Post by John CorbettPost by c***@gmail.comPost by Doctor WPost by BOZAs I looked up to the window above, I saw a rifle being pulled back in the
window. It might have been resting on the window sill. I didn???t
see a man. I didn???t even see if it had a scope on it. ??? I
looked to my left and I could see both cars speeding off, the
President???s car and the car behind him.
(???Lensman Heard Shots, Saw Gun???, Dallas Times Herald, 23
November 1963)
I was reading an interesting post in one of the forums about
witness/photographer Bob Jackson that included the following paragraphs
about the WC's theoretical shot sequence that I had never realized, until
now, was true.
It mentions that the majority of the witnesses stated the second and third
heard shots were bunched much closer together than the first and second
shots.
BUT,
the WC (current) theory has the second and third shots timed 46%
further apart than the WC's first and second shots.
The most important determination by Mr. Jackson, by far, (that he has also
always maintained to this very day), AND, that the WCR report even also
admitted to a "substantial majority" witnesses majority (that Dulles
stated was a five-to-one ratio), is that Mr. Jackson, along a very
significant, large percentage of his fellow witnesses who recalled hearing
3 or more shots, all maintained and described that the 2nd and 3rd shots
were definitely bunched much closer together, than were the 1st and 2nd
shots they could hear.
http://youtu.be/ctNVyf9jdCM
http://youtu.be/VGzCNg1OEww
- But, WC believers (current) theory of LN shots triggered at Zap-160,
221, and triggered at 310, is contradictory to the significant majority
of the witnesses actually there, in that the (current) WC theory places
its 2nd and 3rd LN shots 46% further spaced apart than its 1st and 2nd
theoretical LN shots--"
A number like 46% is very, very significant IMHO, and a majority of
persons definitely WOULD notice that significant difference.
(especially witnesses, laws enforcement officials, and Secret Service
Agents who had extensive prior experiences actually firing weapons)
(for example, do you think you would notice a politician winning an
election by 46%, or your suddenly having to pay today $3.18 for a gallon
for gas that was $2.17 yesterday)
Whether you are a CT or (especially) a LNer, can you simply explain that
46% longer time in the WC current theory?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kappa_effect
"The kappa effect or perceptual time dilation[1] is a temporal perceptual
illusion that can arise when observers judge the elapsed time between
sensory stimuli applied sequentially at different locations. In perceiving
a sequence of consecutive stimuli, subjects tend to overestimate the
elapsed time between two successive stimuli when the distance between the
stimuli is sufficiently large, and to underestimate the elapsed time when
the distance is sufficiently small."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tau_effect#:~:text=The%20tau%20effect%20is%20a,stimuli%20in%20a%20stimulus%20sequence.
"The tau effect is a spatial perceptual illusion that arises when
observers judge the distance between consecutive stimuli in a stimulus
sequence. When the distance from one stimulus to the next is constant, and
the time elapsed from one stimulus to the next is also constant, subjects
tend to judge the distances, correctly, as equal. However, if the distance
from one stimulus to the next is constant, but the time elapsed from one
stimulus to the next is not constant, then subjects tend to misperceive
the interval that has the shorter temporal interval as also having a
shorter spatial interval."
Both the Kappa and Tau effect deal with time perception illusions. This
helps explain why some earwitnesses/eyewitnesses felt the second and third
shots were right on top of each other.
There are other explanations, too, but I think the Kappa effect and Tau
effect make a contribution towards explaining the perceptions from some
bystanders concerning shot spacing.
I hadn't heard of these before but both sound interesting and plausible
explanations for the perceptions of the witnesses. The Zapruder film
doesn't tell us precisely when the first shot was fired but there are
about 90 frames between the second and third. If we went back 90 frames
from the second shot, that takes us right about to the time Zapruder
resumed filming. Unless Max Holland is right that the first shot was fired
before Zapruder resumed filming, that would mean there was less than 90
frames between the first and second shots and therefore less time.
I have long maintained that Zapruder's camera is the best eyewitness we
have but unfortunately, that witness was totally deaf. That leaves us to
speculate as to precisely when that first shot was fired. We all have our
guesses but none of us can prove them.
Not exactly. Do you understand the jiggle analysis?
Zapruder could hear the shots and it made his camera move.
Circumstantial Evidence of a Head Shot From The Grassy Knoll
(c) - Copyright 1993 by W. Anthony Marsh
Presented at The Third Decade conference June 18-20, 1993
As much as we would like to have direct evidence of a head shot from
the grassy knoll, such evidence may be missing, inconclusive, or suspect.
However, there may be a body of circumstantial evidence which would
indicate that the fatal shot which struck President Kennedy's head at
Z-313 came from the grassy knoll. This paper will not present conclusive
proof of a head shot from the grassy knoll, but it will cite examples of
circumstantial evidence which strongly suggest that the head shot came
from the grassy knoll. Some of the examples are well known, but need to be
reexamined.
The Zapruder film is the most well-known evidence of the head shot.
Various studies and interpretations of it have been made. Some studies,
such as the one done by Itek, have analyzed the movement of President
Kennedy's head around the time of the head shot. They note that President
Kennedy's head moves forward significantly from Z-312 to Z-313 and cite
that as proof of a shot hitting the head from behind. What they and
everyone else has failed to do is analyze the movements of all the
occupants of the rear compartment of the limousine, including the
Connallys. That is what I have done.
My analysis of the movements of the Kennedys and the Connallys is
not, unfortunately, based on the same reproductions of the Zapruder film
as used in other studies, due to cost considerations. I made measurements
in 1/60th of an inch increments on a photocopy set of prints from Zapruder
frames 312 to 321, as reproduced by Robert Cutler in his dividend to The
Grassy Knoll Gazette of X-79. Bob's reference line is drawn through the
center of the window knob. I made all measurements starting at the front
edge of his reference line. However, I noticed that the distance from the
reference line to the rollbar is not constant. This means that we can not
use unadjusted measurements from these prints to calculate precise
positions, but can estimate relative movements. This may be due to a
variety of factors, such as variations in printing and copying each frame,
changes in perspective, mismeasurements, or blurring. Some Zapruder frames
are too blurred to allow accurate measurements. Each measurement of Nellie
Connally's position is to the front edge of her hair. Each measurement of
John Connally's position is to the front edge of his forehead. Each
measurement of Jackie Kennedy's position is to the front edge of her
pillbox hat. Each measurement of JFK's position is to the edge of his hair
at the rear of his head. All measurements were lined up against the chrome
strip in the background for better contrast. Be sure to remember that
increasing measurements for the Connallys represent forward motion, while
increasing measurements for the Kennedys represent rearward motion. Notice
the direction and amount of movement of each person listed in Figure 1.
Between Z-312 and Z-313, all the occupants of the rear compartment of the
limo moved forward by about the same amount. Unless all four were hit by
bullets (a practical impossibility), their forward movement must be caused
by something else. The most likely cause is inertia due to the limousine
having suddenly slowed down. Dr. Luis Alvarez noted in his study [1] that
the average velocity of the limousine going down Elm Street sharply
decreased just before the head shot. Some researchers have theorized that
Secret Service agent Bill Greer jammed on the brakes or took his foot off
the accelerator. Whatever he did, the limousine very quickly changed from
an average velocity of about 12 MPH to about 8 MPH just before the head
shot. Obeying the law of inertia, passengers in the limo were thrust
forward in relation to their previous positions in the limousine. Further
evidence of this effect is the fact that the Connallys continued to move
forward while President Kennedy was being thrust backwards. I have not
done a similar analysis of previous Zapruder frames to pinpoint the start
of the occupants' forward movement, so I would urge others to do so
themselves, in order to verify my results and observations. Figure 1.
Z-frame rollbar Nellie Connally Jackie JFK
----------+----------+----------+----------+----------+----------+----------+
x/60" Z312 136 106 77 44 159
----------+----------+----------+----------+----------+----------+----------+
difference 9 forward 5 forward 10 forward 6 forward 7
----------+----------+----------+----------+----------+----------+----------+
Z313 145 111 87 38 152
----------+----------+----------+----------+----------+----------+----------+
difference 2 forward 2 forward 1 rearward 1 forward 1
----------+----------+----------+----------+----------+----------+----------+
Z314 147 113 88 39 151
----------+----------+----------+----------+----------+----------+----------+
difference 4 0 forward 4 forward 6 rearward 6
----------+----------+----------+----------+----------+----------+----------+
Z315 151 113 92 33 157
----------+----------+----------+----------+----------+----------+----------+
difference 3 forward 2 forward 1 rearward 1 rearward 9
----------+----------+----------+----------+----------+----------+----------+
Z316 148 115 93 34 166
----------+----------+----------+----------+----------+----------+----------+
difference 2 forward 2 forward 7 forward 4
rearward 11
----------+----------+----------+----------+----------+----------+----------+
Z317 150 117 100 30 177
----------+----------+----------+----------+----------+----------+----------+
difference 3 forward 5 forward 2 rearward 5
----------+----------+----------+----------+----------+----------+----------+
Z319 153 122 NA 28 182
----------+----------+----------+----------+----------+----------+----------+
difference 0 forward 4 forward 3
rearward 14
----------+----------+----------+----------+----------+----------+----------+
Z320 153 126 130 25 196
----------+----------+----------+----------+----------+----------+----------+
difference 4 rearward 1 forward 1
----------+----------+----------+----------+----------+----------+----------+
Z321 157 NA NA 26 195
Perhaps the most controversial evidence produced by the House Select
Committee on Assassinations would be the acoustical studies. In my
opinion, the conclusion that there was a conspiracy should not rest
entirely on the acoustical studies. But the acoustical studies are useful
for establishing the time between shots. All times are measured in seconds
after the microphone became stuck open for several minutes. BBN found 4
shots on the tape, 3 of which came from the TSBD at 137.70, 139.27, and
145.61 respectively. The grassy knoll shot was found by Weiss and
Aschkenasy to be recorded at 144.90. There was a fifth set of impulses
which was rejected by HSCA as being a false alarm at 140.32. I have looked
at the waveforms more closely to try to determine when the muzzle blast of
each shot was recorded, to a greater degree of accuracy. My best estimate
for each shot is 137.702, 139.268, 140.339, 144.895, and 145.608. You can
get a general idea of the spacing between shots by subtracting one time
from another. But there is an additional variable which must be taken into
account. BBN found that the recorder used that day was running about 5%
slow, so all times must be multiplied by about 1.05 in order to restore
the original spacing. A more accurate correction factor might be borrowed
from the work which W&A did on the grassy knoll shot. They found that a
correction factor of 1.043 produced the best fit for echo delays compared
to their predicted model. Another possible corroboration for the 1.043
correction factor is the 'bell' sound found by BBN at 152.5. Although Todd
Vaughan believes that it is only electrical interference, if we can
determine its true frequency, we can derive the most accurate correction
factor. That holds true for many other sounds on the tape, such as car
horns, tire squeals, police sirens, etc. BBN found that the 'bell' sound
had a nominal pitch of 420 Hz. This is close to the note A, which is
usually 440 Hz. If the sound is really a bell, it might have been tuned to
A=440. We do not know for sure what type of bell it was. Most people have
assumed that it is a carillon bell, but it could be a train bell, a ship's
bell, or a victory bell on a college campus. There are a couple of other
possible tunings which would produce a correction factor close to 1.043.
If the bell had been tuned using a mean-tone temperament scale, it might
have a real pitch of 438.075 Hz. Dividing that by 420 would give us a
correction factor of 1.0430357. If the bell had been tuned to an old
English standard of A=438.9, dividing that by 420 would give us a
correction factor of 1.045. Applying the correction factor to the spacing
between shots as found by BBN will give us the true spacing between muzzle
blasts picked up by McLain's cycle. If we want to then translate those
into Zapruder frames, we must multiply each interval by 18.3 frames.
Figure 2 is a rough approximation of how many frames there were between
all 5 muzzle blasts.
Matching these times to the Zapruder film is more complicated and
depends on making several real-world assumptions such as the speed of the
bullets. We can be fairly confident in ruling out the first three shots as
matching the head shot at Z-313, as such a match would place the first
shot after Z-255, when we can clearly see in Altgens 1-6 that President
Kennedy and Governor Connally have already been hit. The HSCA matched the
last shot with Z-313, because their medical evidence indicated that the
head shot came from behind. My alternative matchup tests the idea that the
head shot came from the grassy knoll.
Figure 2. origin tape time spacing *1.043 *18.3 Z-frame Z-frame TSBD
137.702 162 176
TSBD 139.268 192 206
TSBD 140.339 212 226
Knoll 144.895 299 313
TSBD 145.608 313 327
The first problem we notice with the HSCA version is that the first
shot is much too early. No other evidence supports a shot that early and
clearly President Kennedy was not hit by a bullet close to that frame. The
first shot was probably a miss. The HSCA places the hit to JFK's back at
around Z190- 192. The problem with that is that we can see President
Kennedy in the Zapruder film during the range Z-190 to Z-210. He does not
yet appear to be reacting to being hit by a bullet. There is absolutely no
indication that Governor Connally was struck by a bullet at about that
time, nor at about Z- 210 to Z-212, if we accept the fifth shot which HSCA
rejected.
My matchup would indicate a hit to JFK's back somewhere in the range
of Z-206 to Z-210, and a hit to Connally's back somewhere in the range of
Z-226 to Z-230. I believe this is more consistent with previous studies of
the Zapruder film and eyewitness testimony. If there is some way to prove
exactly when either President Kennedy or Governor Connally received their
back wounds, that would force us to choose between the HSCA version and
mine, regardless of other evidence.
Just as Altgens 1-6 helps us eliminate the first three shots as
matches with Z-313, it may also help us eliminate the last shot from the
TSBD as matching Z-313. Everyone is familiar with the fact that CE350
shows a crack on the windshield and that it is not seen in Altgens 1-6,
but is seen in Altgens 1-7. There has been some doubt about which shot
from which direction caused that crack. I believe that I am the first
person to notice something in CE350 which would resolve the doubt. If you
look carefully at CE350, you will notice that the back of the rearview
mirror is dented, but you can see that it was not dented in Altgens 1-6.
This damage was caused by a bullet fragment which struck the windshield
from the inside and ricochetted into the rearview mirror. Many people
believe this fragment came from the head shot, which would been fired from
the TSBD. I tend to feel that all the damage to the limousine, consisting
of the crack in the windshield, dented rearview mirror and dented chrome
topping, was done by the same shot. If we can find evidence which
pinpoints when that damage was done, we may be able to show that it came
several frames after Z-313. Photographic enhancement of the Zapruder film,
Muchmore film or the Bronson film might reveal that the windshield was not
cracked by Z-314. If that turns out to be true, then the last shot from
the TSBD must have missed JFK's head and hit the windshield. In turn, that
would mean that the fatal head shot came from the grassy knoll. I
seriously doubt that there is any photograph which would show exactly when
the rearview mirror was dented, but perhaps some as-yet-undiscovered
photograph would show when the chrome topping was dented. That dent could
only have been caused by a shot from behind the limo. If it was undented
at Z-314, that would prove that the head shot came from the grassy knoll.
Another factor which might influence our choosing the HSCA version
or mine would be the jiggle analysis of the Zapruder film. Even the HSCA
admitted that the jiggle analysis matched better when the grassy knoll
shot was lined up with Z-313. [2] Figure 3 compares the timing of the
impulses to the Zapruder film. The HSCA rejected the shot which is
indicated in brackets as being too fast for Oswald to have fired. The
jiggle analysis measured the amount of panning error by Zapruder. To
simply and clarify, I have put the groups into ascending order. The group
with the largest amount of blur is marked 'A', the second largest 'B',
etc. I have chosen the Hartmann figures to be representative, as his are
usually midway between Alvarez or Scott's figures. Zapruder's camera ran
at 18.3 frames per second on average.
Figure 3. Two comparisons of jiggle analysis to acoustical data
Frames Group
158-159 D
191-197 B Note that the start of a jiggle group may not
227 C coincide with the firing or impact of a bullet.
290-291 E In most cases, it takes several frames before
313-318 A1 Zapruder reacts to a stimulus.
331-332 A2
HSCA Z-# hit? origin jiggle Marsh Z-# hit? origin jiggle
137.70 161 miss TSBD D 137.702 179 miss TSBD VI#1 B
139.27 191 JFK/JBC TSBD B 139.268 209 JFK TSBD VI#1
[140.32] 140.339 230 Connally TSBD VI#10 C
144.90 297 miss knoll E 144.895 312.6 JFK knoll A1
145.61 312 JFK TSBD A1 145.608 328 Connally TSBD VI#1 A2
The jiggle analysis can not be used as absolute proof of when a shot
occurred, but it matches up better for the head shot from the grassy
knoll.
Could eyewitness testimony help resolve the question of which shot
hit what? Secret Service agent Clint Hill testified (2H144) that the last
shot he heard sounded as though it had hit some metal place. If he in fact
had heard the last shot from the TSBD hit the chrome topping, that would
not, in and of itself, prove that the TSBD shot missed JFK's head, as the
dent could have been caused by a fragment from the head shot. But it would
narrow the range during which the chrome topping was dented to between
Z-313 to Z-331 and make it more likely that the chrome topping was dented
at the same time that the windshield was cracked, rather than much earlier
as some have speculated.
On pages 126-129 of Six Seconds in Dallas, Josiah Thompson cites the
statements of several witnesses who thought that a shot came from the
grassy knoll. William Newman felt that he and his family were in the
direct path of gunfire. Given their position, it seems more likely that
the head shot came from behind the fence on the grassy knoll than from the
TSBD. Emmett Hudson, who was standing on the steps leading up to the
pergola, said that the shots sounded as if they came from behind him,
above his head and to his left. That would place the origin near the
fence. Zapruder felt that the head shot had come from behind him and
whistled past his right ear. Between these two witnesses and behind them
is the corner of the fence. W&A found a probable shockwave at 24 ms.
before the muzzle blast of the grassy knoll shot. Assuming the weapon was
aimed at the limousine, we can make a rough calculation of the velocity of
the bullet and the resultant angle of the shockwave. Although the
calculation for the decay of the shockwave is too difficult for me, a
rough calculation yielded an exit velocity of the bullet at about 1564.5
fps. This would create a shockwave of at least 45 degrees on either side
of the flightpath of the bullet. All three witnesses were within the cone
of that shockwave and would have felt it very strongly.
How can we know whether the weapon was aimed at the limousine? If it
had been aimed in some opposite direction, the open microphone would have
been outside the cone of the shockwave and thus the shockwave would not
have been recorded. Another indication of where the weapon was aimed can
be found in the statement that Sam Holland made to Josiah Thompson when he
was shown a very clear copy of the Moorman 2 Polaroid. He felt that the
viewpoint was looking right down the barrel of the gun. Given Mary
Moorman's position, the gun would have been aimed at the limousine. In
Moorman 2 we can see the head of a man peering over the fence, about 9
feet from the corner. Interestingly, this is the same spot where W&A
located the origin of the grassy knoll shot, unaware of the existence of
Moorman 2. In Moorman 2 we do not see a side view of any weapon as we
might expect if it was not aimed at the limo. Whoever this man was, he
moved from that position very quickly after the head shot. There is no one
there in later Zapruder frames or in the Stoughton photograph, taken
shortly after the head shot. The Stoughton photograph has never been
analyzed. The Warren Commission and the House Committee were unaware of
its existence. I believe that no one had ever studied it before I found it
at the JFK Library. Unfortunately, I do not have the resources to properly
analyze it and obviously the government will not, as it might reveal the
presence of a gunman on the grassy knoll. One independent researcher, Dale
Meyers, has done some computer analysis which suggests that there is a
person behind the fence, several feet to the right of the corner.
Many witnesses can be seen reacting to the shots in various films.
Some fell to the ground very quickly while others did not seem to realize
the danger. We would expect those witnesses closest to the gun on the
grassy knoll to react very quickly and dramatically to the shockwave
whizzing past them from the grassy knoll. One of the best films to observe
their reactions was taken by Marie Muchmore. In Muchmore frame 42 we can
see Hudson and his two companions on the steps leading up to the pergola.
They do not seem to be reacting to any gunshots. In frame 55 we can see
that two of the men are reacting. It seems inconceivable that these men
would not have reacted to the sound of a shockwave coming from so close
behind them. If the grassy knoll shot was the miss before the head shot,
we would expect to see these men react before the head shot. The fact that
they did not react until after the head shot would seem to indicate that
the head shot came from the grassy knoll.
Based on the circumstantial evidence we have now, I believe it is
more likely that the head shot came from the grassy knoll. Existing
evidence can and should be examined further. More information can be
gleaned from existing data by novel analyses. The release of withheld data
could provide new clues and allow us to verify certain methods, such as
the acoustical studies. I urge other researchers to look for new evidence
and perform new analyses.
------
1. W. Peter Trower, ed., "Discovering Alvarez", (Chicago: The University
Press, 1987), pp. 210-224. Also HSCA Vol. I, pp. 428-442.
2. House Select Committee on Assassinations, Report, p.80, footnote 16
.jpg)
