted in its report about the witnesses it recorded statements

> > > from)=
> ,=20

> > > the last 2 shots that Hickey could hear were bunched much closer

> > > togeth=
> er=20
> > > than the first 2 shots he could hear. (even though the current WC=20

> > > apologists theory tries to believe the last 2 shots were over 46%

> > > furth=
> er=20

> > > apart than the first 2 shots)

> > >=20
> >=20

> > There is no consensus among WC defenders as to exactly when the first

> > sho=
> t=20

> > was fired since there simply is no definitive evidence that allows us

> > to=
> =20

> > pinpoint that first shot. Reasonable arguments can be made for a

> > wide=20 range of possible times that first shot was fired, but no one
> > has been=20 able to establish that with certitude. Holland's
> > explanation would be=20 consistent with those witnesses who said the
> > last two shots were closer=
> =20

> > together. That is certainly a possibility. I believe it is simply

> > more=20 likely the earwitnesses were hearing multiple sounds from that
> > headshot=
> =20

> > that they interpreted as two seperate shots very close together, but

> > that=
> =20

> > too is nothing more than an educated guess.
>
> Also, if somehow you can reasonably conclude or prove that the first
> shot was fired at frame 133 or before, or just assume it for the sack of
> argument, it is the only option that offers an explanation for all the
> reactions that follow on film. Hickey, JFK, Connally, Rosemary Willis,
> etc. all reacted after 133, some sooner than later, but none more than 1
> 1/2 seconds apart. If you use 160 as the time of the first shot (the
> last possible opportunity to shoot at the limo from the 6th floor before
> it passed under the tree), then you can't explain why Hickey started to
> turn left to see if a firecracker hit the side of the car, JFK lowering
> his hand and looking left, Connally looking left then right, Rosemary
> Willis turning her head and slowing down, etc. all these reactions
> happened just at or after 133 and way before 160. What were they
> reacting to if the shot fired at 160? If the shot fired at or before 133
> it explains what they're reacting to, they just had different reacting
> times.
>
> There is also the film itself, it shows a clear frame 133 and 135, but
> frame 134 is very blurred. That could be due to Zapruder hearing and
> reacting to the first shot. But, it could also be due to the camera
> moving just as Zapruder restarted the filming.

===========================================================================
===== ANOTHER FOOL WHO LIEVES TGAT SOMEONE WOULD FIRE AT A TARGET WHICH
COULD NOT BE SEEN FROM THE 6TH FLOOR WINDOW BECAUSE IT WAS BLOCKED BY THE
LARGE LIVE OAK TREE ! ! !
===========================================================================

[tom...@cox.net]

bigdog <jecorb...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> On Friday, June 19, 2015 at 12:44:48 PM UTC-4, pjsp...@AOL.COM wrote:

> >=20

> > This just isn't accurate. Chapters 5 through 9 at patspeer.com

> > comprise=
> =20

> > the largest collection of witness statements yet assembled. When taken

> > in=
> =20

> > total, they make it quite clear the first shot (heard by those claiming

> > t=
> o=20

> > hear three shots) did not miss. I mean, think about it, if Kennedy

> > had=20 happily resumed waving after the first shot, wouldn't someone
> > have notice=
> d=20
> > this?
> >=20

===========================================================================
======BENNETT ALSO SAID HE SAW THE SHOT HIT "THE BOSS" FOUR INCHES DOWN
FROM THE SHOULDER" ! ! ! NEVER MORE THAN HALF ATORY FROM CORBETT !
===================================================================

[bigdog]

On Wednesday, June 24, 2015 at 11:45:07 AM UTC-4, Anthony Marsh wrote:
> On 6/22/2015 12:10 PM, bigdog wrote:
> > On Saturday, June 20, 2015 at 8:51:31 PM UTC-4, Anthony Marsh wrote:
> >> On 6/20/2015 11:22 AM, bigdog wrote:
> >>>
> >>> Some people did. SS agent Bennett testified that he heard the first shot,
> >>> turned to look at JFK and saw the second shot strike him on the back. His
> >>> account should be given great credibility because he wrote it on AF1 on
> >>> the way back to Washington and it shows he knew about the back wound even
> >>> though no one at Parkland was aware of it. The only way Bennett could have
> >>> known about it is if he saw it hit JFK and he saw that after hearing the
> >>> first shot.
> >>
> >> Or maybe he helped pull JFK out of the limo and FELT the bullet hole.
> >
> > Naturally, being a conspiracy hobbyist, you will reach for the least
> > logical, least likely explanation. Are we supposed to believe that Bennett
>
> Prove that Bennet saw exactly where the bullet hit. What are you so
> rabid to prove? We all agree there was a back wound.
>

The fact that he described it in the report he wrote on AF1 before the
back wound was discovered at autopsy is a pretty good indication he saw
where the bullet hit. Was he supposed to give exact measurements of where
the bullet struck?

> > didn't really see the bullet strike JFK in the back but discovered it by
> > feeling it when he pulled JFK out of the limo? And then he decided to make
> > up the story about seeing the bullet strike JFK when he wrote his report
> > on AF1? Or should we believe that Bennett's report was an honest
>
> Bennet's job was not to go to the autopsy and tell the doctors what to
> do. Greer and Kellerman were assigned to stay with the body. Not Hill,
> not Ready, not Hickey.
>

What the hell does that have to do with anything? Are you just showing off
your knowledge of the trivia surrounding the case?

> > reflection about what he saw and heard during the shooting? One of these
> > explanations is believeable and the other is pure fantasy. But give a
> > choice, conspiracy hobbyists will always choose the fantasy over that
> > which is credible.
> >
>
> You are imagining things again.

I don't need to imagine this. I've seen conspiracy hobbyists doing this
for more than two decades. That's how long ago I began studying the case
in depth and began to realize how illogical their minds work.

[Allan G. Johnson]

The Dorman film does show Rosemary running around the corner next to
the plaza wall, as the limo is making the turn, with her head turned right
(as the photo posted shows) following the woman in the blue outfit, who is
also running. However, she looks forward while running until she and the
woman in blue reach the streetlight pole. The Zapruder film (at 133)
picks her up way after she passes the pole and has already passed the
woman in blue and has her head turned right again. As I said in the
previous post, she heard the loud noise and began to slow down after she
passed the streetlight pole in the Dorman film and this happened just
after the limo completed it's turn. She is no longer looking at the limo
at this time but behind it. The Zapruder film starts to pick this up at
frame 133, another indication that the shot was already fired.

[Brian Roselle]

Tom,

From the snipers nest, I believe that the large live oak tree was not in
the way of the limo until around z160. There was plenty of opening before
that.

I happen to agree with almost all of Allan's points, and personally think
the first shot was fired about a half a second before Z133. The muzzle
blast then traveling down Elm may well have then affected Zapruder around
z133/z135, but I feel certain it affected Elsie Dorman, being so close, as
it related to her camera stop during prime filming when the limo was right
in front of her on Elm.

Thx, Brian

[bigdog]

I have said previously that I neither embrace nor reject Max Holland's
theory of a shot before Zapruder resumed filming. A first shot at Z133
would mean roughly 90 frames between each subsequent shot which would fit
with those who thought the shots were evenly spaced. I believe Holland
places it the equivelant of 30 frames earlier which would fit with those
who thought the last two came closer together which was the majority
viewpoint. Holland's theory seems to fit better with some pieces of the
puzzle but not with others. Most notably Connally's visible reaction which
began at Z164 when he snapped his head quickly to his right. If Holland is
correct, Connally took over 3 seconds to make that visible reaction. That
is possible if his reaction was a cognitive, deliberate reaction as
opposed to an intantaneous reaction to it.

My own belief, which is part hunch, part educated guess is a first shot at
Z151 which would fit with the jiggle at Z158. But since there were more
jiggles than shots, it can't be stated with any certainty that the Z158
jiggle was caused by a shot.

Reasonable arguments can be made for that first shot when Max Holland
placed, Z160 which is when Dale Myers placed it, or sometime in between.
It would be nice to be able to nail down this loose piece but
unfortunately with the evidence we have, I don't think we will ever be
able to state with certainty when it was fired. If only Zapruder had a
camera with sound. If the assassination were to happen today, we would
have dozens of videos with sound to tell us what happened.

[Anthony Marsh]

That is my job here since the kooks and Nazis have scared away all the
serious researchers. I have to battle both side and point out the
errors, no matter where they came from.

> anyone has to say about anything and nitpick your choice of certain parts
> of subjects, which only shows that you misunderstood what the post was
> trying to say. I can nitpik too, I think it just diverts the point of the
> posts, but I'll bring this up anyway. You stated in your last post that
> Hickey did not stand up while on Elm St. Really?, then who was that guy
> with the AR-15 in the followup car after the shots were fired moving and
> waving it around? Or will you just say that the limo and followup car
> were never on Elm St.?
>

You seem to be suffering from location disorder syndrome. We can SEE
hickey standing on the Stemmons Freeway. That is after Elm Street. On
Elm Street he did not stand up. Is that clear enough for you? Or do you
need a map?

> The more I read, investigate and research CT subjects and viewpoints,
> the more ridiculous they become. Reading more CT books doesn't make you
> more aware of truth, it makes you more aware of foolishness. Reading
> garbage doesn't make you more enlightened, it just makes you an expert on
> garbage.

Excuse me? I don't just read books, but I read both conspiracy books and
WC defender books. Sometimes a WC defender book will get something
right. Don't give up hope.

>
>
>

[Anthony Marsh]

I assume you've never looked at anyone else being shot. And you can't
see when Connally was shot or when Oswald was shot.

> Think of it this way BD, if you place the first shot at 133 or before,
> everything seems to fit. 3 shots being fired, plenty of time to get the

Something like that. But there is plenty of time for 3 shots if you
start at Z-180.

> shots off, more time between shots one and two then shots two and three,
> reactions of people on film (Hickey, Rosemary, JFK, Connally, etc),
> supports single bullet fact (if first shot missed and third shot hit head,
> the second shot had to hit both Kennedy and Connally), first shot
> deflecting off street light pole causing deflection of bullet fragments,

Physically impossible. Did the Sun go SuperNova yesterday?

[Brian Roselle]

Bigdog,

Immediately before z151, do you have any thoughts on what may have caused
Connallys rapid head snap left, which started at z150?

Thx, Brian

[bigdog]

I've looked at several versions of the Z-film trying to find one that has
that part of the film enhanced. Based on what I see, I don't know that I
would characterize his movement as a head snap as opposed to just a normal
turn to his left. There are any number of reasons he may have looked to
his left at that point, one of which is that he could have been reacting
to a gunshot. There are too many other possibilities to say with any
conviction that he is reacting to a gunshot at that moment.

When judging Connally's movements I like to compare that with how he
described his reaction to the first gunshot. In his initial version given
to Martin Agronsky from his hospital bed he said he turned left upon
hearing the first shot. In every other version I am aware of including his
sworn testimony, he said he turned right upon hearing the first shot. Now
maybe he was influenced by what he saw himself doing in the Z-film or
maybe he just misspoke when he told Agronsky that his initial movement was
to turn to his left. I just don't see anything definitive in JBC's
movements at Z150 that would allow me to say that he is reacting to a
gunshot at that point. All I can say is maybe.

[Allan G. Johnson]

The Dorman film, though very unsteady and unprofessional, becomes VERY
unstable and blurred at the time Rosemary reaches the streetlight pole and
goes off camera. This is about the same time the limo would be passing
under it. Another indication a shot could have been fired at this time.
(before frame 133 on Zap. film).

[Allan G. Johnson]

Personally, I don't put much weight or significance on the camera
jiggles. There are far too many of them that occur at different times in
the film to draw any conclusions. Too many reasons for them (they could
be possible reactions to loud noise, bad camera, loose film, unsteady
operator, starting and stopping film, etc.).

The Connally head movement to the right is seen around 150, but, keep
in mind, he said he tried to look left over his shoulder at first to try
and see Kennedy after he heard the first shot, which he recognized
immediately as a rifle shot. He then looked back to his right and soon
after that he was hit. His reaction at 150 is after he already looked
left, another indication the first shot was earlier.

To A.M., Connally did have a delayed reaction to being hit at 223.
Even after looking at the Zapruder film, he said he wasn't hit until at
least 235. He definitely physically reacted to being hit at 223-224, the
same time as Kennedy, but didn't feel it, and it didn't register, until
later when he was still in the process of turning around to his right to
look at JFK. (PS- I'm neither a Kook or a Nazi).

What this thread is attempting to do is, if possible, point out
legitimate arguments and opinions on when the first shot was fired.
Personally, I think the shot was fired at or just before frame 133 on the
Z. film. Everything seems to fit and have a reasonable explanation if it
actually occurred at that time. I guess we'll have to wait and see if
something surfaces that can definitively determine this. As for now, if I
was to bet on it, you can put me down for twenty, I'm good for it.

[Allan G. Johnson]

Serious "Researchers" have been "researching" this case for over 50
years and have yet to prove that Oswald didn't do it or that someone else
did, or that anyone else was was even involved. It's unfortunate they
don't participate on these forums, according to you, maybe they could
learn something new to research.

[Allan G. Johnson]

My typo error on a previous post. These numbers are making me batty.
The Connally head turn to the left was around 151 and his turn to the
right was 164. But the point still holds, the head turn left at 151 is
another indication that the first shot happened sooner.

[Anthony Marsh]

I do have some thoughts about what makes you make up phony questions
filled with false premises.

> Thx, Brian
>

[Anthony Marsh]

Funny how the acoustical evidence for the HSCA pinpointed Z-160, but you
rejected it because you don't believe in science.

Did you know exactly what happened in the Reagan assassination when you
watched the video that day? No, I spotted something that everyone else
missed. The bullet fired from behind hit Reagan in front because it
ricocheted off the limo. You didn't notice that.

>

[Anthony Marsh]

No.

> picks her up way after she passes the pole and has already passed the
> woman in blue and has her head turned right again. As I said in the
> previous post, she heard the loud noise and began to slow down after she
> passed the streetlight pole in the Dorman film and this happened just
> after the limo completed it's turn. She is no longer looking at the limo
> at this time but behind it. The Zapruder film starts to pick this up at
> frame 133, another indication that the shot was already fired.
>

She's still trying to look at the limo, but people are blocking her view.
Maybe a shot was fired earlier than most people think, but you don't
have enough evidence to claim when.

[OHLeeRedux]

Allan G. Johnson
- show quoted text -

Personally, I don't put much weight or significance on the camera
jiggles. There are far too many of them that occur at different times in
the film to draw any conclusions. Too many reasons for them (they could
be possible reactions to loud noise, bad camera, loose film, unsteady
operator, starting and stopping film, etc.).

Also, Zapruder had a problem with his balance. He had his secretary stand
behind him and steady him so he wouldn't fall off the low wall. His unsure
balance could have caused some of the camera jiggling.

You are right. There are too many juggles in the film to draw the
conclusion that they were all caused by a reaction to gunfire. And if we
don't know which ones were caused by other factors, then we don't know
which ones were caused by gunshots, speculations by conspiracy theorists
and others who weren't present at the assassination notwithstanding.

[Allan G. Johnson]

The JBC head movement to the left at 150 coincides with the left
movement of Hickey and JFK within 1/2 second, coincidence? or maybe they
were reacting to the same noise stimulus, it's possible.

[Allan G. Johnson]

I think it can be agreed upon by most people that JBC said he first
turned to his right just after the limo made the turn and hearing the 1st
shot, then turned left, then back right. In the Zapruder film at 133
(after limo made turn) he is already turned to his right, then he turns
left, then back right. This is just another indication that the 1st shot
had already been heard, and he already turned right, before frame 133 (the
head turn right at 164 was his SECOND head turn, not first). Also,
remember the Bonnie Ray Williams testimony in which he stated the last
thing he saw JFK do before he heard the 1st shot was to put his right hand
up to brush back his hair. JFK is clearly starting to drop his right hand
from his head at frame 133. Another indication that the first shot was
fired before 133.

[Brian Roselle]

Hi Anthony,

If this is addressed to me, I do have a personal opinion on many of these
particular aspects, but I am always open to other researchers observations
and interpretations as its possible I'm not aware of some other dynamics
that may have come into play. I have picked up new material & thoughts in
the past from researchers posts, including yours, and appreciated the
quality feedback from those folks who provided it.

Thx, Brian

[bigdog]

If Alvarez is correct, every shot would be followed by a jiggle but not
every jiggle was preceded by a shot. That's why when we see a jiggle we
can only say there may have been a shot just before that unless of course
there is positive visual proof of a shot. We have that for shots 2 and 3
but not for the shot 1.

> The Connally head movement to the right is seen around 150, but, keep
> in mind, he said he tried to look left over his shoulder at first to try
> and see Kennedy after he heard the first shot, which he recognized
> immediately as a rifle shot. He then looked back to his right and soon
> after that he was hit. His reaction at 150 is after he already looked
> left, another indication the first shot was earlier.
>
> To A.M., Connally did have a delayed reaction to being hit at 223.
> Even after looking at the Zapruder film, he said he wasn't hit until at
> least 235. He definitely physically reacted to being hit at 223-224, the
> same time as Kennedy, but didn't feel it, and it didn't register, until
> later when he was still in the process of turning around to his right to
> look at JFK. (PS- I'm neither a Kook or a Nazi).
>

Connally did not have a delayed reaction. He had a two stage reaction. The
most obvious one is his twist/dip to his right which began at about the
time you said. However this was preceded by about a half second by the
sudden flip of his injured right arm which began at Z226. This is exactly
the frame when JFK's arms suddenly jerk upward. Most people think when he
reappears at Z225, JFK is already reacting to being hit. He has been hit
but has not yet reacted. We know this because we can see his right hand in
frame Z224 and it is higher than it was at Z225 which means at Z225 it was
still coming down. It is in Z226 that his right arm reverses direction and
starts upward in reaction to being shot through the throat. JFK and JBC
showed their first reaction in exactly the same frame which is what we
would expect if they were hit by the same bullet.

> What this thread is attempting to do is, if possible, point out
> legitimate arguments and opinions on when the first shot was fired.
> Personally, I think the shot was fired at or just before frame 133 on the
> Z. film. Everything seems to fit and have a reasonable explanation if it
> actually occurred at that time. I guess we'll have to wait and see if
> something surfaces that can definitively determine this. As for now, if I
> was to bet on it, you can put me down for twenty, I'm good for it.

On this I would say your guess is as good as mine. I would say the same to
Myers and Holland. Everyone has pride of authorship, but I don't think
anyone has established when that first shot was taken.

[Anthony Marsh]

<b278d4ab-1261-4050...@googlegroups.com>
In-Reply-To: <b278d4ab-1261-4050...@googlegroups.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Original-NNTP-Posting-Host: 76.24.18.28
X-Original-Trace: 28 Jun 2015 12:08:46 -0600, 76.24.18.28
X-Original-NNTP-Posting-Host: 166.84.1.2
X-Original-Trace: 29 Jun 2015 09:55:28 -0600, 166.84.1.2
Lines: 117
X-Trace: sv3-R4wpILpkU5dFb4zVQ2qrFoFZuM5f8gzHn+xZDUhQOt9WZLG8v5+19yRXaAoKo2X+T5eS7JH3joXGWtm!pb478QKhU0S7WFBJlCvzCvFsRgStL7qzoG09stjc67KXr59EAVih7fFOiNbfIzGY
X-Complaints-To: www.supernews.com/docs/abuse.html
X-DMCA-Complaints-To: www.supernews.com/docs/dmca.html
X-Abuse-and-DMCA-Info: Please be sure to forward a copy of ALL headers
X-Abuse-and-DMCA-Info: Otherwise we will be unable to process your complaint properly
X-Postfilter: 1.3.40
Bytes: 7353
X-Original-Bytes: 7291

On 6/27/2015 10:12 PM, Allan G. Johnson wrote:

> Serious "Researchers" have been "researching" this case for over 50
> years and have yet to prove that Oswald didn't do it or that someone else
> did, or that anyone else was was even involved. It's unfortunate they
> don't participate on these forums, according to you, maybe they could
> learn something new to research.
>

As I said before if you'd learn to pay attention, they used to post
here, but they were scared away by the WC defenders and kooks.


Do you even know about the HSCA in 1978?

[Anthony Marsh]

Maybe you can attend a workshop at your local grammar school to learn
how to post correctly. I am guessing you hijacked someone else's thread
to attack me. As usual your argument is not genuine, but only intended
as an insult. You do not know the evidence. Connally said he was hit at
frame 230. That is what the WC lawyers said.
Almost everyone from both sides is confused and lies about what Connally
actually said and did.

But again, don't even discuss your pet SBT when the thread is about an
early missed shot.

>
> What this thread is attempting to do is, if possible, point out
> legitimate arguments and opinions on when the first shot was fired.
> Personally, I think the shot was fired at or just before frame 133 on the
> Z. film. Everything seems to fit and have a reasonable explanation if it
> actually occurred at that time. I guess we'll have to wait and see if
> something surfaces that can definitively determine this. As for now, if I
> was to bet on it, you can put me down for twenty, I'm good for it.
>

Wait for what? Wait for Gary Mack to release the Dorman film? I'd rather
wait for the ice caps to melt.

[Anthony Marsh]

Well now, you've made a mess of this. Mixing the shot that hit JFK with
an early missed shot. I am sure that even YOU don't think that JFK was
hit at about frame Z-150.
And you don't have the Agronsky interview so you're not sure what
Connally really said. He has been misquoted by both sides.

http://www.the-puzzle-palace.com/Connally.htm

[tom...@cox.net]

bigdog <jecorb...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> On Thursday, June 25, 2015 at 10:42:58 PM UTC-4, Allan G. Johnson wrote:
> > On Wednesday, June 24, 2015 at 11:29:49 AM UTC-4, bigdog wrote:
> > > On Monday, June 22, 2015 at 9:36:35 PM UTC-4, Allan G. Johnson wrote:
> > > > On Saturday, June 20, 2015 at 7:54:57 PM UTC-4, bigdog wrote:
> > > > > On Friday, June 19, 2015 at 8:33:40 PM UTC-4, FSHG wrote:

> > > > > >=20

> > > > > > Exactly like many other witnesses (and exactly like the Warren

> > > > > > Co=
> mmission=20

> > > > > > admitted in its report about the witnesses it recorded

> > > > > > statements=
> from),=20

> > > > > > the last 2 shots that Hickey could hear were bunched much

> > > > > > closer =
> together=20

> > > > > > than the first 2 shots he could hear. (even though the current

> > > > > > WC=
> =20

> > > > > > apologists theory tries to believe the last 2 shots were over

> > > > > > 46%=
> further=20

> > > > > > apart than the first 2 shots)

> > > > > >=20
> > > > >=20

> > > > > There is no consensus among WC defenders as to exactly when the

> > > > > fir=
> st shot=20

> > > > > was fired since there simply is no definitive evidence that

> > > > > allows =
> us to=20

> > > > > pinpoint that first shot. Reasonable arguments can be made for a

> > > > > wi=
> de=20

> > > > > range of possible times that first shot was fired, but no one has

> > > > > b=
> een=20

> > > > > able to establish that with certitude. Holland's explanation

> > > > > would =
> be=20

> > > > > consistent with those witnesses who said the last two shots were

> > > > > cl=
> oser=20

> > > > > together. That is certainly a possibility. I believe it is simply

> > > > > m=
> ore=20

> > > > > likely the earwitnesses were hearing multiple sounds from that

> > > > > head=
> shot=20

> > > > > that they interpreted as two seperate shots very close together,

> > > > > bu=
> t that=20

> > > > > too is nothing more than an educated guess.

> > > >=20

> > > > Also, if somehow you can reasonably conclude or prove that the

> > > > fir=
> st=20

> > > > shot was fired at frame 133 or before, or just assume it for the

> > > > sack=
> of=20

> > > > argument, it is the only option that offers an explanation for all

> > > > th=
> e=20

> > > > reactions that follow on film. Hickey, JFK, Connally, Rosemary

> > > > Willi=
> s,=20

> > > > etc. all reacted after 133, some sooner than later, but none more

> > > > tha=
> n 1=20

> > > > 1/2 seconds apart. If you use 160 as the time of the first shot

> > > > (the=
> last=20

> > > > possible opportunity to shoot at the limo from the 6th floor before

> > > > i=
> t=20

> > > > passed under the tree), then you can't explain why Hickey started

> > > > to =
> turn=20

> > > > left to see if a firecracker hit the side of the car, JFK lowering

> > > > hi=
> s=20

> > > > hand and looking left, Connally looking left then right, Rosemary

> > > > Wil=
> lis=20

> > > > turning her head and slowing down, etc. all these reactions

> > > > happened =
> just=20

> > > > at or after 133 and way before 160. What were they reacting to if

> > > > th=
> e=20

> > > > shot fired at 160? If the shot fired at or before 133 it explains

> > > > wh=
> at=20

> > > > they're reacting to, they just had different reacting times.

> > > >=20

> > > > There is also the film itself, it shows a clear frame 133 and

> > > > 135, =
> but=20

> > > > frame 134 is very blurred. That could be due to Zapruder hearing

> > > > and=
> =20

> > > > reacting to the first shot. But, it could also be due to the

> > > > camera=
> =20

> > > > moving just as Zapruder restarted the filming.

> > >=20

> > > I think movements of the people you mention may well be in reaction

> > > to =
> the=20

> > > sound of a gunshot. However no matter how many times I watch the

> > > Z-film=
> =20

> > > I've never seen any movement by JFK himself that indicates he was

> > > even=
> =20

> > > aware the sound was a gunshot. The raising and lowering of his right

> > > ha=
> nd=20
> > > and his turn to the right seem to me to be only to wave at the few=20

> > > remaining spectators on Elm St. He seems oblivious to that first

> > > shot. =
> My=20

> > > guess is that he like a number of witnesses didn't recognize the

> > > first=
> =20

> > > blast as a gunshot but either a motorcycle backfire or a firecracker.

> > > H=
> ad=20

> > > he thought it was a gunshot I think he would have instantly realized

> > > he=
> =20

> > > was the probable target and his reaction would probably have been to

> > > ge=
> t=20

> > > Jackie and his head down and out of harm's way as best he could.

> >=20

> > No one will know for sure what JFK was thinking or reacting to when

> > he=
> =20

> > dropped his right hand and looked to the LEFT at Jackie. Perhaps it

> > was=
> =20

> > in reaction to hearing the loud bang, not knowing exactly what it was

> > and=
> =20

> > not seeing anything unusual, he went back to waving to his right. If

> > he=
> =20

> > instantly recognized it as a gun shot, I'm sure he would have

> > reacted=20 differently as you suggest. My point is that from the time
> > the film=20 started to the time he was hit by the second shot, he DID
> > react to=20 something starting at frame 140, and it was the ONLY time
> > he stopped=20 waving, which is concurrent with reactions from other
> >people on film. =20

> > Think of it this way BD, if you place the first shot at 133 or

> > before=
> ,=20

> > everything seems to fit. 3 shots being fired, plenty of time to get

> > the=
> =20

> > shots off, more time between shots one and two then shots two and

> > three,=
> =20
> > reactions of people on film (Hickey, Rosemary, JFK, Connally, etc),=20

> > supports single bullet fact (if first shot missed and third shot hit

> > head=
> ,=20
> > the second shot had to hit both Kennedy and Connally), first shot=20

> > deflecting off street light pole causing deflection of bullet

> > fragments,=
> =20
> > arrangement of the shells on the floor of the 6th floor, eyewitness=20

> > accounts of first shot fired just after limo turned onto Elm St., etc.

> > =
> =20

> > If you place the first shot at around 150 to 160, then you have to come

> > u=
> p=20

> > with all kinds of different reasons to explain things and that's when

> > the=
> =20

> > arguments get off track.
>
> I have said previously that I neither embrace nor reject Max Holland's
> theory of a shot before Zapruder resumed filming. A first shot at Z133
> would mean roughly 90 frames between each subsequent shot which would fit
> with those who thought the shots were evenly spaced. I believe Holland
> places it the equivelant of 30 frames earlier which would fit with those
> who thought the last two came closer together which was the majority
> viewpoint. Holland's theory seems to fit better with some pieces of the
> puzzle but not with others. Most notably Connally's visible reaction
> which began at Z164 when he snapped his head quickly to his right. If
> Holland is correct, Connally took over 3 seconds to make that visible
> reaction. That is possible if his reaction was a cognitive, deliberate
> reaction as opposed to an intantaneous reaction to it.
>
> My own belief, which is part hunch, part educated guess is a first shot
> at Z151 which would fit with the jiggle at Z158. But since there were
> more jiggles than shots, it can't be stated with any certainty that the
> Z158 jiggle was caused by a shot.
>
> Reasonable arguments can be made for that first shot when Max Holland
> placed, Z160 which is when Dale Myers placed it, or sometime in between.
> It would be nice to be able to nail down this loose piece but
> unfortunately with the evidence we have, I don't think we will ever be
> able to state with certainty when it was fired. If only Zapruder had a
> camera with sound. If the assassination were to happen today, we would
> have dozens of videos with sound to tell us what happened.

===========================================================================
===== WOW ! ! ! CHARLE CHAN REVIVED ! ! !

[tom...@cox.net]

bigdog <jecorb...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> On Friday, June 26, 2015 at 9:30:20 PM UTC-4, Brian Roselle wrote:
> > On Friday, June 26, 2015 at 4:54:15 PM UTC-4, bigdog wrote:
> > > On Thursday, June 25, 2015 at 10:42:58 PM UTC-4, Allan G. Johnson

> > > wrote=

> :
> > > > On Wednesday, June 24, 2015 at 11:29:49 AM UTC-4, bigdog wrote:
> > > > > On Monday, June 22, 2015 at 9:36:35 PM UTC-4, Allan G. Johnson

> > > > > wrot=

> e:
> > > > > > On Saturday, June 20, 2015 at 7:54:57 PM UTC-4, bigdog wrote:
> > > > > > > On Friday, June 19, 2015 at 8:33:40 PM UTC-4, FSHG wrote:

> > > > > > > >=20

> > > > > > > > Exactly like many other witnesses (and exactly like the

> > > > > > > > Warre=
> n Commission=20

> > > > > > > > admitted in its report about the witnesses it recorded

> > > > > > > > statem=
> ents from),=20

> > > > > > > > the last 2 shots that Hickey could hear were bunched much

> > > > > > > > clo=
> ser together=20

> > > > > > > > than the first 2 shots he could hear. (even though the

> > > > > > > > curren=
> t WC=20

> > > > > > > > apologists theory tries to believe the last 2 shots were

> > > > > > > > over=
> 46% further=20

> > > > > > > > apart than the first 2 shots)

> > > > > > > >=20
> > > > > > >=20

> > > > > > > There is no consensus among WC defenders as to exactly when

> > > > > > > the=
> first shot=20

> > > > > > > was fired since there simply is no definitive evidence that

> > > > > > > all=
> ows us to=20

> > > > > > > pinpoint that first shot. Reasonable arguments can be made

> > > > > > > for =
> a wide=20

> > > > > > > range of possible times that first shot was fired, but no one

> > > > > > > h=
> as been=20

> > > > > > > able to establish that with certitude. Holland's explanation

> > > > > > > wo=
> uld be=20

> > > > > > > consistent with those witnesses who said the last two shots

> > > > > > > wer=
> e closer=20

> > > > > > > together. That is certainly a possibility. I believe it is

> > > > > > > simp=
> ly more=20

> > > > > > > likely the earwitnesses were hearing multiple sounds from

> > > > > > > that =
> headshot=20

> > > > > > > that they interpreted as two seperate shots very close

> > > > > > > together=
> , but that=20

> > > > > > > too is nothing more than an educated guess.

> > > > > >=20

> > > > > > Also, if somehow you can reasonably conclude or prove that

> > > > > > the=
> first=20

> > > > > > shot was fired at frame 133 or before, or just assume it for

> > > > > > the =
> sack of=20

> > > > > > argument, it is the only option that offers an explanation for

> > > > > > al=
> l the=20

> > > > > > reactions that follow on film. Hickey, JFK, Connally, Rosemary

> > > > > > W=
> illis,=20

> > > > > > etc. all reacted after 133, some sooner than later, but none

> > > > > > more=
> than 1=20

> > > > > > 1/2 seconds apart. If you use 160 as the time of the first

> > > > > > shot =
> (the last=20

> > > > > > possible opportunity to shoot at the limo from the 6th floor

> > > > > > befo=
> re it=20

> > > > > > passed under the tree), then you can't explain why Hickey

> > > > > > started=
> to turn=20

> > > > > > left to see if a firecracker hit the side of the car, JFK

> > > > > > lowerin=
> g his=20

> > > > > > hand and looking left, Connally looking left then right,

> > > > > > Rosemary=
> Willis=20

> > > > > > turning her head and slowing down, etc. all these reactions

> > > > > > happe=
> ned just=20

> > > > > > at or after 133 and way before 160. What were they reacting to

> > > > > > i=
> f the=20

> > > > > > shot fired at 160? If the shot fired at or before 133 it

> > > > > > explain=
> s what=20

> > > > > > they're reacting to, they just had different reacting times.

> > > > > >=20

> > > > > > There is also the film itself, it shows a clear frame 133 and

> > > > > > 1=
> 35, but=20

> > > > > > frame 134 is very blurred. That could be due to Zapruder

> > > > > > hearing=
> and=20

> > > > > > reacting to the first shot. But, it could also be due to the

> > > > > > cam=
> era=20

> > > > > > moving just as Zapruder restarted the filming.

> > > > >=20

> > > > > I think movements of the people you mention may well be in

> > > > > reaction=
> to the=20

> > > > > sound of a gunshot. However no matter how many times I watch the

> > > > > Z-=
> film=20

> > > > > I've never seen any movement by JFK himself that indicates he was

> > > > > e=
> ven=20

> > > > > aware the sound was a gunshot. The raising and lowering of his

> > > > > righ=
> t hand=20

> > > > > and his turn to the right seem to me to be only to wave at the

> > > > > few=
> =20

> > > > > remaining spectators on Elm St. He seems oblivious to that first

> > > > > sh=
> ot. My=20

> > > > > guess is that he like a number of witnesses didn't recognize the

> > > > > fi=
> rst=20

> > > > > blast as a gunshot but either a motorcycle backfire or a

> > > > > firecracke=
> r. Had=20

> > > > > he thought it was a gunshot I think he would have instantly

> > > > > realize=
> d he=20

> > > > > was the probable target and his reaction would probably have been

> > > > > t=
> o get=20

> > > > > Jackie and his head down and out of harm's way as best he could.

> > > >=20

> > > > No one will know for sure what JFK was thinking or reacting to

> > > > whe=
> n he=20

> > > > dropped his right hand and looked to the LEFT at Jackie. Perhaps

> > > > it =
> was=20

> > > > in reaction to hearing the loud bang, not knowing exactly what it

> > > > was=
> and=20

> > > > not seeing anything unusual, he went back to waving to his right.

> > > > If=
> he=20

> > > > instantly recognized it as a gun shot, I'm sure he would have

> > > > reacted=
> =20

> > > > differently as you suggest. My point is that from the time the

> > > > film=
> =20

> > > > started to the time he was hit by the second shot, he DID react

> > > > to=20 something starting at frame 140, and it was the ONLY time he
> > > > stopped=
> =20

> > > > waving, which is concurrent with reactions from other people on

> > > >film. =20

> > > > Think of it this way BD, if you place the first shot at 133 or

> > > > be=
> fore,=20

> > > > everything seems to fit. 3 shots being fired, plenty of time to

> > > > get =
> the=20

> > > > shots off, more time between shots one and two then shots two and

> > > > thr=
> ee,=20

> > > > reactions of people on film (Hickey, Rosemary, JFK, Connally, etc),

> > > > =
> =20

> > > > supports single bullet fact (if first shot missed and third shot

> > > > hit =
> head,=20

> > > > the second shot had to hit both Kennedy and Connally), first

> > > > shot=20 deflecting off street light pole causing deflection of
> > > > bullet fragmen=
> ts,=20

> > > > arrangement of the shells on the floor of the 6th floor,

> > > > eyewitness=
> =20

> > > > accounts of first shot fired just after limo turned onto Elm St.,

> > > > etc=
> . =20

> > > > If you place the first shot at around 150 to 160, then you have to

> > > > co=
> me up=20

> > > > with all kinds of different reasons to explain things and that's

> > > > when=
> the=20
> > > > arguments get off track.
> > >=20

> > > I have said previously that I neither embrace nor reject Max

> > > Holland's=
> =20

> > > theory of a shot before Zapruder resumed filming. A first shot at

> > > Z133=
> =20

> > > would mean roughly 90 frames between each subsequent shot which would

> > > f=
> it=20

> > > with those who thought the shots were evenly spaced. I believe

> > > Holland=
> =20

> > > places it the equivelant of 30 frames earlier which would fit with

> > > thos=
> e=20

> > > who thought the last two came closer together which was the

> > > majority=20 viewpoint. Holland's theory seems to fit better with some
> > > pieces of the=
> =20

> > > puzzle but not with others. Most notably Connally's visible reaction

> > > wh=
> ich=20

> > > began at Z164 when he snapped his head quickly to his right. If

> > > Holland=
> is=20

> > > correct, Connally took over 3 seconds to make that visible reaction.

> > > Th=
> at=20

> > > is possible if his reaction was a cognitive, deliberate reaction

> > > as=20 opposed to an intantaneous reaction to it.
> > >=20

> > > My own belief, which is part hunch, part educated guess is a first

> > > shot=
> at=20

> > > Z151 which would fit with the jiggle at Z158. But since there were

> > > more=
> =20

> > > jiggles than shots, it can't be stated with any certainty that the

> > > Z158=
> =20

> > > jiggle was caused by a shot.

> > >=20

> > > Reasonable arguments can be made for that first shot when Max

> > > Holland=
> =20

> > > placed, Z160 which is when Dale Myers placed it, or sometime in

> > > between=
> .=20
> > > It would be nice to be able to nail down this loose piece but=20

> > > unfortunately with the evidence we have, I don't think we will ever

> > > be=
> =20

> > > able to state with certainty when it was fired. If only Zapruder had

> > > a=
> =20

> > > camera with sound. If the assassination were to happen today, we

> > > would=
> =20

> > > have dozens of videos with sound to tell us what happened.

> >=20
> > Bigdog,
> >=20

> > Immediately before z151, do you have any thoughts on what may have

> > caused=
> =20

> > Connallys rapid head snap left, which started at z150?

> >=20

> > Thx, Brian
>
> I've looked at several versions of the Z-film trying to find one that has
> that part of the film enhanced. Based on what I see, I don't know that I
> would characterize his movement as a head snap as opposed to just a
> normal turn to his left. There are any number of reasons he may have
> looked to his left at that point, one of which is that he could have been
> reacting to a gunshot. There are too many other possibilities to say with
> any conviction that he is reacting to a gunshot at that moment.
>
> When judging Connally's movements I like to compare that with how he
> described his reaction to the first gunshot. In his initial version given
> to Martin Agronsky from his hospital bed he said he turned left upon
> hearing the first shot. In every other version I am aware of including
> his sworn testimony, he said he turned right upon hearing the first shot.
> Now maybe he was influenced by what he saw himself doing in the Z-film or
> maybe he just misspoke when he told Agronsky that his initial movement
> was to turn to his left. I just don't see anything definitive in JBC's
> movements at Z150 that would allow me to say that he is reacting to a
> gunshot at that point. All I can say is maybe.

===========================================================================
=== THAT'S ALL YOU EVER OFFER ARE "MAYBE'S" ! ! !
===========================================================================

[tom...@cox.net]

bigdog <jecorb...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> On Saturday, June 27, 2015 at 10:10:33 PM UTC-4, Allan G. Johnson wrote:
> > On Friday, June 26, 2015 at 4:54:15 PM UTC-4, bigdog wrote:
> > > On Thursday, June 25, 2015 at 10:42:58 PM UTC-4, Allan G. Johnson

> > > wrote=

> :
> > > > On Wednesday, June 24, 2015 at 11:29:49 AM UTC-4, bigdog wrote:
> > > > > On Monday, June 22, 2015 at 9:36:35 PM UTC-4, Allan G. Johnson

> > > > > wrot=

> e:
> > > > > > On Saturday, June 20, 2015 at 7:54:57 PM UTC-4, bigdog wrote:
> > > > > > > On Friday, June 19, 2015 at 8:33:40 PM UTC-4, FSHG wrote:

> > > > > > > >=20

> > > > > > > > Exactly like many other witnesses (and exactly like the

> > > > > > > > Warre=
> n Commission=20

> > > > > > > > admitted in its report about the witnesses it recorded

> > > > > > > > statem=
> ents from),=20

> > > > > > > > the last 2 shots that Hickey could hear were bunched much

> > > > > > > > clo=
> ser together=20

> > > > > > > > than the first 2 shots he could hear. (even though the

> > > > > > > > curren=
> t WC=20

> > > > > > > > apologists theory tries to believe the last 2 shots were

> > > > > > > > over=
> 46% further=20

> > > > > > > > apart than the first 2 shots)

> > > > > > > >=20
> > > > > > >=20

> > > > > > > There is no consensus among WC defenders as to exactly when

> > > > > > > the=
> first shot=20

> > > > > > > was fired since there simply is no definitive evidence that

> > > > > > > all=
> ows us to=20

> > > > > > > pinpoint that first shot. Reasonable arguments can be made

> > > > > > > for =
> a wide=20

> > > > > > > range of possible times that first shot was fired, but no one

> > > > > > > h=
> as been=20

> > > > > > > able to establish that with certitude. Holland's explanation

> > > > > > > wo=
> uld be=20

> > > > > > > consistent with those witnesses who said the last two shots

> > > > > > > wer=
> e closer=20

> > > > > > > together. That is certainly a possibility. I believe it is

> > > > > > > simp=
> ly more=20

> > > > > > > likely the earwitnesses were hearing multiple sounds from

> > > > > > > that =
> headshot=20

> > > > > > > that they interpreted as two seperate shots very close

> > > > > > > together=
> , but that=20

> > > > > > > too is nothing more than an educated guess.

> > > > > >=20

> > > > > > Also, if somehow you can reasonably conclude or prove that

> > > > > > the=
> first=20

> > > > > > shot was fired at frame 133 or before, or just assume it for

> > > > > > the =
> sack of=20

> > > > > > argument, it is the only option that offers an explanation for

> > > > > > al=
> l the=20

> > > > > > reactions that follow on film. Hickey, JFK, Connally, Rosemary

> > > > > > W=
> illis,=20

> > > > > > etc. all reacted after 133, some sooner than later, but none

> > > > > > more=
> than 1=20

> > > > > > 1/2 seconds apart. If you use 160 as the time of the first

> > > > > > shot =
> (the last=20

> > > > > > possible opportunity to shoot at the limo from the 6th floor

> > > > > > befo=
> re it=20

> > > > > > passed under the tree), then you can't explain why Hickey

> > > > > > started=
> to turn=20

> > > > > > left to see if a firecracker hit the side of the car, JFK

> > > > > > lowerin=
> g his=20

> > > > > > hand and looking left, Connally looking left then right,

> > > > > > Rosemary=
> Willis=20

> > > > > > turning her head and slowing down, etc. all these reactions

> > > > > > happe=
> ned just=20

> > > > > > at or after 133 and way before 160. What were they reacting to

> > > > > > i=
> f the=20

> > > > > > shot fired at 160? If the shot fired at or before 133 it

> > > > > > explain=
> s what=20

> > > > > > they're reacting to, they just had different reacting times.

> > > > > >=20

> > > > > > There is also the film itself, it shows a clear frame 133 and

> > > > > > 1=
> 35, but=20

> > > > > > frame 134 is very blurred. That could be due to Zapruder

> > > > > > hearing=
> and=20

> > > > > > reacting to the first shot. But, it could also be due to the

> > > > > > cam=
> era=20

> > > > > > moving just as Zapruder restarted the filming.

> > > > >=20

> > > > > I think movements of the people you mention may well be in

> > > > > reaction=
> to the=20

> > > > > sound of a gunshot. However no matter how many times I watch the

> > > > > Z-=
> film=20

> > > > > I've never seen any movement by JFK himself that indicates he was

> > > > > e=
> ven=20

> > > > > aware the sound was a gunshot. The raising and lowering of his

> > > > > righ=
> t hand=20

> > > > > and his turn to the right seem to me to be only to wave at the

> > > > > few=
> =20

> > > > > remaining spectators on Elm St. He seems oblivious to that first

> > > > > sh=
> ot. My=20

> > > > > guess is that he like a number of witnesses didn't recognize the

> > > > > fi=
> rst=20

> > > > > blast as a gunshot but either a motorcycle backfire or a

> > > > > firecracke=
> r. Had=20

> > > > > he thought it was a gunshot I think he would have instantly

> > > > > realize=
> d he=20

> > > > > was the probable target and his reaction would probably have been

> > > > > t=
> o get=20

> > > > > Jackie and his head down and out of harm's way as best he could.

> > > >=20

> > > > No one will know for sure what JFK was thinking or reacting to

> > > > whe=
> n he=20

> > > > dropped his right hand and looked to the LEFT at Jackie. Perhaps

> > > > it =
> was=20

> > > > in reaction to hearing the loud bang, not knowing exactly what it

> > > > was=
> and=20

> > > > not seeing anything unusual, he went back to waving to his right.

> > > > If=
> he=20

> > > > instantly recognized it as a gun shot, I'm sure he would have

> > > > reacted=
> =20

> > > > differently as you suggest. My point is that from the time the

> > > > film=
> =20

> > > > started to the time he was hit by the second shot, he DID react

> > > > to=20 something starting at frame 140, and it was the ONLY time he
> > > > stopped=
> =20

> > > > waving, which is concurrent with reactions from other people on

> > > >film. =20

> > > > Think of it this way BD, if you place the first shot at 133 or

> > > > be=
> fore,=20

> > > > everything seems to fit. 3 shots being fired, plenty of time to

> > > > get =
> the=20

> > > > shots off, more time between shots one and two then shots two and

> > > > thr=
> ee,=20

> > > > reactions of people on film (Hickey, Rosemary, JFK, Connally, etc),

> > > > =
> =20

> > > > supports single bullet fact (if first shot missed and third shot

> > > > hit =
> head,=20

> > > > the second shot had to hit both Kennedy and Connally), first

> > > > shot=20 deflecting off street light pole causing deflection of
> > > > bullet fragmen=
> ts,=20

> > > > arrangement of the shells on the floor of the 6th floor,

> > > > eyewitness=
> =20

> > > > accounts of first shot fired just after limo turned onto Elm St.,

> > > > etc=
> . =20

> > > > If you place the first shot at around 150 to 160, then you have to

> > > > co=
> me up=20

> > > > with all kinds of different reasons to explain things and that's

> > > > when=
> the=20
> > > > arguments get off track.
> > >=20

> > > I have said previously that I neither embrace nor reject Max

> > > Holland's=
> =20

> > > theory of a shot before Zapruder resumed filming. A first shot at

> > > Z133=
> =20

> > > would mean roughly 90 frames between each subsequent shot which would

> > > f=
> it=20

> > > with those who thought the shots were evenly spaced. I believe

> > > Holland=
> =20

> > > places it the equivelant of 30 frames earlier which would fit with

> > > thos=
> e=20

> > > who thought the last two came closer together which was the

> > > majority=20 viewpoint. Holland's theory seems to fit better with some
> > > pieces of the=
> =20

> > > puzzle but not with others. Most notably Connally's visible reaction

> > > wh=
> ich=20

> > > began at Z164 when he snapped his head quickly to his right. If

> > > Holland=
> is=20

> > > correct, Connally took over 3 seconds to make that visible reaction.

> > > Th=
> at=20

> > > is possible if his reaction was a cognitive, deliberate reaction

> > > as=20 opposed to an intantaneous reaction to it.
> > >=20

> > > My own belief, which is part hunch, part educated guess is a first

> > > shot=
> at=20

> > > Z151 which would fit with the jiggle at Z158. But since there were

> > > more=
> =20

> > > jiggles than shots, it can't be stated with any certainty that the

> > > Z158=
> =20

> > > jiggle was caused by a shot.

> > >=20

> > > Reasonable arguments can be made for that first shot when Max

> > > Holland=
> =20

> > > placed, Z160 which is when Dale Myers placed it, or sometime in

> > > between=
> .=20
> > > It would be nice to be able to nail down this loose piece but=20

> > > unfortunately with the evidence we have, I don't think we will ever

> > > be=
> =20

> > > able to state with certainty when it was fired. If only Zapruder had

> > > a=
> =20

> > > camera with sound. If the assassination were to happen today, we

> > > would=
> =20

> > > have dozens of videos with sound to tell us what happened.

> >=20
> > Personally, I don't put much weight or significance on the camera=20

> > jiggles. There are far too many of them that occur at different times

> > in=
> =20

> > the film to draw any conclusions. Too many reasons for them (they

> > could=
> =20

> > be possible reactions to loud noise, bad camera, loose film,

> > unsteady=20 operator, starting and stopping film, etc.).
> >=20

>
> If Alvarez is correct, every shot would be followed by a jiggle but not
> every jiggle was preceded by a shot. That's why when we see a jiggle we
> can only say there may have been a shot just before that unless of course
> there is positive visual proof of a shot. We have that for shots 2 and 3
> but not for the shot 1.
>
> > The Connally head movement to the right is seen around 150, but,

> > keep=
> =20

> > in mind, he said he tried to look left over his shoulder at first to

> > try=
> =20
> > and see Kennedy after he heard the first shot, which he recognized=20

> > immediately as a rifle shot. He then looked back to his right and

> > soon=
> =20

> > after that he was hit. His reaction at 150 is after he already

> > looked=20 left, another indication the first shot was earlier.
> >=20

> > To A.M., Connally did have a delayed reaction to being hit at 223.

> > =20 Even after looking at the Zapruder film, he said he wasn't hit
> > until at=
> =20

> > least 235. He definitely physically reacted to being hit at 223-224,

> > the=
> =20

> > same time as Kennedy, but didn't feel it, and it didn't register,

> > until=
> =20

> > later when he was still in the process of turning around to his right

> > to=
> =20

> > look at JFK. (PS- I'm neither a Kook or a Nazi).

> >=20

>
> Connally did not have a delayed reaction. He had a two stage reaction.
> The most obvious one is his twist/dip to his right which began at about
> the time you said. However this was preceded by about a half second by
> the sudden flip of his injured right arm which began at Z226. This is
> exactly the frame when JFK's arms suddenly jerk upward. Most people think
> when he reappears at Z225, JFK is already reacting to being hit. He has
> been hit but has not yet reacted. We know this because we can see his
> right hand in frame Z224 and it is higher than it was at Z225 which means
> at Z225 it was still coming down. It is in Z226 that his right arm
> reverses direction and starts upward in reaction to being shot through
> the throat. JFK and JBC showed their first reaction in exactly the same
> frame which is what we would expect if they were hit by the same bullet.
>

> > What this thread is attempting to do is, if possible, point out=20
> > legitimate arguments and opinions on when the first shot was fired. =20

> > Personally, I think the shot was fired at or just before frame 133 on

> > the=
> =20

> > Z. film. Everything seems to fit and have a reasonable explanation if

> > it=
> =20

> > actually occurred at that time. I guess we'll have to wait and see

> > if=20 something surfaces that can definitively determine this. As for
> > now, if =
> I=20

> > was to bet on it, you can put me down for twenty, I'm good for it.
>
> On this I would say your guess is as good as mine. I would say the same
> to Myers and Holland. Everyone has pride of authorship, but I don't think
> anyone has established when that first shot was taken.

===========================================================================
=====THE COMMISSION KNEW THAT THE FIRST SHOT COULD "NOT" HAVE BEEN BEFORE
FRAME 210 BECAUSE A LRGE LIVE OAK TREE BLOCKED VIEWE OF THE 6TH FLOOR
WINDOW PRIOR TO THAT 210 ! ! !
===========================================================================
=====

[Allan G. Johnson]

There are even jiggles on frames before 133 when we know there were no
shots fired. #131 (2 motorcycles rounding the corner) is very clear, #132
is very blurred, was this due to Zapruder stopping the camera?.

[Allan G. Johnson]

Agree, BD. A jiggle can be interpreted as a reaction to hearing a shot
if we know when that shot hit a target, as in 223 and 313 (a jiggle would
follow). Since we don't know for sure when the first shot was fired, any
jiggle on camera could be in response to hearing a shot fired previous to
the jiggle. This still puts the jiggle at 134 in play as a response to
hearing the first shot, as pointed out as a possibility in a previous
post.

[bigdog]

I don't believe in junk science that can't stand up to peer review.

> Did you know exactly what happened in the Reagan assassination when you
> watched the video that day? No, I spotted something that everyone else
> missed. The bullet fired from behind hit Reagan in front because it
> ricocheted off the limo. You didn't notice that.

It's amazing some of the things you take credit for.

[bigdog]

Once again you put your ignorance on full display. Once again you jump
into a conversation without taking the time to find out what is being
discussed. You try to impress everyone with your knowledge and instead you
come off looking foolish.

This entire threead has been about when the missed shot was fired. You are
the one who introduced the single bullet into the disussion.

> And you don't have the Agronsky interview so you're not sure what
> Connally really said. He has been misquoted by both sides.
>
> http://www.the-puzzle-palace.com/Connally.htm

Do you think we need your website to see the Agronsky interview. There are
quite a few to choose from on YouTube alone. If your website were to
shutdown tomorrow, it wouldn't subtract one bit from the body of knowledge
regarding the JFK assassination. You have nothing but your own musings
which are exclusive. Everything else we can get from multiple sources.

[Anthony Marsh]

Yeah, sure. And maybe they were reacting to EACH OTHER.
"Hey, what is HE looking at?"

[Anthony Marsh]

Connally was not talking about an early miss. He was talking about the
shot that hit JFK.

>> And you don't have the Agronsky interview so you're not sure what
>> Connally really said. He has been misquoted by both sides.
>>
>> http://www.the-puzzle-palace.com/Connally.htm
>
> Do you think we need your website to see the Agronsky interview. There are
> quite a few to choose from on YouTube alone. If your website were to
> shutdown tomorrow, it wouldn't subtract one bit from the body of knowledge
> regarding the JFK assassination. You have nothing but your own musings
> which are exclusive. Everything else we can get from multiple sources.
>
>

Sometimes my Web sites are the only places to find certain files. That's
why the FBI wanted to close it down.

[Anthony Marsh]

Show me the Peer review. It ain't Ramsey.


It's amazing that I'm the only one paying attention.

>> Did you know exactly what happened in the Reagan assassination when you
>> watched the video that day? No, I spotted something that everyone else
>> missed. The bullet fired from behind hit Reagan in front because it
>> ricocheted off the limo. You didn't notice that.
>
> It's amazing some of the things you take credit for.
>

I called Bob Cutler and told him within minutes of the shooting. He may
have written about it or mentioned it to someone.
The SS later confirmed it and Cutler diagrammed it.

[bigdog]

Then you should have addressed your remarks to Connally. The rest of us were talking about the missed shot, not that you would have noticed.

> >> And you don't have the Agronsky interview so you're not sure what
> >> Connally really said. He has been misquoted by both sides.
> >>
> >> http://www.the-puzzle-palace.com/Connally.htm
> >
> > Do you think we need your website to see the Agronsky interview. There are
> > quite a few to choose from on YouTube alone. If your website were to
> > shutdown tomorrow, it wouldn't subtract one bit from the body of knowledge
> > regarding the JFK assassination. You have nothing but your own musings
> > which are exclusive. Everything else we can get from multiple sources.
> >
> >
>
> Sometimes my Web sites are the only places to find certain files. That's
> why the FBI wanted to close it down.

Sure they did, Tony. Sure they did.

[bigdog]

Right. And no one here doubts that at all. <snicker>

[OHLeeRedux]

Anthony Marsh

- show quoted text -

Show me the Peer review. It ain't Ramsey.


It's amazing that I'm the only one paying attention.

>> Did you know exactly what happened in the Reagan assassination when you
>> watched the video that day? No, I spotted something that everyone else
>> missed. The bullet fired from behind hit Reagan in front because it
>> ricocheted off the limo. You didn't notice that.
>
> It's amazing some of the things you take credit for.
>


I called Bob Cutler and told him within minutes of the shooting. He may
have written about it or mentioned it to someone.
The SS later confirmed it and Cutler diagrammed it.

You just make it up as you go along, don't you?

Reminds me of the character on Saturday Night Live: I saw the bullet
ricochet off the limo. Yeah, that's it. That's the ticket.

[tom...@cox.net]

bigdog <jecorb...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> On Monday, June 29, 2015 at 11:01:26 AM UTC-4, Anthony Marsh wrote:
> > On 6/27/2015 8:31 PM, bigdog wrote:
> > > On Friday, June 26, 2015 at 9:30:20 PM UTC-4, Brian Roselle wrote:
> > >> On Friday, June 26, 2015 at 4:54:15 PM UTC-4, bigdog wrote:
> > >>> On Thursday, June 25, 2015 at 10:42:58 PM UTC-4, Allan G. Johnson

> > >>> wro=

> te:
> > >>>> On Wednesday, June 24, 2015 at 11:29:49 AM UTC-4, bigdog wrote:
> > >>>>> On Monday, June 22, 2015 at 9:36:35 PM UTC-4, Allan G. Johnson

> > >>>>> wrot=

> e:
> > >>>>>> On Saturday, June 20, 2015 at 7:54:57 PM UTC-4, bigdog wrote:
> > >>>>>>> On Friday, June 19, 2015 at 8:33:40 PM UTC-4, FSHG wrote:
> > >>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>> Exactly like many other witnesses (and exactly like the Warren

> > >>>>>>>> C=

> ommission
> > >>>>>>>> admitted in its report about the witnesses it recorded

> > >>>>>>>> statement=

> s from),
> > >>>>>>>> the last 2 shots that Hickey could hear were bunched much

> > >>>>>>>> closer=

> together
> > >>>>>>>> than the first 2 shots he could hear. (even though the current

> > >>>>>>>> W=

> C
> > >>>>>>>> apologists theory tries to believe the last 2 shots were over

> > >>>>>>>> 46=

> % further
> > >>>>>>>> apart than the first 2 shots)
> > >>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>> There is no consensus among WC defenders as to exactly when the

> > >>>>>>> f=

> irst shot
> > >>>>>>> was fired since there simply is no definitive evidence that

> > >>>>>>> allow=

> s us to
> > >>>>>>> pinpoint that first shot. Reasonable arguments can be made for

> > >>>>>>> a =

> wide
> > >>>>>>> range of possible times that first shot was fired, but no one

> > >>>>>>> has=

> been
> > >>>>>>> able to establish that with certitude. Holland's explanation

> > >>>>>>> woul=

> d be
> > >>>>>>> consistent with those witnesses who said the last two shots

> > >>>>>>> were =

> closer
> > >>>>>>> together. That is certainly a possibility. I believe it is

> > >>>>>>> simply=

> more
> > >>>>>>> likely the earwitnesses were hearing multiple sounds from that

> > >>>>>>> he=

> adshot
> > >>>>>>> that they interpreted as two seperate shots very close

> > >>>>>>> together, =

> but that
> > >>>>>>> too is nothing more than an educated guess.
> > >>>>>>
> > >>>>>> Also, if somehow you can reasonably conclude or prove that

> > >>>>>> the=

> first
> > >>>>>> shot was fired at frame 133 or before, or just assume it for the

> > >>>>>> s=

> ack of
> > >>>>>> argument, it is the only option that offers an explanation for

> > >>>>>> all=

> the
> > >>>>>> reactions that follow on film. Hickey, JFK, Connally, Rosemary

> > >>>>>> Wi=

> llis,
> > >>>>>> etc. all reacted after 133, some sooner than later, but none

> > >>>>>> more =

> than 1
> > >>>>>> 1/2 seconds apart. If you use 160 as the time of the first shot

> > >>>>>> (=

> the last
> > >>>>>> possible opportunity to shoot at the limo from the 6th floor

> > >>>>>> befor=

> e it
> > >>>>>> passed under the tree), then you can't explain why Hickey

> > >>>>>> started =

> to turn
> > >>>>>> left to see if a firecracker hit the side of the car, JFK

> > >>>>>> lowering=

> his
> > >>>>>> hand and looking left, Connally looking left then right,

> > >>>>>> Rosemary =

> Willis
> > >>>>>> turning her head and slowing down, etc. all these reactions

> > >>>>>> happen=

> ed just
> > >>>>>> at or after 133 and way before 160. What were they reacting to

> > >>>>>> if=

> the
> > >>>>>> shot fired at 160? If the shot fired at or before 133 it

> > >>>>>> explains=

> what
> > >>>>>> they're reacting to, they just had different reacting times.
> > >>>>>>
> > >>>>>> There is also the film itself, it shows a clear frame 133 and

> > >>>>>> 1=

> 35, but
> > >>>>>> frame 134 is very blurred. That could be due to Zapruder

> > >>>>>> hearing =

> and
> > >>>>>> reacting to the first shot. But, it could also be due to the

> > >>>>>> came=

> ra
> > >>>>>> moving just as Zapruder restarted the filming.
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>> I think movements of the people you mention may well be in

> > >>>>> reaction=

> to the
> > >>>>> sound of a gunshot. However no matter how many times I watch the

> > >>>>> Z-=

> film
> > >>>>> I've never seen any movement by JFK himself that indicates he was

> > >>>>> e=

> ven
> > >>>>> aware the sound was a gunshot. The raising and lowering of his

> > >>>>> righ=

> t hand
> > >>>>> and his turn to the right seem to me to be only to wave at the
> > >>>>> few remaining spectators on Elm St. He seems oblivious to that

> > >>>>> first sh=

> ot. My
> > >>>>> guess is that he like a number of witnesses didn't recognize the

> > >>>>> fi=

> rst
> > >>>>> blast as a gunshot but either a motorcycle backfire or a

> > >>>>> firecracke=

> r. Had
> > >>>>> he thought it was a gunshot I think he would have instantly

> > >>>>> realize=

> d he
> > >>>>> was the probable target and his reaction would probably have been

> > >>>>> t=

> o get
> > >>>>> Jackie and his head down and out of harm's way as best he could.
> > >>>>
> > >>>> No one will know for sure what JFK was thinking or reacting to

> > >>>> w=

> hen he
> > >>>> dropped his right hand and looked to the LEFT at Jackie. Perhaps

> > >>>> it=

> was
> > >>>> in reaction to hearing the loud bang, not knowing exactly what it

> > >>>> wa=

> s and
> > >>>> not seeing anything unusual, he went back to waving to his right.

> > >>>> I=

> f he
> > >>>> instantly recognized it as a gun shot, I'm sure he would have

> > >>>> reacte=

> d
> > >>>> differently as you suggest. My point is that from the time the
> > >>>> film started to the time he was hit by the second shot, he DID
> > >>>> react to something starting at frame 140, and it was the ONLY time
> > >>>> he stopped waving, which is concurrent with reactions from other

> > >>>> people on film=

> .
> > >>>>
> > >>>> Think of it this way BD, if you place the first shot at 133

> > >>>> or =

> before,
> > >>>> everything seems to fit. 3 shots being fired, plenty of time to

> > >>>> get=

> the
> > >>>> shots off, more time between shots one and two then shots two and

> > >>>> th=

> ree,
> > >>>> reactions of people on film (Hickey, Rosemary, JFK, Connally,
> > >>>> etc), supports single bullet fact (if first shot missed and third

> > >>>> shot hit=

> head,
> > >>>> the second shot had to hit both Kennedy and Connally), first shot
> > >>>> deflecting off street light pole causing deflection of bullet

> > >>>> fragme=

> nts,
> > >>>> arrangement of the shells on the floor of the 6th floor,
> > >>>> eyewitness accounts of first shot fired just after limo turned

> > >>>> onto Elm St., et=

> c.
> > >>>> If you place the first shot at around 150 to 160, then you have to

> > >>>> c=

> ome up
> > >>>> with all kinds of different reasons to explain things and that's

> > >>>> whe=

> n the
> > >>>> arguments get off track.
> > >>>
> > >>> I have said previously that I neither embrace nor reject Max

> > >>> Holland'=

> s
> > >>> theory of a shot before Zapruder resumed filming. A first shot at

> > >>> Z13=

> 3
> > >>> would mean roughly 90 frames between each subsequent shot which

> > >>> would=

> fit
> > >>> with those who thought the shots were evenly spaced. I believe

> > >>> Hollan=

> d
> > >>> places it the equivelant of 30 frames earlier which would fit with

> > >>> th=

> ose
> > >>> who thought the last two came closer together which was the
> > >>> majority viewpoint. Holland's theory seems to fit better with some

> > >>> pieces of t=

> he
> > >>> puzzle but not with others. Most notably Connally's visible

> > >>> reaction =

> which
> > >>> began at Z164 when he snapped his head quickly to his right. If

> > >>> Holla=

> nd is
> > >>> correct, Connally took over 3 seconds to make that visible

> > >>> reaction. =

> That
> > >>> is possible if his reaction was a cognitive, deliberate reaction as
> > >>> opposed to an intantaneous reaction to it.
> > >>>
> > >>> My own belief, which is part hunch, part educated guess is a first

> > >>> sh=

> ot at
> > >>> Z151 which would fit with the jiggle at Z158. But since there were

> > >>> mo=

> re
> > >>> jiggles than shots, it can't be stated with any certainty that the

> > >>> Z1=

> 58
> > >>> jiggle was caused by a shot.
> > >>>
> > >>> Reasonable arguments can be made for that first shot when Max
> > >>> Holland placed, Z160 which is when Dale Myers placed it, or

> > >>> sometime in betwe=

> en.
> > >>> It would be nice to be able to nail down this loose piece but
> > >>> unfortunately with the evidence we have, I don't think we will ever

> > >>> b=

> e
> > >>> able to state with certainty when it was fired. If only Zapruder

> > >>> had =

> a
> > >>> camera with sound. If the assassination were to happen today, we

> > >>> woul=

> d
> > >>> have dozens of videos with sound to tell us what happened.
> > >>
> > >> Bigdog,
> > >>
> > >> Immediately before z151, do you have any thoughts on what may have

> > >> cau=

> sed
> > >> Connallys rapid head snap left, which started at z150?
> > >>
> > >> Thx, Brian
> > >
> > > I've looked at several versions of the Z-film trying to find one that

> > > h=

> as
> > > that part of the film enhanced. Based on what I see, I don't know

> > > that =

> I
> > > would characterize his movement as a head snap as opposed to just a

> > > nor=

> mal
> > > turn to his left. There are any number of reasons he may have looked
> > > to his left at that point, one of which is that he could have been

> > > reactin=

> g
> > > to a gunshot. There are too many other possibilities to say with any
> > > conviction that he is reacting to a gunshot at that moment.
> > >
> > > When judging Connally's movements I like to compare that with how he
> > > described his reaction to the first gunshot. In his initial version

> > > giv=

> en
> > > to Martin Agronsky from his hospital bed he said he turned left upon
> > > hearing the first shot. In every other version I am aware of

> > > including =

> his
> > > sworn testimony, he said he turned right upon hearing the first shot.

> > > N=

> ow
> > > maybe he was influenced by what he saw himself doing in the Z-film or
> > > maybe he just misspoke when he told Agronsky that his initial

> > > movement =

> was
> > > to turn to his left. I just don't see anything definitive in JBC's
> > > movements at Z150 that would allow me to say that he is reacting to a
> > > gunshot at that point. All I can say is maybe.
> > >

> >=20

> > Well now, you've made a mess of this. Mixing the shot that hit JFK

> > with=
> =20

> > an early missed shot. I am sure that even YOU don't think that JFK

> > was=20 hit at about frame Z-150.

>
> Once again you put your ignorance on full display. Once again you jump
> into a conversation without taking the time to find out what is being
> discussed. You try to impress everyone with your knowledge and instead
> you come off looking foolish.
>
> This entire threead has been about when the missed shot was fired. You
> are the one who introduced the single bullet into the disussion.
>

> > And you don't have the Agronsky interview so you're not sure what=20

> > Connally really said. He has been misquoted by both sides.

> >=20

> > http://www.the-puzzle-palace.com/Connally.htm
>
> Do you think we need your website to see the Agronsky interview. There
> are quite a few to choose from on YouTube alone. If your website were to
> shutdown tomorrow, it wouldn't subtract one bit from the body of
> knowledge regarding the JFK assassination. You have nothing but your own
> musings which are exclusive. Everything else we can get from multiple
> sources.

===========================================================================
===yet, you chose "not" o read the official evidence/testimony from the
commission's 26 volumes proving their "conclusions dead wrong ! ! !
===========================================================================
====

[Jason Burke]

You're good at lip-flapping, Rossley.

So, why don't you show us where the "commission's 26 volumes (prove)

[Anthony Marsh]

On 7/1/2015 10:40 PM, OHLeeRedux wrote:
> Anthony Marsh
> - show quoted text -
> Show me the Peer review. It ain't Ramsey.
>
>
> It's amazing that I'm the only one paying attention.
>

I ask you to prove something and you can't. You fold. All you can do is
bluff.

>>> Did you know exactly what happened in the Reagan assassination when you
>>> watched the video that day? No, I spotted something that everyone else
>>> missed. The bullet fired from behind hit Reagan in front because it
>>> ricocheted off the limo. You didn't notice that.
>>
>> It's amazing some of the things you take credit for.
>>
>
>
> I called Bob Cutler and told him within minutes of the shooting. He may
> have written about it or mentioned it to someone.
> The SS later confirmed it and Cutler diagrammed it.
>
>
>
> You just make it up as you go along, don't you?
>

Nonsense. You can check all these things out yourself.

[Anthony Marsh]

Enough with the snide remarks. I have backed up everything I said.

[Anthony Marsh]

On 7/1/2015 10:35 PM, bigdog wrote:

That's what the tech guy at QUIK told me.

>

[bigdog]

So you keep telling us but nobody seems to remember you doing that.

[bigdog]

Of course he did. Why wouldn't I believe that. <snicker>