Yet Another Clint Hill

Post by John McAdams
http://youtu.be/1UITb9z8noA
All of the three I have posted are quite consistent. That doesn't
necessarily mean they are entirely accurate, since his continued
rehearsal is going to produce consistency, even if his memory is
faulty.
.John
-----------------------
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/home.htm

I agree John, Clint Hill is consistent with his original views from 1963.
He is one of several witnesses who only heard two shots. He gives enough
information to associate the two shots with events we see the Zapruder
film:

Shot 1 - JFK raises his arms and starts slumping to his left.

Shot 2 - JFK is hit in the head.

If all of the witnesses had said this was what happened we would have a
very simple case to solve!

John Corbett

2021-01-23 00:37:51 UTC

I agree John, Clint Hill is consistent with his original views from 1963.
He is one of several witnesses who only heard two shots. He gives enough
information to associate the two shots with events we see the Zapruder
Shot 1 - JFK raises his arms and starts slumping to his left.
Shot 2 - JFK is hit in the head.
If all of the witnesses had said this was what happened we would have a
very simple case to solve!

But it isn't that simple. Agent Bennett riding in that same car heard a
shot before the one that hit JFK. Connally heard a shot before the one
that hit both of them. What do you think is more likely, that Hill didn't
hear the first shot or that Bennett and Connally heard a shot before there
actually was one?

Mark Tyler

2021-01-23 20:51:02 UTC

I agree John, Clint Hill is consistent with his original views from 1963.
He is one of several witnesses who only heard two shots. He gives enough
information to associate the two shots with events we see the Zapruder
Shot 1 - JFK raises his arms and starts slumping to his left.
Shot 2 - JFK is hit in the head.
If all of the witnesses had said this was what happened we would have a
very simple case to solve!

Several witnesses did indeed report two shots before JFK was hit, but
85-89% of witnesses heard only one shot just before JFK raised his arms
and slumped. Deciding which witnesses are right and wrong in this part of
the shooting is not easy, but if it was a popularity contest, then the
first shot hit JFK and no other shots were fired for another 4-6 seconds.
I'm very open to the idea of witnesses missing shots if they were
distracted, but if 85-89% of witnesses didn't hear it maybe it never
happened? Perhaps the 11-15% of witnesses who did hear an extra shot
merely heard echoes?

Bennett and Connally are worth studying in more detail, but they can
easily be misinterpreted if researchers see certainty where there is
ambiguity. For example Connally like Clint Hill only actually heard two
shots, and simply assumed another 'quiet' shot hit him. What if this
assumption was wrong and he was hit by the first shot at Z190, but the
pain took a couple of seconds to manifest itself at Z225? A shot from LHO
during Z180-Z190 and going through the oak tree may also explain why the
bullet hit JFK in the back rather than the head (i.e. Oswald was
distracted by tree foliage in the final second of aiming while the trigger
was being squeezed after Z160).

John Corbett

2021-01-24 14:32:58 UTC

I agree John, Clint Hill is consistent with his original views from 1963.
He is one of several witnesses who only heard two shots. He gives enough
information to associate the two shots with events we see the Zapruder
Shot 1 - JFK raises his arms and starts slumping to his left.
Shot 2 - JFK is hit in the head.
If all of the witnesses had said this was what happened we would have a
very simple case to solve!

You'll never figure out what happened if you rely primarily on witnesses.
I don't know where you are getting your percentages but it really doesn't
matter. There a numerous varying descriptions of the shooting yet it
happened only one way so we can be sure a lot of people got a lot of
important details wrong.

Post by Mark Tyler
Bennett and Connally are worth studying in more detail, but they can
easily be misinterpreted if researchers see certainty where there is
ambiguity. For example Connally like Clint Hill only actually heard two
shots, and simply assumed another 'quiet' shot hit him. What if this
assumption was wrong and he was hit by the first shot at Z190, but the
pain took a couple of seconds to manifest itself at Z225? A shot from LHO
during Z180-Z190 and going through the oak tree may also explain why the
bullet hit JFK in the back rather than the head (i.e. Oswald was
distracted by tree foliage in the final second of aiming while the trigger
was being squeezed after Z160).

Connally was not relying on assumptions. He was relying on his senses. He
heard two shots and he felt one shot which was distinct from the two he
heard and was the middle of the the three shots. Connally's description of
the shooting is corroborated by the Z-film which shows him reacting to the
sound of the first shot several seconds before the one that struck him
which was followed 4.9 seconds later by the one that struck JFK in the
head.

Mark Tyler

2021-01-25 01:59:22 UTC

I agree John, Clint Hill is consistent with his original views from 1963.
He is one of several witnesses who only heard two shots. He gives enough
information to associate the two shots with events we see the Zapruder
Shot 1 - JFK raises his arms and starts slumping to his left.
Shot 2 - JFK is hit in the head.
If all of the witnesses had said this was what happened we would have a
very simple case to solve!

John, I don't "rely primarily on witnesses", I primarily rely on the films
and photos for my work, with the witness evidence fitting into the visual
narrative. For example if a witness said JFK raised his arms after the
first shot I deduce the shot was fired in the second or so just before
what we see at Z225-Z230 in the Zapruder film.

All my percentages come from the published statements and testimony as
listed from over 400 witnesses here (with full citations):
https://github.com/matyler/mc63.dpws/blob/master/mc63_dpws.csv

If you spot any errors or omissions, or disagree with my workings I'm
happy to listen and improve things if I am wrong.

I agree with you, I'm sure some witnesses did get important things wrong,
but I don't see how so many witnesses only heard one early shot before JFK
and Connally reacted to being wounded. A small amount like 10-20% I could
understand as they may have been distracted or been some distance away,
but surely the dozens of people in front of the TSBD couldn't all miss
such a noisy gunshot? The simplest and easiest explanation is that there
was no shot before Z180, then the witness evidence makes perfect sense and
fits into the Zapruder film narrative without any timing anomalies.

Connally said he felt pain two seconds after the noise of the first shot
(the rapidity of the two shots was a point he emphasised many times, which
seems credible given his experience with bolt action guns). This means
his testimony is *NOT* consistent with a shot at Z150, which he heard
circa Z155-Z160, and him being hit later at Z225 (a gap of 3.8 seconds).

In summary, the Connally head turn is the cornerstone of the evidence in
favour of the Z150 shot theory, which is based on his own testimony.
However, for this timing to be correct you have to ignore Connally's often
repeated explanation of the first shot and his own injury. Accepting one
statement from Connally as gospel truth, but ignoring or rejecting another
without good reason seems like cherry-picking. Without other clear
witness or film support, I have no choice but to conclude it's a theory
without concrete foundations (despite it's enduring popularity with many
researchers).

Having said that I'm always open to new ideas so if anyone reading this
can support the Z150 missed shot theory with concrete witness statements
or film/photo evidence from Z150-Z180 I'm all ears.

John Corbett

2021-01-25 05:20:41 UTC

I agree John, Clint Hill is consistent with his original views from 1963.
He is one of several witnesses who only heard two shots. He gives enough
information to associate the two shots with events we see the Zapruder
Shot 1 - JFK raises his arms and starts slumping to his left.
Shot 2 - JFK is hit in the head.
If all of the witnesses had said this was what happened we would have a
very simple case to solve!

John, I don't "rely primarily on witnesses", I primarily rely on the films
and photos for my work, with the witness evidence fitting into the visual
narrative. For example if a witness said JFK raised his arms after the
first shot I deduce the shot was fired in the second or so just before
what we see at Z225-Z230 in the Zapruder film.
All my percentages come from the published statements and testimony as
https://github.com/matyler/mc63.dpws/blob/master/mc63_dpws.csv
If you spot any errors or omissions, or disagree with my workings I'm
happy to listen and improve things if I am wrong.
I agree with you, I'm sure some witnesses did get important things wrong,
but I don't see how so many witnesses only heard one early shot before JFK
and Connally reacted to being wounded. A small amount like 10-20% I could
understand as they may have been distracted or been some distance away,
but surely the dozens of people in front of the TSBD couldn't all miss
such a noisy gunshot? The simplest and easiest explanation is that there
was no shot before Z180, then the witness evidence makes perfect sense and
fits into the Zapruder film narrative without any timing anomalies.

Connally said he felt pain two seconds after the noise of the first shot
(the rapidity of the two shots was a point he emphasised many times, which
seems credible given his experience with bolt action guns). This means
his testimony is *NOT* consistent with a shot at Z150, which he heard
circa Z155-Z160, and him being hit later at Z225 (a gap of 3.8 seconds).
In summary, the Connally head turn is the cornerstone of the evidence in
favour of the Z150 shot theory, which is based on his own testimony.
However, for this timing to be correct you have to ignore Connally's often
repeated explanation of the first shot and his own injury. Accepting one
statement from Connally as gospel truth, but ignoring or rejecting another
without good reason seems like cherry-picking. Without other clear
witness or film support, I have no choice but to conclude it's a theory
without concrete foundations (despite it's enduring popularity with many
researchers).

Weighing the various parts of Connally's statement is not cherry picking.
We can give credibility to the parts that are corroborated by the Z-film.
He said upon hearing the first shot he turned to look to his right and
unable to see anything, he was starting to turn back to his left when he
felt the bullet strike him in the back. He believed he was facing directly
to the front when he felt the bullet hit but the Z-film indicates he was
still turned to his right when the bullet struck. His belief there was two
seconds between the shots is pure guesswork because he wasn't timing the
shots. There is nothing that indicates his guess is an an accurate one.

Like most witnesses, Connally was right about somethings and demonstrably
wrong about others. It makes no sense to take the position that we must
accept all or nothing regarding his account. We can accept those elements
for which there is supporting evidence and reject those parts that are
refuted. That is how we should treat the statements of any witness. Accept
what is corroborated and reject what is refuted. If we don't have evidence
that is either corroborates or refutes what a witness has told us, we
simply have to regard such an account as unconfirmed.

Post by Mark Tyler
Having said that I'm always open to new ideas so if anyone reading this
can support the Z150 missed shot theory with concrete witness statements
or film/photo evidence from Z150-Z180 I'm all ears.

The point is that there is no such thing as concrete witness statements.
You put too much faith in what witnesses tell us because no matter whom
you choose to believe there are going to be other witnesses that tell us
something different. There simply is no definitive evidence for when the
first shot was fired and that is true no matter when you theorize it was
fired. We have clues that require interpretation and the only certainty is
that most of the interpretations are wrong because there can be only one
correct one.

Edward Bauer

2021-01-26 17:44:17 UTC

I agree John, Clint Hill is consistent with his original views from 1963.
He is one of several witnesses who only heard two shots. He gives enough
information to associate the two shots with events we see the Zapruder
Shot 1 - JFK raises his arms and starts slumping to his left.
Shot 2 - JFK is hit in the head.
If all of the witnesses had said this was what happened we would have a
very simple case to solve!

John, I don't "rely primarily on witnesses", I primarily rely on the films
and photos for my work, with the witness evidence fitting into the visual
narrative. For example if a witness said JFK raised his arms after the
first shot I deduce the shot was fired in the second or so just before
what we see at Z225-Z230 in the Zapruder film.
All my percentages come from the published statements and testimony as
https://github.com/matyler/mc63.dpws/blob/master/mc63_dpws.csv
If you spot any errors or omissions, or disagree with my workings I'm
happy to listen and improve things if I am wrong.
I agree with you, I'm sure some witnesses did get important things wrong,
but I don't see how so many witnesses only heard one early shot before JFK
and Connally reacted to being wounded. A small amount like 10-20% I could
understand as they may have been distracted or been some distance away,
but surely the dozens of people in front of the TSBD couldn't all miss
such a noisy gunshot? The simplest and easiest explanation is that there
was no shot before Z180, then the witness evidence makes perfect sense and
fits into the Zapruder film narrative without any timing anomalies.

Connally said he felt pain two seconds after the noise of the first shot
(the rapidity of the two shots was a point he emphasised many times, which
seems credible given his experience with bolt action guns). This means
his testimony is *NOT* consistent with a shot at Z150, which he heard
circa Z155-Z160, and him being hit later at Z225 (a gap of 3.8 seconds).
In summary, the Connally head turn is the cornerstone of the evidence in
favour of the Z150 shot theory, which is based on his own testimony.
However, for this timing to be correct you have to ignore Connally's often
repeated explanation of the first shot and his own injury. Accepting one
statement from Connally as gospel truth, but ignoring or rejecting another
without good reason seems like cherry-picking. Without other clear
witness or film support, I have no choice but to conclude it's a theory
without concrete foundations (despite it's enduring popularity with many
researchers).

Weighing the various parts of Connally's statement is not cherry picking.
We can give credibility to the parts that are corroborated by the Z-film.
He said upon hearing the first shot he turned to look to his right and
unable to see anything, he was starting to turn back to his left when he
felt the bullet strike him in the back. He believed he was facing directly
to the front when he felt the bullet hit but the Z-film indicates he was
still turned to his right when the bullet struck. His belief there was two
seconds between the shots is pure guesswork because he wasn't timing the
shots. There is nothing that indicates his guess is an an accurate one.
Like most witnesses, Connally was right about somethings and demonstrably
wrong about others. It makes no sense to take the position that we must
accept all or nothing regarding his account. We can accept those elements
for which there is supporting evidence and reject those parts that are
refuted. That is how we should treat the statements of any witness. Accept
what is corroborated and reject what is refuted. If we don't have evidence
that is either corroborates or refutes what a witness has told us, we
simply have to regard such an account as unconfirmed.

Dr. Louis Alvarez did not discover camera jiggle. From the birth of the
medium, even children knew that a film shake meant that the filmer or
camera was disturbed in some way. Imagine 13-year-old Tina Towner, with
the excitement building of America’s royalty approaching within a
few feet, when an unexpected high-powered rifle blast directly above her
shatters the air. Her camera shakes noticeably, certainly enough that FBI
film experts, among the best in the world, spot it. It takes the removal
of 8 frames to hide the jiggle. But they cannot hide her involuntary
camera pullback, which causes the frame images after the splice to appear
lower than those before the splice. Please see my short video:

-------
The Final Truth: Solving the Mystery of the JFK Assassination
http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/1490350578

Mark Tyler

2021-01-26 23:56:33 UTC

I agree John, Clint Hill is consistent with his original views from 1963.
He is one of several witnesses who only heard two shots. He gives enough
information to associate the two shots with events we see the Zapruder
Shot 1 - JFK raises his arms and starts slumping to his left.
Shot 2 - JFK is hit in the head.
If all of the witnesses had said this was what happened we would have a
very simple case to solve!

John, I don't "rely primarily on witnesses", I primarily rely on the films
and photos for my work, with the witness evidence fitting into the visual
narrative. For example if a witness said JFK raised his arms after the
first shot I deduce the shot was fired in the second or so just before
what we see at Z225-Z230 in the Zapruder film.
All my percentages come from the published statements and testimony as
https://github.com/matyler/mc63.dpws/blob/master/mc63_dpws.csv
If you spot any errors or omissions, or disagree with my workings I'm
happy to listen and improve things if I am wrong.
I agree with you, I'm sure some witnesses did get important things wrong,
but I don't see how so many witnesses only heard one early shot before JFK
and Connally reacted to being wounded. A small amount like 10-20% I could
understand as they may have been distracted or been some distance away,
but surely the dozens of people in front of the TSBD couldn't all miss
such a noisy gunshot? The simplest and easiest explanation is that there
was no shot before Z180, then the witness evidence makes perfect sense and
fits into the Zapruder film narrative without any timing anomalies.

Connally said he felt pain two seconds after the noise of the first shot
(the rapidity of the two shots was a point he emphasised many times, which
seems credible given his experience with bolt action guns). This means
his testimony is *NOT* consistent with a shot at Z150, which he heard
circa Z155-Z160, and him being hit later at Z225 (a gap of 3.8 seconds).
In summary, the Connally head turn is the cornerstone of the evidence in
favour of the Z150 shot theory, which is based on his own testimony.
However, for this timing to be correct you have to ignore Connally's often
repeated explanation of the first shot and his own injury. Accepting one
statement from Connally as gospel truth, but ignoring or rejecting another
without good reason seems like cherry-picking. Without other clear
witness or film support, I have no choice but to conclude it's a theory
without concrete foundations (despite it's enduring popularity with many
researchers).

Weighing the various parts of Connally's statement is not cherry picking.
We can give credibility to the parts that are corroborated by the Z-film.
He said upon hearing the first shot he turned to look to his right and
unable to see anything, he was starting to turn back to his left when he
felt the bullet strike him in the back. He believed he was facing directly
to the front when he felt the bullet hit but the Z-film indicates he was
still turned to his right when the bullet struck. His belief there was two
seconds between the shots is pure guesswork because he wasn't timing the
shots. There is nothing that indicates his guess is an an accurate one.
Like most witnesses, Connally was right about somethings and demonstrably
wrong about others. It makes no sense to take the position that we must
accept all or nothing regarding his account. We can accept those elements
for which there is supporting evidence and reject those parts that are
refuted. That is how we should treat the statements of any witness. Accept
what is corroborated and reject what is refuted. If we don't have evidence
that is either corroborates or refutes what a witness has told us, we
simply have to regard such an account as unconfirmed.

Corroboration is indeed the key, so can you list the witnesses statements
from 1963/4 that corroborate the Z150 first shot theory?

On the contrary, there is ample concrete and consistent evidence of when
the first shot was fired Z180-Z190:

- Z190-Z210 is the largest and longest blurring episode of the Z-film
before the fatal shot, indicating Zapruder being startled just after the
first shot was fired.

- AJ Milican was standing by the lamppost and said that the limo had just
passed him when he heard the first shot. By my judgement of the Betzner
3 photo and Z-film the limo passes the lamppost at about Z180-Z190, so a
shot fired any time after this is consistent with his statement (but not
before Z180).

- Karen Westbrook and Gloria Calvery both said that the limo was "almost
directly in front of where I was standing when I heard the first shot.".
The limo is in front of them during Z190-Z210 judging from the Betzner 3
photo, Willis 5 photo, and the Z-film.

- Phil Willis took his photo "5" at exactly Z202 and he said he took the
photo immediately after he heard the shot noise.

- Hugh Betzner took his photo "3" at exactly Z186 and he said he heard the
shot noise immediately after he took the photo (explicitly ruling out
any shot fired before Z180).

- SS agent George Hickey said he turned to his right after he heard the
first shot. The Z-film shows him looking to his left at Z193, with him
starting to turn to his right at Z195, and looking fully to the rear by
Z255 when seen in the Altgens 6 photo.

- SS agent John Ready starts moving, and shuffling his arms around during
Z198-Z208 just before he goes out of frame in the Z-film. By Z255 the
Altgens 6 photo shows him looking fully to the rear.

- John Connally said he was hit 2 seconds after he heard the first shot.
We see him reacting to being shot at Z225 so if the timing statement is
taken literally he heard the first shot circa Z188.

Notice how John Connally's timing comment is corroborated by the other
witness statements to within half a second, so you are wrong to say "There
is nothing that indicates his guess is an an accurate one". All of these
witnesses were directly in front of the TSBD so they were in a great
position to hear any shots from that location. All this is supported by
the Zapruder film, two photos, and early 1963/4 witness statements or
interviews (i.e. from fresh and reliable memories). Note also how several
of these witness statements rule out a shot fired before Z180, which is a
very clear refutation of the Z150 first shot theory, or any other shots
before that.

If anyone can present some hard evidence in support of the Z150 shot
theory, or refute the points above regarding the Z185 shot theory, please
let me know and I will be happy to listen.

John Corbett

2021-01-27 01:09:13 UTC

I agree John, Clint Hill is consistent with his original views from 1963.
He is one of several witnesses who only heard two shots. He gives enough
information to associate the two shots with events we see the Zapruder
Shot 1 - JFK raises his arms and starts slumping to his left.
Shot 2 - JFK is hit in the head.
If all of the witnesses had said this was what happened we would have a
very simple case to solve!

John, I don't "rely primarily on witnesses", I primarily rely on the films
and photos for my work, with the witness evidence fitting into the visual
narrative. For example if a witness said JFK raised his arms after the
first shot I deduce the shot was fired in the second or so just before
what we see at Z225-Z230 in the Zapruder film.
All my percentages come from the published statements and testimony as
https://github.com/matyler/mc63.dpws/blob/master/mc63_dpws.csv
If you spot any errors or omissions, or disagree with my workings I'm
happy to listen and improve things if I am wrong.
I agree with you, I'm sure some witnesses did get important things wrong,
but I don't see how so many witnesses only heard one early shot before JFK
and Connally reacted to being wounded. A small amount like 10-20% I could
understand as they may have been distracted or been some distance away,
but surely the dozens of people in front of the TSBD couldn't all miss
such a noisy gunshot? The simplest and easiest explanation is that there
was no shot before Z180, then the witness evidence makes perfect sense and
fits into the Zapruder film narrative without any timing anomalies.

Connally said he felt pain two seconds after the noise of the first shot
(the rapidity of the two shots was a point he emphasised many times, which
seems credible given his experience with bolt action guns). This means
his testimony is *NOT* consistent with a shot at Z150, which he heard
circa Z155-Z160, and him being hit later at Z225 (a gap of 3.8 seconds).
In summary, the Connally head turn is the cornerstone of the evidence in
favour of the Z150 shot theory, which is based on his own testimony.
However, for this timing to be correct you have to ignore Connally's often
repeated explanation of the first shot and his own injury. Accepting one
statement from Connally as gospel truth, but ignoring or rejecting another
without good reason seems like cherry-picking. Without other clear
witness or film support, I have no choice but to conclude it's a theory
without concrete foundations (despite it's enduring popularity with many
researchers).

Weighing the various parts of Connally's statement is not cherry picking.
We can give credibility to the parts that are corroborated by the Z-film.
He said upon hearing the first shot he turned to look to his right and
unable to see anything, he was starting to turn back to his left when he
felt the bullet strike him in the back. He believed he was facing directly
to the front when he felt the bullet hit but the Z-film indicates he was
still turned to his right when the bullet struck. His belief there was two
seconds between the shots is pure guesswork because he wasn't timing the
shots. There is nothing that indicates his guess is an an accurate one.
Like most witnesses, Connally was right about somethings and demonstrably
wrong about others. It makes no sense to take the position that we must
accept all or nothing regarding his account. We can accept those elements
for which there is supporting evidence and reject those parts that are
refuted. That is how we should treat the statements of any witness. Accept
what is corroborated and reject what is refuted. If we don't have evidence
that is either corroborates or refutes what a witness has told us, we
simply have to regard such an account as unconfirmed.

Corroboration is indeed the key, so can you list the witnesses statements
from 1963/4 that corroborate the Z150 first shot theory?

I don't use witnesses to corroborate anything. That's putting the cart
before the horse. Witnesses need to be corroborated.

On the contrary, there is ample concrete and consistent evidence of when

Nonsense. It is based solely on your interpretation of what select
witnesses said. There is nothing concrete about it.

Post by Mark Tyler
- Z190-Z210 is the largest and longest blurring episode of the Z-film
before the fatal shot, indicating Zapruder being startled just after the
first shot was fired.

That should tell you the blurring is probably not the result of a gunshot.
Why would we expect the blurring for that shot to be longer than that
following the other two shots.

Post by Mark Tyler
- AJ Milican was standing by the lamppost and said that the limo had just
passed him when he heard the first shot. By my judgement of the Betzner
3 photo and Z-film the limo passes the lamppost at about Z180-Z190, so a
shot fired any time after this is consistent with his statement (but not
before Z180).

So-and-so said is not concrete evidence.

Post by Mark Tyler
- Karen Westbrook and Gloria Calvery both said that the limo was "almost
directly in front of where I was standing when I heard the first shot.".
The limo is in front of them during Z190-Z210 judging from the Betzner 3
photo, Willis 5 photo, and the Z-film.

So-and-so said is not concrete evidence.

Post by Mark Tyler
- Phil Willis took his photo "5" at exactly Z202 and he said he took the
photo immediately after he heard the shot noise.

So-and-so said is not concrete evidence.

Post by Mark Tyler
- Hugh Betzner took his photo "3" at exactly Z186 and he said he heard the
shot noise immediately after he took the photo (explicitly ruling out
any shot fired before Z180).

So-and-so said is not concrete evidence.

Post by Mark Tyler
- SS agent George Hickey said he turned to his right after he heard the
first shot. The Z-film shows him looking to his left at Z193, with him
starting to turn to his right at Z195, and looking fully to the rear by
Z255 when seen in the Altgens 6 photo.

That doesn't tell us how long after the shot before he turned. Connally
also said he turned to his right after he heard the first shot. He turned
at Z164.

Post by Mark Tyler
- SS agent John Ready starts moving, and shuffling his arms around during
Z198-Z208 just before he goes out of frame in the Z-film. By Z255 the
Altgens 6 photo shows him looking fully to the rear.

Again, this doesn't tell us how quickly he reacted.

Post by Mark Tyler
- John Connally said he was hit 2 seconds after he heard the first shot.
We see him reacting to being shot at Z225 so if the timing statement is
taken literally he heard the first shot circa Z188.

Do you think Connally was looking at his watch. He was guessing how long
it was between the shots. It was probably about 3 seconds after he heard
the first shot so his guess was only about one second off.

Post by Mark Tyler
Notice how John Connally's timing comment is corroborated by the other
witness statements to within half a second, so you are wrong to say "There
is nothing that indicates his guess is an an accurate one".

One witness giving incorrect information is not corroboration for another
witness giving incorrect information.

Post by Mark Tyler
All of these
witnesses were directly in front of the TSBD so they were in a great
position to hear any shots from that location. All this is supported by
the Zapruder film, two photos, and early 1963/4 witness statements or
interviews (i.e. from fresh and reliable memories).

How did you determine their memories were reliable?

Post by Mark Tyler
Note also how several
of these witness statements rule out a shot fired before Z180, which is a
very clear refutation of the Z150 first shot theory, or any other shots
before that.

That would rule out a shot before Z180 if we knew your selected witnesses
were correct. You have offered no evidence that supports them. You are
simply assuming they were correct.

Post by Mark Tyler
If anyone can present some hard evidence in support of the Z150 shot
theory, or refute the points above regarding the Z185 shot theory, please
let me know and I will be happy to listen.

I have stated on countless occasions that there is no concrete evidence as
to precisely when that first missed shot was fired. We are left to
interpret the precious few clues available to determine when that shot
was. Whereas you choose to rely on fallible witnesses, I choose to rely on
the only reliable witness which is Zapruder's camera. A shot at Z150 fits
with a jiggle at Z158, the observed reaction by Connally at Z164 and
Rosemary Willis who began to slow down at Z170 before turning back toward
the TSBD. None of this is proof positive but it is consistent with what we
know. What we know isn't what witnesses told us because we don't know that
what they told us is correct. We have lots of witnesses giving lots of
versions of what happened and some of what they told us is correct and
some of it is incorrect. The fact that the witnesses you choose to believe
indicate Oswald tried to fire an obscured shot through the foliage of the
tree should tell you that you are probably not listening to the right
witnesses. If I am correct, Oswald fired his first shot just before his
intended target went under tree and fired his second shot shortly after
his target came back into the clear. I will never believe that with just
four rounds in his rifle and a limited amount of time to fire those rounds
that Oswald would have risked trying to fire a shot between the tree
branches without a clear line of sight to his target.

allan...@yahoo.com

2021-01-29 01:12:30 UTC

I agree John, Clint Hill is consistent with his original views from 1963.
He is one of several witnesses who only heard two shots. He gives enough
information to associate the two shots with events we see the Zapruder
Shot 1 - JFK raises his arms and starts slumping to his left.
Shot 2 - JFK is hit in the head.
If all of the witnesses had said this was what happened we would have a
very simple case to solve!

John, I don't "rely primarily on witnesses", I primarily rely on the films
and photos for my work, with the witness evidence fitting into the visual
narrative. For example if a witness said JFK raised his arms after the
first shot I deduce the shot was fired in the second or so just before
what we see at Z225-Z230 in the Zapruder film.
All my percentages come from the published statements and testimony as
https://github.com/matyler/mc63.dpws/blob/master/mc63_dpws.csv
If you spot any errors or omissions, or disagree with my workings I'm
happy to listen and improve things if I am wrong.
I agree with you, I'm sure some witnesses did get important things wrong,
but I don't see how so many witnesses only heard one early shot before JFK
and Connally reacted to being wounded. A small amount like 10-20% I could
understand as they may have been distracted or been some distance away,
but surely the dozens of people in front of the TSBD couldn't all miss
such a noisy gunshot? The simplest and easiest explanation is that there
was no shot before Z180, then the witness evidence makes perfect sense and
fits into the Zapruder film narrative without any timing anomalies.

Connally said he felt pain two seconds after the noise of the first shot
(the rapidity of the two shots was a point he emphasised many times, which
seems credible given his experience with bolt action guns). This means
his testimony is *NOT* consistent with a shot at Z150, which he heard
circa Z155-Z160, and him being hit later at Z225 (a gap of 3.8 seconds).
In summary, the Connally head turn is the cornerstone of the evidence in
favour of the Z150 shot theory, which is based on his own testimony.
However, for this timing to be correct you have to ignore Connally's often
repeated explanation of the first shot and his own injury. Accepting one
statement from Connally as gospel truth, but ignoring or rejecting another
without good reason seems like cherry-picking. Without other clear
witness or film support, I have no choice but to conclude it's a theory
without concrete foundations (despite it's enduring popularity with many
researchers).

Weighing the various parts of Connally's statement is not cherry picking.
We can give credibility to the parts that are corroborated by the Z-film.
He said upon hearing the first shot he turned to look to his right and
unable to see anything, he was starting to turn back to his left when he
felt the bullet strike him in the back. He believed he was facing directly
to the front when he felt the bullet hit but the Z-film indicates he was
still turned to his right when the bullet struck. His belief there was two
seconds between the shots is pure guesswork because he wasn't timing the
shots. There is nothing that indicates his guess is an an accurate one.
Like most witnesses, Connally was right about somethings and demonstrably
wrong about others. It makes no sense to take the position that we must
accept all or nothing regarding his account. We can accept those elements
for which there is supporting evidence and reject those parts that are
refuted. That is how we should treat the statements of any witness. Accept
what is corroborated and reject what is refuted. If we don't have evidence
that is either corroborates or refutes what a witness has told us, we
simply have to regard such an account as unconfirmed.

Corroboration is indeed the key, so can you list the witnesses statements
from 1963/4 that corroborate the Z150 first shot theory?

I don't use witnesses to corroborate anything. That's putting the cart
before the horse. Witnesses need to be corroborated.

On the contrary, there is ample concrete and consistent evidence of when

Nonsense. It is based solely on your interpretation of what select
witnesses said. There is nothing concrete about it.

Post by Mark Tyler
- Z190-Z210 is the largest and longest blurring episode of the Z-film
before the fatal shot, indicating Zapruder being startled just after the
first shot was fired.

That should tell you the blurring is probably not the result of a gunshot.
Why would we expect the blurring for that shot to be longer than that
following the other two shots.

So-and-so said is not concrete evidence.

Post by Mark Tyler
- Phil Willis took his photo "5" at exactly Z202 and he said he took the
photo immediately after he heard the shot noise.

So-and-so said is not concrete evidence.

Post by Mark Tyler
- Hugh Betzner took his photo "3" at exactly Z186 and he said he heard the
shot noise immediately after he took the photo (explicitly ruling out
any shot fired before Z180).

So-and-so said is not concrete evidence.

That doesn't tell us how long after the shot before he turned. Connally
also said he turned to his right after he heard the first shot. He turned
at Z164.

Again, this doesn't tell us how quickly he reacted.

One witness giving incorrect information is not corroboration for another
witness giving incorrect information.

How did you determine their memories were reliable?

That would rule out a shot before Z180 if we knew your selected witnesses
were correct. You have offered no evidence that supports them. You are
simply assuming they were correct.

Concerning the Altgens 6 photo, the person who is standing behind the
driver, reacting to the second shot, and looking behind to his right is
NOT Hickey. It it is Ken O'Donnell (look at the suit and hair) that is
his left hand on the grab bar just behind the driver, it is not the
drivers hand on the steering wheel. O'Donnell was sitting in the seat
behind the driver and Hickey was behind and to the right of O'Donnell.
At the 133 mark of the Zapruder film, when the Kennedy limo first
appeared, Hickey was starting to turn to his left after hearing a shot, to
look over the side of the car, as he stated, this after he said first look
to his right, which happened before the Zapruder film started. 2+2=4,
the first shot was before the Zapruder film showed the Kennedy limo on
film.

John Corbett

2021-01-29 12:29:59 UTC

I agree John, Clint Hill is consistent with his original views from 1963.
He is one of several witnesses who only heard two shots. He gives enough
information to associate the two shots with events we see the Zapruder
Shot 1 - JFK raises his arms and starts slumping to his left.
Shot 2 - JFK is hit in the head.
If all of the witnesses had said this was what happened we would have a
very simple case to solve!

John, I don't "rely primarily on witnesses", I primarily rely on the films
and photos for my work, with the witness evidence fitting into the visual
narrative. For example if a witness said JFK raised his arms after the
first shot I deduce the shot was fired in the second or so just before
what we see at Z225-Z230 in the Zapruder film.
All my percentages come from the published statements and testimony as
https://github.com/matyler/mc63.dpws/blob/master/mc63_dpws.csv
If you spot any errors or omissions, or disagree with my workings I'm
happy to listen and improve things if I am wrong.
I agree with you, I'm sure some witnesses did get important things wrong,
but I don't see how so many witnesses only heard one early shot before JFK
and Connally reacted to being wounded. A small amount like 10-20% I could
understand as they may have been distracted or been some distance away,
but surely the dozens of people in front of the TSBD couldn't all miss
such a noisy gunshot? The simplest and easiest explanation is that there
was no shot before Z180, then the witness evidence makes perfect sense and
fits into the Zapruder film narrative without any timing anomalies.

Connally said he felt pain two seconds after the noise of the first shot
(the rapidity of the two shots was a point he emphasised many times, which
seems credible given his experience with bolt action guns). This means
his testimony is *NOT* consistent with a shot at Z150, which he heard
circa Z155-Z160, and him being hit later at Z225 (a gap of 3.8 seconds).
In summary, the Connally head turn is the cornerstone of the evidence in
favour of the Z150 shot theory, which is based on his own testimony.
However, for this timing to be correct you have to ignore Connally's often
repeated explanation of the first shot and his own injury. Accepting one
statement from Connally as gospel truth, but ignoring or rejecting another
without good reason seems like cherry-picking. Without other clear
witness or film support, I have no choice but to conclude it's a theory
without concrete foundations (despite it's enduring popularity with many
researchers).

Weighing the various parts of Connally's statement is not cherry picking.
We can give credibility to the parts that are corroborated by the Z-film.
He said upon hearing the first shot he turned to look to his right and
unable to see anything, he was starting to turn back to his left when he
felt the bullet strike him in the back. He believed he was facing directly
to the front when he felt the bullet hit but the Z-film indicates he was
still turned to his right when the bullet struck. His belief there was two
seconds between the shots is pure guesswork because he wasn't timing the
shots. There is nothing that indicates his guess is an an accurate one.
Like most witnesses, Connally was right about somethings and demonstrably
wrong about others. It makes no sense to take the position that we must
accept all or nothing regarding his account. We can accept those elements
for which there is supporting evidence and reject those parts that are
refuted. That is how we should treat the statements of any witness. Accept
what is corroborated and reject what is refuted. If we don't have evidence
that is either corroborates or refutes what a witness has told us, we
simply have to regard such an account as unconfirmed.

Corroboration is indeed the key, so can you list the witnesses statements
from 1963/4 that corroborate the Z150 first shot theory?

I don't use witnesses to corroborate anything. That's putting the cart
before the horse. Witnesses need to be corroborated.

On the contrary, there is ample concrete and consistent evidence of when

Nonsense. It is based solely on your interpretation of what select
witnesses said. There is nothing concrete about it.

Post by Mark Tyler
- Z190-Z210 is the largest and longest blurring episode of the Z-film
before the fatal shot, indicating Zapruder being startled just after the
first shot was fired.

That should tell you the blurring is probably not the result of a gunshot.
Why would we expect the blurring for that shot to be longer than that
following the other two shots.

So-and-so said is not concrete evidence.

Post by Mark Tyler
- Phil Willis took his photo "5" at exactly Z202 and he said he took the
photo immediately after he heard the shot noise.

So-and-so said is not concrete evidence.

Post by Mark Tyler
- Hugh Betzner took his photo "3" at exactly Z186 and he said he heard the
shot noise immediately after he took the photo (explicitly ruling out
any shot fired before Z180).

So-and-so said is not concrete evidence.

That doesn't tell us how long after the shot before he turned. Connally
also said he turned to his right after he heard the first shot. He turned
at Z164.

Again, this doesn't tell us how quickly he reacted.

One witness giving incorrect information is not corroboration for another
witness giving incorrect information.

How did you determine their memories were reliable?

That would rule out a shot before Z180 if we knew your selected witnesses
were correct. You have offered no evidence that supports them. You are
simply assuming they were correct.

That's a possibility but the evidence for that seems rather flimsy.

allan...@yahoo.com

2021-01-29 19:57:30 UTC

I agree John, Clint Hill is consistent with his original views from 1963.
He is one of several witnesses who only heard two shots. He gives enough
information to associate the two shots with events we see the Zapruder
Shot 1 - JFK raises his arms and starts slumping to his left.
Shot 2 - JFK is hit in the head.
If all of the witnesses had said this was what happened we would have a
very simple case to solve!

John, I don't "rely primarily on witnesses", I primarily rely on the films
and photos for my work, with the witness evidence fitting into the visual
narrative. For example if a witness said JFK raised his arms after the
first shot I deduce the shot was fired in the second or so just before
what we see at Z225-Z230 in the Zapruder film.
All my percentages come from the published statements and testimony as
https://github.com/matyler/mc63.dpws/blob/master/mc63_dpws.csv
If you spot any errors or omissions, or disagree with my workings I'm
happy to listen and improve things if I am wrong.
I agree with you, I'm sure some witnesses did get important things wrong,
but I don't see how so many witnesses only heard one early shot before JFK
and Connally reacted to being wounded. A small amount like 10-20% I could
understand as they may have been distracted or been some distance away,
but surely the dozens of people in front of the TSBD couldn't all miss
such a noisy gunshot? The simplest and easiest explanation is that there
was no shot before Z180, then the witness evidence makes perfect sense and
fits into the Zapruder film narrative without any timing anomalies.

Connally said he felt pain two seconds after the noise of the first shot
(the rapidity of the two shots was a point he emphasised many times, which
seems credible given his experience with bolt action guns). This means
his testimony is *NOT* consistent with a shot at Z150, which he heard
circa Z155-Z160, and him being hit later at Z225 (a gap of 3.8 seconds).
In summary, the Connally head turn is the cornerstone of the evidence in
favour of the Z150 shot theory, which is based on his own testimony.
However, for this timing to be correct you have to ignore Connally's often
repeated explanation of the first shot and his own injury. Accepting one
statement from Connally as gospel truth, but ignoring or rejecting another
without good reason seems like cherry-picking. Without other clear
witness or film support, I have no choice but to conclude it's a theory
without concrete foundations (despite it's enduring popularity with many
researchers).

Weighing the various parts of Connally's statement is not cherry picking.
We can give credibility to the parts that are corroborated by the Z-film.
He said upon hearing the first shot he turned to look to his right and
unable to see anything, he was starting to turn back to his left when he
felt the bullet strike him in the back. He believed he was facing directly
to the front when he felt the bullet hit but the Z-film indicates he was
still turned to his right when the bullet struck. His belief there was two
seconds between the shots is pure guesswork because he wasn't timing the
shots. There is nothing that indicates his guess is an an accurate one.
Like most witnesses, Connally was right about somethings and demonstrably
wrong about others. It makes no sense to take the position that we must
accept all or nothing regarding his account. We can accept those elements
for which there is supporting evidence and reject those parts that are
refuted. That is how we should treat the statements of any witness. Accept
what is corroborated and reject what is refuted. If we don't have evidence
that is either corroborates or refutes what a witness has told us, we
simply have to regard such an account as unconfirmed.

Corroboration is indeed the key, so can you list the witnesses statements
from 1963/4 that corroborate the Z150 first shot theory?

I don't use witnesses to corroborate anything. That's putting the cart
before the horse. Witnesses need to be corroborated.

On the contrary, there is ample concrete and consistent evidence of when

Nonsense. It is based solely on your interpretation of what select
witnesses said. There is nothing concrete about it.

Post by Mark Tyler
- Z190-Z210 is the largest and longest blurring episode of the Z-film
before the fatal shot, indicating Zapruder being startled just after the
first shot was fired.

That should tell you the blurring is probably not the result of a gunshot.
Why would we expect the blurring for that shot to be longer than that
following the other two shots.

So-and-so said is not concrete evidence.

Post by Mark Tyler
- Phil Willis took his photo "5" at exactly Z202 and he said he took the
photo immediately after he heard the shot noise.

So-and-so said is not concrete evidence.

Post by Mark Tyler
- Hugh Betzner took his photo "3" at exactly Z186 and he said he heard the
shot noise immediately after he took the photo (explicitly ruling out
any shot fired before Z180).

So-and-so said is not concrete evidence.

That doesn't tell us how long after the shot before he turned. Connally
also said he turned to his right after he heard the first shot. He turned
at Z164.

Again, this doesn't tell us how quickly he reacted.

One witness giving incorrect information is not corroboration for another
witness giving incorrect information.

How did you determine their memories were reliable?

That would rule out a shot before Z180 if we knew your selected witnesses
were correct. You have offered no evidence that supports them. You are
simply assuming they were correct.

That's a possibility but the evidence for that seems rather flimsy.

I understand and respect your opinion on the timing of the first shot,
it is still up for debate because of the conflicting visual and witness
evidence. I just think that what you can actually see on the Zapruder
film is the best we have. It does show Hickey doing what he said he did
at the time if the first shot (looking to his left over the side of the
limo, this after first looking to his right after hearing the first shot,
before 133). Also it matches what Amos Euins said about Kennedy brushing
his hair back at the time of the first shot, which he is doing at 133.
The next time you see him moving his hand is when he is waving at the
crowed just before the limo passes behind the sign.

John Corbett

2021-01-30 05:22:24 UTC

I agree John, Clint Hill is consistent with his original views from 1963.
He is one of several witnesses who only heard two shots. He gives enough
information to associate the two shots with events we see the Zapruder
Shot 1 - JFK raises his arms and starts slumping to his left.
Shot 2 - JFK is hit in the head.
If all of the witnesses had said this was what happened we would have a
very simple case to solve!

John, I don't "rely primarily on witnesses", I primarily rely on the films
and photos for my work, with the witness evidence fitting into the visual
narrative. For example if a witness said JFK raised his arms after the
first shot I deduce the shot was fired in the second or so just before
what we see at Z225-Z230 in the Zapruder film.
All my percentages come from the published statements and testimony as
https://github.com/matyler/mc63.dpws/blob/master/mc63_dpws.csv
If you spot any errors or omissions, or disagree with my workings I'm
happy to listen and improve things if I am wrong.
I agree with you, I'm sure some witnesses did get important things wrong,
but I don't see how so many witnesses only heard one early shot before JFK
and Connally reacted to being wounded. A small amount like 10-20% I could
understand as they may have been distracted or been some distance away,
but surely the dozens of people in front of the TSBD couldn't all miss
such a noisy gunshot? The simplest and easiest explanation is that there
was no shot before Z180, then the witness evidence makes perfect sense and
fits into the Zapruder film narrative without any timing anomalies.

Connally said he felt pain two seconds after the noise of the first shot
(the rapidity of the two shots was a point he emphasised many times, which
seems credible given his experience with bolt action guns). This means
his testimony is *NOT* consistent with a shot at Z150, which he heard
circa Z155-Z160, and him being hit later at Z225 (a gap of 3.8 seconds).
In summary, the Connally head turn is the cornerstone of the evidence in
favour of the Z150 shot theory, which is based on his own testimony.
However, for this timing to be correct you have to ignore Connally's often
repeated explanation of the first shot and his own injury. Accepting one
statement from Connally as gospel truth, but ignoring or rejecting another
without good reason seems like cherry-picking. Without other clear
witness or film support, I have no choice but to conclude it's a theory
without concrete foundations (despite it's enduring popularity with many
researchers).

Weighing the various parts of Connally's statement is not cherry picking.
We can give credibility to the parts that are corroborated by the Z-film.
He said upon hearing the first shot he turned to look to his right and
unable to see anything, he was starting to turn back to his left when he
felt the bullet strike him in the back. He believed he was facing directly
to the front when he felt the bullet hit but the Z-film indicates he was
still turned to his right when the bullet struck. His belief there was two
seconds between the shots is pure guesswork because he wasn't timing the
shots. There is nothing that indicates his guess is an an accurate one.
Like most witnesses, Connally was right about somethings and demonstrably
wrong about others. It makes no sense to take the position that we must
accept all or nothing regarding his account. We can accept those elements
for which there is supporting evidence and reject those parts that are
refuted. That is how we should treat the statements of any witness. Accept
what is corroborated and reject what is refuted. If we don't have evidence
that is either corroborates or refutes what a witness has told us, we
simply have to regard such an account as unconfirmed.

Corroboration is indeed the key, so can you list the witnesses statements
from 1963/4 that corroborate the Z150 first shot theory?

I don't use witnesses to corroborate anything. That's putting the cart
before the horse. Witnesses need to be corroborated.

On the contrary, there is ample concrete and consistent evidence of when

Nonsense. It is based solely on your interpretation of what select
witnesses said. There is nothing concrete about it.

Post by Mark Tyler
- Z190-Z210 is the largest and longest blurring episode of the Z-film
before the fatal shot, indicating Zapruder being startled just after the
first shot was fired.

That should tell you the blurring is probably not the result of a gunshot.
Why would we expect the blurring for that shot to be longer than that
following the other two shots.

So-and-so said is not concrete evidence.

Post by Mark Tyler
- Phil Willis took his photo "5" at exactly Z202 and he said he took the
photo immediately after he heard the shot noise.

So-and-so said is not concrete evidence.

Post by Mark Tyler
- Hugh Betzner took his photo "3" at exactly Z186 and he said he heard the
shot noise immediately after he took the photo (explicitly ruling out
any shot fired before Z180).

So-and-so said is not concrete evidence.

That doesn't tell us how long after the shot before he turned. Connally
also said he turned to his right after he heard the first shot. He turned
at Z164.

Again, this doesn't tell us how quickly he reacted.

One witness giving incorrect information is not corroboration for another
witness giving incorrect information.

How did you determine their memories were reliable?

That would rule out a shot before Z180 if we knew your selected witnesses
were correct. You have offered no evidence that supports them. You are
simply assuming they were correct.

That's a possibility but the evidence for that seems rather flimsy.

133 is less than one second before 150 so a shot at 150 would be about the
same time as JFK is moving his hand in front of his face. This isn't very
important to the question at hand but I think that was part of a wave to
the crowd. From Euins perspective it probably looked like he brushed his
hair.

Post by ***@yahoo.com
The next time you see him moving his hand is when he is waving at the
crowed just before the limo passes behind the sign.

For the subsequent shots for which we know about when they were fired,
there is a noticeable camera jiggle 7-8 frames following the firing of the
shot. This accounts for the time it would take the sound to reach Zapruder
and his reaction to those sounds. These jiggles lasted 3 frames, 227-229
and 318-320. We should expect a similar reaction be Zapruder to the first
shot. It's theoretically possible both shot and reaction were before he
resumed filming. There is a clear jiggle at 134 which would equate to a
shot fired at theoretical 126-127. The problem I have with that is that
134 jiggle only lasts for one frame. By 135, he seems to have steadied the
camera. That indicates to me that jiggle might have been the result of him
pressing the trigger on the camera. Just an educated guess. For the sake
of argument let's say there was a shot fired at 126. Connally hears that
about 128. That's 36 frames or about two seconds after hearing the shot.
That would indicate a fairly slow reaction by him. Possible but I find a
more abrupt reaction, about 12 frames after hearing a sound more likely.

What is your source for Hickey's statement? I looked on McAdams' witness
page and all it has is his original report. Based on that, it appears to
me that like others who were on the right of the limos (Hill, Jackie,
Nellie), he didn't even recognize the first shot. His description seems to
indicate he thought JFK was hit by the first shot which he recognized.
Based on his description, it seems he heard a double sound from the head
shot.

"The motorcade then left the airport and proceeded along the parade route.
Just prior to the shooting the Presidential car turned left at the
intersection and started down an incline toward an underpass followed by
679X. After a very short distance I heard a loud report which sounded like
a firecracker. It appeared to come from the right and rear and seemed to
me to be at ground level. I stood up and looked to my right and rear in an
attempt to identify it. Nothing caught my attention except people shouting
and cheering. A disturbance in 679X caused me to look forward toward the
President's car. Perhaps 2 or 3 seconds elapsed from the time I looked to
the rear and then looked at the President. He was slumped forward and to
his left, and was straightening up to an almost erect sitting position as
I turned and looked. At the moment he was almost sitting erect I heard two
reports which I thought were shots and that appeared to me completely
different in sound than the first report and were in such rapid succession
that there seemed to be practically no time element between them. It
looked to me as if the President was struck in the right upper rear of his
head. The first shot of the second two seemed as if it missed because the
hair on the right side of his head flew forward and there didn't seem to
be any impact against his head. The last shot seemed to hit his head and
cause a noise at the point of impact which made him fall forward and to
his left again. - Possibly four or five seconds elapsed from the time of
the first report and the last."

Hickey's recollection seems similar to Hill's whom he was close to when
the shooting began. Neither had a recollection of a first shot miss, both
saw that JFK had been hit by the first shot they remembered, and both
heard a double sound associated with the head shot. Also, if he heard a
first shot at about 126, that is about ten seconds before the head shot,
more than double what he estimated in his report. On the other hand it
fits perfectly with him only hearing the last two shots which were 4.9
seconds apart. It's possible his estimate could be wrong but that is a
considerable discrepancy. I really don't think Hickey recognized the
actual first shot.

allan...@yahoo.com

2021-01-31 02:10:27 UTC

I agree John, Clint Hill is consistent with his original views from 1963.
He is one of several witnesses who only heard two shots. He gives enough
information to associate the two shots with events we see the Zapruder
Shot 1 - JFK raises his arms and starts slumping to his left.
Shot 2 - JFK is hit in the head.
If all of the witnesses had said this was what happened we would have a
very simple case to solve!

John, I don't "rely primarily on witnesses", I primarily rely on the films
and photos for my work, with the witness evidence fitting into the visual
narrative. For example if a witness said JFK raised his arms after the
first shot I deduce the shot was fired in the second or so just before
what we see at Z225-Z230 in the Zapruder film.
All my percentages come from the published statements and testimony as
https://github.com/matyler/mc63.dpws/blob/master/mc63_dpws.csv
If you spot any errors or omissions, or disagree with my workings I'm
happy to listen and improve things if I am wrong.
I agree with you, I'm sure some witnesses did get important things wrong,
but I don't see how so many witnesses only heard one early shot before JFK
and Connally reacted to being wounded. A small amount like 10-20% I could
understand as they may have been distracted or been some distance away,
but surely the dozens of people in front of the TSBD couldn't all miss
such a noisy gunshot? The simplest and easiest explanation is that there
was no shot before Z180, then the witness evidence makes perfect sense and
fits into the Zapruder film narrative without any timing anomalies.

Connally said he felt pain two seconds after the noise of the first shot
(the rapidity of the two shots was a point he emphasised many times, which
seems credible given his experience with bolt action guns). This means
his testimony is *NOT* consistent with a shot at Z150, which he heard
circa Z155-Z160, and him being hit later at Z225 (a gap of 3.8 seconds).
In summary, the Connally head turn is the cornerstone of the evidence in
favour of the Z150 shot theory, which is based on his own testimony.
However, for this timing to be correct you have to ignore Connally's often
repeated explanation of the first shot and his own injury. Accepting one
statement from Connally as gospel truth, but ignoring or rejecting another
without good reason seems like cherry-picking. Without other clear
witness or film support, I have no choice but to conclude it's a theory
without concrete foundations (despite it's enduring popularity with many
researchers).

Weighing the various parts of Connally's statement is not cherry picking.
We can give credibility to the parts that are corroborated by the Z-film.
He said upon hearing the first shot he turned to look to his right and
unable to see anything, he was starting to turn back to his left when he
felt the bullet strike him in the back. He believed he was facing directly
to the front when he felt the bullet hit but the Z-film indicates he was
still turned to his right when the bullet struck. His belief there was two
seconds between the shots is pure guesswork because he wasn't timing the
shots. There is nothing that indicates his guess is an an accurate one.
Like most witnesses, Connally was right about somethings and demonstrably
wrong about others. It makes no sense to take the position that we must
accept all or nothing regarding his account. We can accept those elements
for which there is supporting evidence and reject those parts that are
refuted. That is how we should treat the statements of any witness. Accept
what is corroborated and reject what is refuted. If we don't have evidence
that is either corroborates or refutes what a witness has told us, we
simply have to regard such an account as unconfirmed.

Corroboration is indeed the key, so can you list the witnesses statements
from 1963/4 that corroborate the Z150 first shot theory?

I don't use witnesses to corroborate anything. That's putting the cart
before the horse. Witnesses need to be corroborated.

On the contrary, there is ample concrete and consistent evidence of when

Nonsense. It is based solely on your interpretation of what select
witnesses said. There is nothing concrete about it.

Post by Mark Tyler
- Z190-Z210 is the largest and longest blurring episode of the Z-film
before the fatal shot, indicating Zapruder being startled just after the
first shot was fired.

That should tell you the blurring is probably not the result of a gunshot.
Why would we expect the blurring for that shot to be longer than that
following the other two shots.

So-and-so said is not concrete evidence.

Post by Mark Tyler
- Phil Willis took his photo "5" at exactly Z202 and he said he took the
photo immediately after he heard the shot noise.

So-and-so said is not concrete evidence.

Post by Mark Tyler
- Hugh Betzner took his photo "3" at exactly Z186 and he said he heard the
shot noise immediately after he took the photo (explicitly ruling out
any shot fired before Z180).

So-and-so said is not concrete evidence.

That doesn't tell us how long after the shot before he turned. Connally
also said he turned to his right after he heard the first shot. He turned
at Z164.

Again, this doesn't tell us how quickly he reacted.

One witness giving incorrect information is not corroboration for another
witness giving incorrect information.

How did you determine their memories were reliable?

That would rule out a shot before Z180 if we knew your selected witnesses
were correct. You have offered no evidence that supports them. You are
simply assuming they were correct.

That's a possibility but the evidence for that seems rather flimsy.

Post by ***@yahoo.com
The next time you see him moving his hand is when he is waving at the
crowed just before the limo passes behind the sign.

For the subsequent shots for which we know about when they were fired,
there is a noticeable camera jiggle 7-8 frames following the firing of the
shot. This accounts for the time it would take the sound to reach Zapruder
and his reaction to those sounds. These jiggles lasted 3 frames, 227-229
and 318-320. We should expect a similar reaction be Zapruder to the first
shot. It's theoretically possible both shot and reaction were before he
resumed filming. There is a clear jiggle at 134 which would equate to a
shot fired at theoretical 126-127. The problem I have with that is that
134 jiggle only lasts for one frame. By 135, he seems to have steadied the
camera. That indicates to me that jiggle might have been the result of him
pressing the trigger on the camera. Just an educated guess. For the sake
of argument let's say there was a shot fired at 126. Connally hears that
about 128. That's 36 frames or about two seconds after hearing the shot.
That would indicate a fairly slow reaction by him. Possible but I find a
more abrupt reaction, about 12 frames after hearing a sound more likely.
What is your source for Hickey's statement? I looked on McAdams' witness
page and all it has is his original report. Based on that, it appears to
me that like others who were on the right of the limos (Hill, Jackie,
Nellie), he didn't even recognize the first shot. His description seems to
indicate he thought JFK was hit by the first shot which he recognized.
Based on his description, it seems he heard a double sound from the head
shot.
"The motorcade then left the airport and proceeded along the parade route.
Just prior to the shooting the Presidential car turned left at the
intersection and started down an incline toward an underpass followed by
679X. After a very short distance I heard a loud report which sounded like
a firecracker. It appeared to come from the right and rear and seemed to
me to be at ground level. I stood up and looked to my right and rear in an
attempt to identify it. Nothing caught my attention except people shouting
and cheering. A disturbance in 679X caused me to look forward toward the
President's car. Perhaps 2 or 3 seconds elapsed from the time I looked to
the rear and then looked at the President. He was slumped forward and to
his left, and was straightening up to an almost erect sitting position as
I turned and looked. At the moment he was almost sitting erect I heard two
reports which I thought were shots and that appeared to me completely
different in sound than the first report and were in such rapid succession
that there seemed to be practically no time element between them. It
looked to me as if the President was struck in the right upper rear of his
head. The first shot of the second two seemed as if it missed because the
hair on the right side of his head flew forward and there didn't seem to
be any impact against his head. The last shot seemed to hit his head and
cause a noise at the point of impact which made him fall forward and to
his left again. - Possibly four or five seconds elapsed from the time of
the first report and the last."
Hickey's recollection seems similar to Hill's whom he was close to when
the shooting began. Neither had a recollection of a first shot miss, both
saw that JFK had been hit by the first shot they remembered, and both
heard a double sound associated with the head shot. Also, if he heard a
first shot at about 126, that is about ten seconds before the head shot,
more than double what he estimated in his report. On the other hand it
fits perfectly with him only hearing the last two shots which were 4.9
seconds apart. It's possible his estimate could be wrong but that is a
considerable discrepancy. I really don't think Hickey recognized the
actual first shot.

In this statement he never mentioned looking to his left and over the
side of the car after hearing the first shot, but that is what is seen on
the film. He did say he looked to his right after hearing the first shot,
which occurred before the film started at 133. In his statement I believe
he was referring to his entire actions after hearing the first shot
(moving right and left) then after 2 or 3 seconds looking at the President
and hearing the next two shots in rapid succession, which means those
shots were closer together than the first shot he heard, which confirms
the shot could have been fired before 133.

John Corbett

2021-02-01 02:58:34 UTC

I agree John, Clint Hill is consistent with his original views from 1963.
He is one of several witnesses who only heard two shots. He gives enough
information to associate the two shots with events we see the Zapruder
Shot 1 - JFK raises his arms and starts slumping to his left.
Shot 2 - JFK is hit in the head.
If all of the witnesses had said this was what happened we would have a
very simple case to solve!

John, I don't "rely primarily on witnesses", I primarily rely on the films
and photos for my work, with the witness evidence fitting into the visual
narrative. For example if a witness said JFK raised his arms after the
first shot I deduce the shot was fired in the second or so just before
what we see at Z225-Z230 in the Zapruder film.
All my percentages come from the published statements and testimony as
https://github.com/matyler/mc63.dpws/blob/master/mc63_dpws.csv
If you spot any errors or omissions, or disagree with my workings I'm
happy to listen and improve things if I am wrong.
I agree with you, I'm sure some witnesses did get important things wrong,
but I don't see how so many witnesses only heard one early shot before JFK
and Connally reacted to being wounded. A small amount like 10-20% I could
understand as they may have been distracted or been some distance away,
but surely the dozens of people in front of the TSBD couldn't all miss
such a noisy gunshot? The simplest and easiest explanation is that there
was no shot before Z180, then the witness evidence makes perfect sense and
fits into the Zapruder film narrative without any timing anomalies.

Connally said he felt pain two seconds after the noise of the first shot
(the rapidity of the two shots was a point he emphasised many times, which
seems credible given his experience with bolt action guns). This means
his testimony is *NOT* consistent with a shot at Z150, which he heard
circa Z155-Z160, and him being hit later at Z225 (a gap of 3.8 seconds).
In summary, the Connally head turn is the cornerstone of the evidence in
favour of the Z150 shot theory, which is based on his own testimony.
However, for this timing to be correct you have to ignore Connally's often
repeated explanation of the first shot and his own injury. Accepting one
statement from Connally as gospel truth, but ignoring or rejecting another
without good reason seems like cherry-picking. Without other clear
witness or film support, I have no choice but to conclude it's a theory
without concrete foundations (despite it's enduring popularity with many
researchers).

Weighing the various parts of Connally's statement is not cherry picking.
We can give credibility to the parts that are corroborated by the Z-film.
He said upon hearing the first shot he turned to look to his right and
unable to see anything, he was starting to turn back to his left when he
felt the bullet strike him in the back. He believed he was facing directly
to the front when he felt the bullet hit but the Z-film indicates he was
still turned to his right when the bullet struck. His belief there was two
seconds between the shots is pure guesswork because he wasn't timing the
shots. There is nothing that indicates his guess is an an accurate one.
Like most witnesses, Connally was right about somethings and demonstrably
wrong about others. It makes no sense to take the position that we must
accept all or nothing regarding his account. We can accept those elements
for which there is supporting evidence and reject those parts that are
refuted. That is how we should treat the statements of any witness. Accept
what is corroborated and reject what is refuted. If we don't have evidence
that is either corroborates or refutes what a witness has told us, we
simply have to regard such an account as unconfirmed.

Corroboration is indeed the key, so can you list the witnesses statements
from 1963/4 that corroborate the Z150 first shot theory?

I don't use witnesses to corroborate anything. That's putting the cart
before the horse. Witnesses need to be corroborated.

On the contrary, there is ample concrete and consistent evidence of when

Nonsense. It is based solely on your interpretation of what select
witnesses said. There is nothing concrete about it.

Post by Mark Tyler
- Z190-Z210 is the largest and longest blurring episode of the Z-film
before the fatal shot, indicating Zapruder being startled just after the
first shot was fired.

That should tell you the blurring is probably not the result of a gunshot.
Why would we expect the blurring for that shot to be longer than that
following the other two shots.

So-and-so said is not concrete evidence.

Post by Mark Tyler
- Phil Willis took his photo "5" at exactly Z202 and he said he took the
photo immediately after he heard the shot noise.

So-and-so said is not concrete evidence.

Post by Mark Tyler
- Hugh Betzner took his photo "3" at exactly Z186 and he said he heard the
shot noise immediately after he took the photo (explicitly ruling out
any shot fired before Z180).

So-and-so said is not concrete evidence.

That doesn't tell us how long after the shot before he turned. Connally
also said he turned to his right after he heard the first shot. He turned
at Z164.

Again, this doesn't tell us how quickly he reacted.

One witness giving incorrect information is not corroboration for another
witness giving incorrect information.

How did you determine their memories were reliable?

That would rule out a shot before Z180 if we knew your selected witnesses
were correct. You have offered no evidence that supports them. You are
simply assuming they were correct.

That's a possibility but the evidence for that seems rather flimsy.

Post by ***@yahoo.com
The next time you see him moving his hand is when he is waving at the
crowed just before the limo passes behind the sign.

For the subsequent shots for which we know about when they were fired,
there is a noticeable camera jiggle 7-8 frames following the firing of the
shot. This accounts for the time it would take the sound to reach Zapruder
and his reaction to those sounds. These jiggles lasted 3 frames, 227-229
and 318-320. We should expect a similar reaction be Zapruder to the first
shot. It's theoretically possible both shot and reaction were before he
resumed filming. There is a clear jiggle at 134 which would equate to a
shot fired at theoretical 126-127. The problem I have with that is that
134 jiggle only lasts for one frame. By 135, he seems to have steadied the
camera. That indicates to me that jiggle might have been the result of him
pressing the trigger on the camera. Just an educated guess. For the sake
of argument let's say there was a shot fired at 126. Connally hears that
about 128. That's 36 frames or about two seconds after hearing the shot.
That would indicate a fairly slow reaction by him. Possible but I find a
more abrupt reaction, about 12 frames after hearing a sound more likely.
What is your source for Hickey's statement? I looked on McAdams' witness
page and all it has is his original report. Based on that, it appears to
me that like others who were on the right of the limos (Hill, Jackie,
Nellie), he didn't even recognize the first shot. His description seems to
indicate he thought JFK was hit by the first shot which he recognized.
Based on his description, it seems he heard a double sound from the head
shot.
"The motorcade then left the airport and proceeded along the parade route.
Just prior to the shooting the Presidential car turned left at the
intersection and started down an incline toward an underpass followed by
679X. After a very short distance I heard a loud report which sounded like
a firecracker. It appeared to come from the right and rear and seemed to
me to be at ground level. I stood up and looked to my right and rear in an
attempt to identify it. Nothing caught my attention except people shouting
and cheering. A disturbance in 679X caused me to look forward toward the
President's car. Perhaps 2 or 3 seconds elapsed from the time I looked to
the rear and then looked at the President. He was slumped forward and to
his left, and was straightening up to an almost erect sitting position as
I turned and looked. At the moment he was almost sitting erect I heard two
reports which I thought were shots and that appeared to me completely
different in sound than the first report and were in such rapid succession
that there seemed to be practically no time element between them. It
looked to me as if the President was struck in the right upper rear of his
head. The first shot of the second two seemed as if it missed because the
hair on the right side of his head flew forward and there didn't seem to
be any impact against his head. The last shot seemed to hit his head and
cause a noise at the point of impact which made him fall forward and to
his left again. - Possibly four or five seconds elapsed from the time of
the first report and the last."
Hickey's recollection seems similar to Hill's whom he was close to when
the shooting began. Neither had a recollection of a first shot miss, both
saw that JFK had been hit by the first shot they remembered, and both
heard a double sound associated with the head shot. Also, if he heard a
first shot at about 126, that is about ten seconds before the head shot,
more than double what he estimated in his report. On the other hand it
fits perfectly with him only hearing the last two shots which were 4.9
seconds apart. It's possible his estimate could be wrong but that is a
considerable discrepancy. I really don't think Hickey recognized the
actual first shot.

There is nothing in Hickey's statement which indicates he looked to his
left upon hearing the first shot (which was probably actually the second).
He is looking left from 133 on but that would be expected that he would be
scanning the spectators on his side of the car. His impression upon
hearing the first shot he recognized was that it was from the right rear
and he turned in that direction. There is nothing in his statement that he
looked left after hearing the first shot and so that isn't evidence of a
pre-133 shot. Hickey's description of the last two shots could not have
been of the two shots that hit JFK because those shots were almost five
seconds apart and Hickey said those two were right on top of each other.
Most likely he heard a double sound from that same shot. Hickey, like
Hill, probably did not recognize the first shot, possibly because the
motorcycles were accelerating right next to them. Both seem to describe
the shot that hit JFK in the back was the first one they heard.

Anthony Marsh

2021-02-02 20:16:25 UTC

I agree John, Clint Hill is consistent with his original views from 1963.
He is one of several witnesses who only heard two shots. He gives enough
information to associate the two shots with events we see the Zapruder
Shot 1 - JFK raises his arms and starts slumping to his left.
Shot 2 - JFK is hit in the head.
If all of the witnesses had said this was what happened we would have a
very simple case to solve!

John, I don't "rely primarily on witnesses", I primarily rely on the films
and photos for my work, with the witness evidence fitting into the visual
narrative. For example if a witness said JFK raised his arms after the
first shot I deduce the shot was fired in the second or so just before
what we see at Z225-Z230 in the Zapruder film.
All my percentages come from the published statements and testimony as
https://github.com/matyler/mc63.dpws/blob/master/mc63_dpws.csv
If you spot any errors or omissions, or disagree with my workings I'm
happy to listen and improve things if I am wrong.
I agree with you, I'm sure some witnesses did get important things wrong,
but I don't see how so many witnesses only heard one early shot before JFK
and Connally reacted to being wounded. A small amount like 10-20% I could
understand as they may have been distracted or been some distance away,
but surely the dozens of people in front of the TSBD couldn't all miss
such a noisy gunshot? The simplest and easiest explanation is that there
was no shot before Z180, then the witness evidence makes perfect sense and
fits into the Zapruder film narrative without any timing anomalies.

Connally said he felt pain two seconds after the noise of the first shot
(the rapidity of the two shots was a point he emphasised many times, which
seems credible given his experience with bolt action guns). This means
his testimony is *NOT* consistent with a shot at Z150, which he heard
circa Z155-Z160, and him being hit later at Z225 (a gap of 3.8 seconds).
In summary, the Connally head turn is the cornerstone of the evidence in
favour of the Z150 shot theory, which is based on his own testimony.
However, for this timing to be correct you have to ignore Connally's often
repeated explanation of the first shot and his own injury. Accepting one
statement from Connally as gospel truth, but ignoring or rejecting another
without good reason seems like cherry-picking. Without other clear
witness or film support, I have no choice but to conclude it's a theory
without concrete foundations (despite it's enduring popularity with many
researchers).

Weighing the various parts of Connally's statement is not cherry picking.
We can give credibility to the parts that are corroborated by the Z-film.
He said upon hearing the first shot he turned to look to his right and
unable to see anything, he was starting to turn back to his left when he
felt the bullet strike him in the back. He believed he was facing directly
to the front when he felt the bullet hit but the Z-film indicates he was
still turned to his right when the bullet struck. His belief there was two
seconds between the shots is pure guesswork because he wasn't timing the
shots. There is nothing that indicates his guess is an an accurate one.
Like most witnesses, Connally was right about somethings and demonstrably
wrong about others. It makes no sense to take the position that we must
accept all or nothing regarding his account. We can accept those elements
for which there is supporting evidence and reject those parts that are
refuted. That is how we should treat the statements of any witness. Accept
what is corroborated and reject what is refuted. If we don't have evidence
that is either corroborates or refutes what a witness has told us, we
simply have to regard such an account as unconfirmed.

Corroboration is indeed the key, so can you list the witnesses statements
from 1963/4 that corroborate the Z150 first shot theory?

I don't use witnesses to corroborate anything. That's putting the cart
before the horse. Witnesses need to be corroborated.

On the contrary, there is ample concrete and consistent evidence of when

Nonsense. It is based solely on your interpretation of what select
witnesses said. There is nothing concrete about it.

Post by Mark Tyler
- Z190-Z210 is the largest and longest blurring episode of the Z-film
before the fatal shot, indicating Zapruder being startled just after the
first shot was fired.

That should tell you the blurring is probably not the result of a gunshot.
Why would we expect the blurring for that shot to be longer than that
following the other two shots.

So-and-so said is not concrete evidence.

Post by Mark Tyler
- Phil Willis took his photo "5" at exactly Z202 and he said he took the
photo immediately after he heard the shot noise.

So-and-so said is not concrete evidence.

Post by Mark Tyler
- Hugh Betzner took his photo "3" at exactly Z186 and he said he heard the
shot noise immediately after he took the photo (explicitly ruling out
any shot fired before Z180).

So-and-so said is not concrete evidence.

That doesn't tell us how long after the shot before he turned. Connally
also said he turned to his right after he heard the first shot. He turned
at Z164.

Again, this doesn't tell us how quickly he reacted.

One witness giving incorrect information is not corroboration for another
witness giving incorrect information.

How did you determine their memories were reliable?

That would rule out a shot before Z180 if we knew your selected witnesses
were correct. You have offered no evidence that supports them. You are
simply assuming they were correct.

That's a possibility but the evidence for that seems rather flimsy.

Post by ***@yahoo.com
The next time you see him moving his hand is when he is waving at the
crowed just before the limo passes behind the sign.

For the subsequent shots for which we know about when they were fired,
there is a noticeable camera jiggle 7-8 frames following the firing of the
shot. This accounts for the time it would take the sound to reach Zapruder
and his reaction to those sounds. These jiggles lasted 3 frames, 227-229
and 318-320. We should expect a similar reaction be Zapruder to the first
shot. It's theoretically possible both shot and reaction were before he
resumed filming. There is a clear jiggle at 134 which would equate to a
shot fired at theoretical 126-127. The problem I have with that is that
134 jiggle only lasts for one frame. By 135, he seems to have steadied the
camera. That indicates to me that jiggle might have been the result of him
pressing the trigger on the camera. Just an educated guess. For the sake
of argument let's say there was a shot fired at 126. Connally hears that
about 128. That's 36 frames or about two seconds after hearing the shot.
That would indicate a fairly slow reaction by him. Possible but I find a
more abrupt reaction, about 12 frames after hearing a sound more likely.
What is your source for Hickey's statement? I looked on McAdams' witness
page and all it has is his original report. Based on that, it appears to
me that like others who were on the right of the limos (Hill, Jackie,
Nellie), he didn't even recognize the first shot. His description seems to
indicate he thought JFK was hit by the first shot which he recognized.
Based on his description, it seems he heard a double sound from the head
shot.
"The motorcade then left the airport and proceeded along the parade route.
Just prior to the shooting the Presidential car turned left at the
intersection and started down an incline toward an underpass followed by
679X. After a very short distance I heard a loud report which sounded like
a firecracker. It appeared to come from the right and rear and seemed to
me to be at ground level. I stood up and looked to my right and rear in an
attempt to identify it. Nothing caught my attention except people shouting
and cheering. A disturbance in 679X caused me to look forward toward the
President's car. Perhaps 2 or 3 seconds elapsed from the time I looked to
the rear and then looked at the President. He was slumped forward and to
his left, and was straightening up to an almost erect sitting position as
I turned and looked. At the moment he was almost sitting erect I heard two
reports which I thought were shots and that appeared to me completely
different in sound than the first report and were in such rapid succession
that there seemed to be practically no time element between them. It
looked to me as if the President was struck in the right upper rear of his
head. The first shot of the second two seemed as if it missed because the
hair on the right side of his head flew forward and there didn't seem to
be any impact against his head. The last shot seemed to hit his head and
cause a noise at the point of impact which made him fall forward and to
his left again. - Possibly four or five seconds elapsed from the time of
the first report and the last."
Hickey's recollection seems similar to Hill's whom he was close to when
the shooting began. Neither had a recollection of a first shot miss, both
saw that JFK had been hit by the first shot they remembered, and both
heard a double sound associated with the head shot. Also, if he heard a
first shot at about 126, that is about ten seconds before the head shot,
more than double what he estimated in his report. On the other hand it
fits perfectly with him only hearing the last two shots which were 4.9
seconds apart. It's possible his estimate could be wrong but that is a
considerable discrepancy. I really don't think Hickey recognized the
actual first shot.

Why can't you have a first shot miss? Many prople do.

Anthony Marsh

2021-01-31 11:19:17 UTC

I agree John, Clint Hill is consistent with his original views from 1963.
He is one of several witnesses who only heard two shots. He gives enough
information to associate the two shots with events we see the Zapruder
Shot 1 - JFK raises his arms and starts slumping to his left.
Shot 2 - JFK is hit in the head.
If all of the witnesses had said this was what happened we would have a
very simple case to solve!

John, I don't "rely primarily on witnesses", I primarily rely on the films
and photos for my work, with the witness evidence fitting into the visual
narrative. For example if a witness said JFK raised his arms after the
first shot I deduce the shot was fired in the second or so just before
what we see at Z225-Z230 in the Zapruder film.
All my percentages come from the published statements and testimony as
https://github.com/matyler/mc63.dpws/blob/master/mc63_dpws.csv
If you spot any errors or omissions, or disagree with my workings I'm
happy to listen and improve things if I am wrong.
I agree with you, I'm sure some witnesses did get important things wrong,
but I don't see how so many witnesses only heard one early shot before JFK
and Connally reacted to being wounded. A small amount like 10-20% I could
understand as they may have been distracted or been some distance away,
but surely the dozens of people in front of the TSBD couldn't all miss
such a noisy gunshot? The simplest and easiest explanation is that there
was no shot before Z180, then the witness evidence makes perfect sense and
fits into the Zapruder film narrative without any timing anomalies.

Connally said he felt pain two seconds after the noise of the first shot
(the rapidity of the two shots was a point he emphasised many times, which
seems credible given his experience with bolt action guns). This means
his testimony is *NOT* consistent with a shot at Z150, which he heard
circa Z155-Z160, and him being hit later at Z225 (a gap of 3.8 seconds).
In summary, the Connally head turn is the cornerstone of the evidence in
favour of the Z150 shot theory, which is based on his own testimony.
However, for this timing to be correct you have to ignore Connally's often
repeated explanation of the first shot and his own injury. Accepting one
statement from Connally as gospel truth, but ignoring or rejecting another
without good reason seems like cherry-picking. Without other clear
witness or film support, I have no choice but to conclude it's a theory
without concrete foundations (despite it's enduring popularity with many
researchers).

Weighing the various parts of Connally's statement is not cherry picking.
We can give credibility to the parts that are corroborated by the Z-film.
He said upon hearing the first shot he turned to look to his right and
unable to see anything, he was starting to turn back to his left when he
felt the bullet strike him in the back. He believed he was facing directly
to the front when he felt the bullet hit but the Z-film indicates he was
still turned to his right when the bullet struck. His belief there was two
seconds between the shots is pure guesswork because he wasn't timing the
shots. There is nothing that indicates his guess is an an accurate one.
Like most witnesses, Connally was right about somethings and demonstrably
wrong about others. It makes no sense to take the position that we must
accept all or nothing regarding his account. We can accept those elements
for which there is supporting evidence and reject those parts that are
refuted. That is how we should treat the statements of any witness. Accept
what is corroborated and reject what is refuted. If we don't have evidence
that is either corroborates or refutes what a witness has told us, we
simply have to regard such an account as unconfirmed.

Corroboration is indeed the key, so can you list the witnesses statements
from 1963/4 that corroborate the Z150 first shot theory?

I don't use witnesses to corroborate anything. That's putting the cart
before the horse. Witnesses need to be corroborated.

On the contrary, there is ample concrete and consistent evidence of when

Nonsense. It is based solely on your interpretation of what select
witnesses said. There is nothing concrete about it.

Post by Mark Tyler
- Z190-Z210 is the largest and longest blurring episode of the Z-film
before the fatal shot, indicating Zapruder being startled just after the
first shot was fired.

That should tell you the blurring is probably not the result of a gunshot.
Why would we expect the blurring for that shot to be longer than that
following the other two shots.

So-and-so said is not concrete evidence.

Post by Mark Tyler
- Phil Willis took his photo "5" at exactly Z202 and he said he took the
photo immediately after he heard the shot noise.

So-and-so said is not concrete evidence.

Post by Mark Tyler
- Hugh Betzner took his photo "3" at exactly Z186 and he said he heard the
shot noise immediately after he took the photo (explicitly ruling out
any shot fired before Z180).

So-and-so said is not concrete evidence.

That doesn't tell us how long after the shot before he turned. Connally
also said he turned to his right after he heard the first shot. He turned
at Z164.

Again, this doesn't tell us how quickly he reacted.

One witness giving incorrect information is not corroboration for another
witness giving incorrect information.

How did you determine their memories were reliable?

That would rule out a shot before Z180 if we knew your selected witnesses
were correct. You have offered no evidence that supports them. You are
simply assuming they were correct.

That's a possibility but the evidence for that seems rather flimsy.

Post by ***@yahoo.com
The next time you see him moving his hand is when he is waving at the
crowed just before the limo passes behind the sign.

For the subsequent shots for which we know about when they were fired,
there is a noticeable camera jiggle 7-8 frames following the firing of the
shot. This accounts for the time it would take the sound to reach Zapruder
and his reaction to those sounds. These jiggles lasted 3 frames, 227-229
and 318-320. We should expect a similar reaction be Zapruder to the first
shot. It's theoretically possible both shot and reaction were before he
resumed filming. There is a clear jiggle at 134 which would equate to a
shot fired at theoretical 126-127. The problem I have with that is that
134 jiggle only lasts for one frame. By 135, he seems to have steadied the
camera. That indicates to me that jiggle might have been the result of him
pressing the trigger on the camera. Just an educated guess. For the sake
of argument let's say there was a shot fired at 126. Connally hears that
about 128. That's 36 frames or about two seconds after hearing the shot.
That would indicate a fairly slow reaction by him. Possible but I find a
more abrupt reaction, about 12 frames after hearing a sound more likely.
What is your source for Hickey's statement? I looked on McAdams' witness
page and all it has is his original report. Based on that, it appears to
me that like others who were on the right of the limos (Hill, Jackie,
Nellie), he didn't even recognize the first shot. His description seems to
indicate he thought JFK was hit by the first shot which he recognized.
Based on his description, it seems he heard a double sound from the head
shot.
"The motorcade then left the airport and proceeded along the parade route.
Just prior to the shooting the Presidential car turned left at the
intersection and started down an incline toward an underpass followed by
679X. After a very short distance I heard a loud report which sounded like
a firecracker. It appeared to come from the right and rear and seemed to
me to be at ground level. I stood up and looked to my right and rear in an
attempt to identify it. Nothing caught my attention except people shouting
and cheering. A disturbance in 679X caused me to look forward toward the
President's car. Perhaps 2 or 3 seconds elapsed from the time I looked to
the rear and then looked at the President. He was slumped forward and to
his left, and was straightening up to an almost erect sitting position as
I turned and looked. At the moment he was almost sitting erect I heard two
reports which I thought were shots and that appeared to me completely
different in sound than the first report and were in such rapid succession
that there seemed to be practically no time element between them. It
looked to me as if the President was struck in the right upper rear of his
head. The first shot of the second two seemed as if it missed because the
hair on the right side of his head flew forward and there didn't seem to
be any impact against his head. The last shot seemed to hit his head and
cause a noise at the point of impact which made him fall forward and to
his left again. - Possibly four or five seconds elapsed from the time of
the first report and the last."
Hickey's recollection seems similar to Hill's whom he was close to when
the shooting began. Neither had a recollection of a first shot miss, both
saw that JFK had been hit by the first shot they remembered, and both
heard a double sound associated with the head shot. Also, if he heard a
first shot at about 126, that is about ten seconds before the head shot,
more than double what he estimated in his report. On the other hand it
fits perfectly with him only hearing the last two shots which were 4.9
seconds apart. It's possible his estimate could be wrong but that is a
considerable discrepancy. I really don't think Hickey recognized the
actual first shot.

Too many people waste too much time tying to ptove a single bullet theory.
They think that if they can prove a single bullet theory that means that
there could not be a conspiracy. False. It could still be a conspiracy
without the single bullet theory. One shooter could have hit Kennedy
and Connally with separate bullets.

Even if there was a single bullet there could be another shooter for
some of the other shots. Some type of single bullet theory is possible,
but it only needs to account for a couple of wounds.

John Corbett

2021-02-01 02:58:31 UTC

Post by Anthony Marsh

Post by John Corbett
What is your source for Hickey's statement? I looked on McAdams' witness
page and all it has is his original report. Based on that, it appears to
me that like others who were on the right of the limos (Hill, Jackie,
Nellie), he didn't even recognize the first shot. His description seems to
indicate he thought JFK was hit by the first shot which he recognized.
Based on his description, it seems he heard a double sound from the head
shot.
"The motorcade then left the airport and proceeded along the parade route.
Just prior to the shooting the Presidential car turned left at the
intersection and started down an incline toward an underpass followed by
679X. After a very short distance I heard a loud report which sounded like
a firecracker. It appeared to come from the right and rear and seemed to
me to be at ground level. I stood up and looked to my right and rear in an
attempt to identify it. Nothing caught my attention except people shouting
and cheering. A disturbance in 679X caused me to look forward toward the
President's car. Perhaps 2 or 3 seconds elapsed from the time I looked to
the rear and then looked at the President. He was slumped forward and to
his left, and was straightening up to an almost erect sitting position as
I turned and looked. At the moment he was almost sitting erect I heard two
reports which I thought were shots and that appeared to me completely
different in sound than the first report and were in such rapid succession
that there seemed to be practically no time element between them. It
looked to me as if the President was struck in the right upper rear of his
head. The first shot of the second two seemed as if it missed because the
hair on the right side of his head flew forward and there didn't seem to
be any impact against his head. The last shot seemed to hit his head and
cause a noise at the point of impact which made him fall forward and to
his left again. - Possibly four or five seconds elapsed from the time of
the first report and the last."
Hickey's recollection seems similar to Hill's whom he was close to when
the shooting began. Neither had a recollection of a first shot miss, both
saw that JFK had been hit by the first shot they remembered, and both
heard a double sound associated with the head shot. Also, if he heard a
first shot at about 126, that is about ten seconds before the head shot,
more than double what he estimated in his report. On the other hand it
fits perfectly with him only hearing the last two shots which were 4.9
seconds apart. It's possible his estimate could be wrong but that is a
considerable discrepancy. I really don't think Hickey recognized the
actual first shot.

Too many people waste too much time tying to ptove a single bullet theory.
They think that if they can prove a single bullet theory that means that
there could not be a conspiracy.

Strawman. Nobody has made that argument. The SBT only supports the
conclusion that Oswald was the shooter.

Post by Anthony Marsh
False. It could still be a conspiracy
without the single bullet theory. One shooter could have hit Kennedy
and Connally with separate bullets.

Kennedy and Connally reacted simultaneously so if they were hit by
separate shots, there had to have been two shooters. One of the few
statements by the WC that I take issue with is that the SBT is not crucial
to their findings. It is. Without it there had to have been two shooters.

Post by Anthony Marsh
Even if there was a single bullet there could be another shooter for
some of the other shots. Some type of single bullet theory is possible,
but it only needs to account for a couple of wounds.

Thanks for that, Captain Obvious.

Anthony Marsh

2021-02-03 02:12:22 UTC

Post by Anthony Marsh

Too many people waste too much time tying to ptove a single bullet theory.
They think that if they can prove a single bullet theory that means that
there could not be a conspiracy.

Strawman. Nobody has made that argument. The SBT only supports the
conclusion that Oswald was the shooter.

I did not propose a theory. I complained about other people's reliance
of their theory.

Post by Anthony Marsh
False. It could still be a conspiracy
without the single bullet theory. One shooter could have hit Kennedy
and Connally with separate bullets.

Kennedy and Connally reacted simultaneously so if they

wrong. It's not proof enough just to say that they reacted on the same
day. You need to name one frame and whow that they were both hit during
that frame. You're not brave enough to do that.

were hit by

Post by John Corbett
separate shots, there had to have been two shooters. One of the few

No, it depemds on the timing. The HSCA actually tested it and foudnd
that the Carcao could fire 2 sshots withhin 1.7 seconds.
Name your frame.

Post by John Corbett
statements by the WC that I take issue with is that the SBT is not crucial
to their findings. It is. Without it there had to have been two shooters.\\\

So you admit that they lied, but pick and choose what to endorse. Do you
even knoe that as of aptil 27, 1964 6he WC had no need for no damn
sthinkin SBT?

Thanks for that, Captain Obvious.

omeone has to do the heavy lifting here.

allan...@yahoo.com

2021-02-01 02:58:38 UTC

I agree John, Clint Hill is consistent with his original views from 1963.
He is one of several witnesses who only heard two shots. He gives enough
information to associate the two shots with events we see the Zapruder
Shot 1 - JFK raises his arms and starts slumping to his left.
Shot 2 - JFK is hit in the head.
If all of the witnesses had said this was what happened we would have a
very simple case to solve!

John, I don't "rely primarily on witnesses", I primarily rely on the films
and photos for my work, with the witness evidence fitting into the visual
narrative. For example if a witness said JFK raised his arms after the
first shot I deduce the shot was fired in the second or so just before
what we see at Z225-Z230 in the Zapruder film.
All my percentages come from the published statements and testimony as
https://github.com/matyler/mc63.dpws/blob/master/mc63_dpws.csv
If you spot any errors or omissions, or disagree with my workings I'm
happy to listen and improve things if I am wrong.
I agree with you, I'm sure some witnesses did get important things wrong,
but I don't see how so many witnesses only heard one early shot before JFK
and Connally reacted to being wounded. A small amount like 10-20% I could
understand as they may have been distracted or been some distance away,
but surely the dozens of people in front of the TSBD couldn't all miss
such a noisy gunshot? The simplest and easiest explanation is that there
was no shot before Z180, then the witness evidence makes perfect sense and
fits into the Zapruder film narrative without any timing anomalies.

Connally said he felt pain two seconds after the noise of the first shot
(the rapidity of the two shots was a point he emphasised many times, which
seems credible given his experience with bolt action guns). This means
his testimony is *NOT* consistent with a shot at Z150, which he heard
circa Z155-Z160, and him being hit later at Z225 (a gap of 3.8 seconds).
In summary, the Connally head turn is the cornerstone of the evidence in
favour of the Z150 shot theory, which is based on his own testimony.
However, for this timing to be correct you have to ignore Connally's often
repeated explanation of the first shot and his own injury. Accepting one
statement from Connally as gospel truth, but ignoring or rejecting another
without good reason seems like cherry-picking. Without other clear
witness or film support, I have no choice but to conclude it's a theory
without concrete foundations (despite it's enduring popularity with many
researchers).

Weighing the various parts of Connally's statement is not cherry picking.
We can give credibility to the parts that are corroborated by the Z-film.
He said upon hearing the first shot he turned to look to his right and
unable to see anything, he was starting to turn back to his left when he
felt the bullet strike him in the back. He believed he was facing directly
to the front when he felt the bullet hit but the Z-film indicates he was
still turned to his right when the bullet struck. His belief there was two
seconds between the shots is pure guesswork because he wasn't timing the
shots. There is nothing that indicates his guess is an an accurate one.
Like most witnesses, Connally was right about somethings and demonstrably
wrong about others. It makes no sense to take the position that we must
accept all or nothing regarding his account. We can accept those elements
for which there is supporting evidence and reject those parts that are
refuted. That is how we should treat the statements of any witness. Accept
what is corroborated and reject what is refuted. If we don't have evidence
that is either corroborates or refutes what a witness has told us, we
simply have to regard such an account as unconfirmed.

Corroboration is indeed the key, so can you list the witnesses statements
from 1963/4 that corroborate the Z150 first shot theory?

I don't use witnesses to corroborate anything. That's putting the cart
before the horse. Witnesses need to be corroborated.

On the contrary, there is ample concrete and consistent evidence of when

Nonsense. It is based solely on your interpretation of what select
witnesses said. There is nothing concrete about it.

Post by Mark Tyler
- Z190-Z210 is the largest and longest blurring episode of the Z-film
before the fatal shot, indicating Zapruder being startled just after the
first shot was fired.

That should tell you the blurring is probably not the result of a gunshot.
Why would we expect the blurring for that shot to be longer than that
following the other two shots.

So-and-so said is not concrete evidence.

Post by Mark Tyler
- Phil Willis took his photo "5" at exactly Z202 and he said he took the
photo immediately after he heard the shot noise.

So-and-so said is not concrete evidence.

Post by Mark Tyler
- Hugh Betzner took his photo "3" at exactly Z186 and he said he heard the
shot noise immediately after he took the photo (explicitly ruling out
any shot fired before Z180).

So-and-so said is not concrete evidence.

That doesn't tell us how long after the shot before he turned. Connally
also said he turned to his right after he heard the first shot. He turned
at Z164.

Again, this doesn't tell us how quickly he reacted.

One witness giving incorrect information is not corroboration for another
witness giving incorrect information.

How did you determine their memories were reliable?

That would rule out a shot before Z180 if we knew your selected witnesses
were correct. You have offered no evidence that supports them. You are
simply assuming they were correct.

That's a possibility but the evidence for that seems rather flimsy.

Post by ***@yahoo.com
The next time you see him moving his hand is when he is waving at the
crowed just before the limo passes behind the sign.

For the subsequent shots for which we know about when they were fired,
there is a noticeable camera jiggle 7-8 frames following the firing of the
shot. This accounts for the time it would take the sound to reach Zapruder
and his reaction to those sounds. These jiggles lasted 3 frames, 227-229
and 318-320. We should expect a similar reaction be Zapruder to the first
shot. It's theoretically possible both shot and reaction were before he
resumed filming. There is a clear jiggle at 134 which would equate to a
shot fired at theoretical 126-127. The problem I have with that is that
134 jiggle only lasts for one frame. By 135, he seems to have steadied the
camera. That indicates to me that jiggle might have been the result of him
pressing the trigger on the camera. Just an educated guess. For the sake
of argument let's say there was a shot fired at 126. Connally hears that
about 128. That's 36 frames or about two seconds after hearing the shot.
That would indicate a fairly slow reaction by him. Possible but I find a
more abrupt reaction, about 12 frames after hearing a sound more likely.
What is your source for Hickey's statement? I looked on McAdams' witness
page and all it has is his original report. Based on that, it appears to
me that like others who were on the right of the limos (Hill, Jackie,
Nellie), he didn't even recognize the first shot. His description seems to
indicate he thought JFK was hit by the first shot which he recognized.
Based on his description, it seems he heard a double sound from the head
shot.
"The motorcade then left the airport and proceeded along the parade route.
Just prior to the shooting the Presidential car turned left at the
intersection and started down an incline toward an underpass followed by
679X. After a very short distance I heard a loud report which sounded like
a firecracker. It appeared to come from the right and rear and seemed to
me to be at ground level. I stood up and looked to my right and rear in an
attempt to identify it. Nothing caught my attention except people shouting
and cheering. A disturbance in 679X caused me to look forward toward the
President's car. Perhaps 2 or 3 seconds elapsed from the time I looked to
the rear and then looked at the President. He was slumped forward and to
his left, and was straightening up to an almost erect sitting position as
I turned and looked. At the moment he was almost sitting erect I heard two
reports which I thought were shots and that appeared to me completely
different in sound than the first report and were in such rapid succession
that there seemed to be practically no time element between them. It
looked to me as if the President was struck in the right upper rear of his
head. The first shot of the second two seemed as if it missed because the
hair on the right side of his head flew forward and there didn't seem to
be any impact against his head. The last shot seemed to hit his head and
cause a noise at the point of impact which made him fall forward and to
his left again. - Possibly four or five seconds elapsed from the time of
the first report and the last."
Hickey's recollection seems similar to Hill's whom he was close to when
the shooting began. Neither had a recollection of a first shot miss, both
saw that JFK had been hit by the first shot they remembered, and both
heard a double sound associated with the head shot. Also, if he heard a
first shot at about 126, that is about ten seconds before the head shot,
more than double what he estimated in his report. On the other hand it
fits perfectly with him only hearing the last two shots which were 4.9
seconds apart. It's possible his estimate could be wrong but that is a
considerable discrepancy. I really don't think Hickey recognized the
actual first shot.

The time between 133, when the limo first appears on film, and 224, the
first shot to hit Kennedy in the neck, is 91 frames. The time between 224
and 313, the second shot to hit Kennedy, this time in the head, is 89
frames, just about the same amount of time, 5 seconds. Most witnesses,
including Hickey, heard less time between the second and third shots than
the first and second shots. If you just add 1 second to this scenario,
then the first shot was at least at 115, way before the Zapruder film
first shows the limo.

As for seeing a giggling camera and relating that to when the shots
were fired, I wouldn't put too much stock in that or bet the farm on it.
If you notice the very beginning of the Zapruder film when the motorcycle
cops are coming on to Elm street from Houston, the camera jiggles are too
numerous to count, and there were no shots being fired at that time.
Maybe Zapruder was just a nervous guy or there was a defect in the camera
that caused the jiggling, I once had a camera that did that, couldn't be
fixed, got a new and better one.

John Corbett

2021-02-01 13:11:39 UTC

I agree John, Clint Hill is consistent with his original views from 1963.
He is one of several witnesses who only heard two shots. He gives enough
information to associate the two shots with events we see the Zapruder
Shot 1 - JFK raises his arms and starts slumping to his left.
Shot 2 - JFK is hit in the head.
If all of the witnesses had said this was what happened we would have a
very simple case to solve!

John, I don't "rely primarily on witnesses", I primarily rely on the films
and photos for my work, with the witness evidence fitting into the visual
narrative. For example if a witness said JFK raised his arms after the
first shot I deduce the shot was fired in the second or so just before
what we see at Z225-Z230 in the Zapruder film.
All my percentages come from the published statements and testimony as
https://github.com/matyler/mc63.dpws/blob/master/mc63_dpws.csv
If you spot any errors or omissions, or disagree with my workings I'm
happy to listen and improve things if I am wrong.
I agree with you, I'm sure some witnesses did get important things wrong,
but I don't see how so many witnesses only heard one early shot before JFK
and Connally reacted to being wounded. A small amount like 10-20% I could
understand as they may have been distracted or been some distance away,
but surely the dozens of people in front of the TSBD couldn't all miss
such a noisy gunshot? The simplest and easiest explanation is that there
was no shot before Z180, then the witness evidence makes perfect sense and
fits into the Zapruder film narrative without any timing anomalies.

Connally said he felt pain two seconds after the noise of the first shot
(the rapidity of the two shots was a point he emphasised many times, which
seems credible given his experience with bolt action guns). This means
his testimony is *NOT* consistent with a shot at Z150, which he heard
circa Z155-Z160, and him being hit later at Z225 (a gap of 3.8 seconds).
In summary, the Connally head turn is the cornerstone of the evidence in
favour of the Z150 shot theory, which is based on his own testimony.
However, for this timing to be correct you have to ignore Connally's often
repeated explanation of the first shot and his own injury. Accepting one
statement from Connally as gospel truth, but ignoring or rejecting another
without good reason seems like cherry-picking. Without other clear
witness or film support, I have no choice but to conclude it's a theory
without concrete foundations (despite it's enduring popularity with many
researchers).

Weighing the various parts of Connally's statement is not cherry picking.
We can give credibility to the parts that are corroborated by the Z-film.
He said upon hearing the first shot he turned to look to his right and
unable to see anything, he was starting to turn back to his left when he
felt the bullet strike him in the back. He believed he was facing directly
to the front when he felt the bullet hit but the Z-film indicates he was
still turned to his right when the bullet struck. His belief there was two
seconds between the shots is pure guesswork because he wasn't timing the
shots. There is nothing that indicates his guess is an an accurate one.
Like most witnesses, Connally was right about somethings and demonstrably
wrong about others. It makes no sense to take the position that we must
accept all or nothing regarding his account. We can accept those elements
for which there is supporting evidence and reject those parts that are
refuted. That is how we should treat the statements of any witness. Accept
what is corroborated and reject what is refuted. If we don't have evidence
that is either corroborates or refutes what a witness has told us, we
simply have to regard such an account as unconfirmed.

Corroboration is indeed the key, so can you list the witnesses statements
from 1963/4 that corroborate the Z150 first shot theory?

I don't use witnesses to corroborate anything. That's putting the cart
before the horse. Witnesses need to be corroborated.

On the contrary, there is ample concrete and consistent evidence of when

Nonsense. It is based solely on your interpretation of what select
witnesses said. There is nothing concrete about it.

Post by Mark Tyler
- Z190-Z210 is the largest and longest blurring episode of the Z-film
before the fatal shot, indicating Zapruder being startled just after the
first shot was fired.

That should tell you the blurring is probably not the result of a gunshot.
Why would we expect the blurring for that shot to be longer than that
following the other two shots.

So-and-so said is not concrete evidence.

Post by Mark Tyler
- Phil Willis took his photo "5" at exactly Z202 and he said he took the
photo immediately after he heard the shot noise.

So-and-so said is not concrete evidence.

Post by Mark Tyler
- Hugh Betzner took his photo "3" at exactly Z186 and he said he heard the
shot noise immediately after he took the photo (explicitly ruling out
any shot fired before Z180).

So-and-so said is not concrete evidence.

That doesn't tell us how long after the shot before he turned. Connally
also said he turned to his right after he heard the first shot. He turned
at Z164.

Again, this doesn't tell us how quickly he reacted.

One witness giving incorrect information is not corroboration for another
witness giving incorrect information.

How did you determine their memories were reliable?

That would rule out a shot before Z180 if we knew your selected witnesses
were correct. You have offered no evidence that supports them. You are
simply assuming they were correct.

That's a possibility but the evidence for that seems rather flimsy.

Post by ***@yahoo.com
The next time you see him moving his hand is when he is waving at the
crowed just before the limo passes behind the sign.

For the subsequent shots for which we know about when they were fired,
there is a noticeable camera jiggle 7-8 frames following the firing of the
shot. This accounts for the time it would take the sound to reach Zapruder
and his reaction to those sounds. These jiggles lasted 3 frames, 227-229
and 318-320. We should expect a similar reaction be Zapruder to the first
shot. It's theoretically possible both shot and reaction were before he
resumed filming. There is a clear jiggle at 134 which would equate to a
shot fired at theoretical 126-127. The problem I have with that is that
134 jiggle only lasts for one frame. By 135, he seems to have steadied the
camera. That indicates to me that jiggle might have been the result of him
pressing the trigger on the camera. Just an educated guess. For the sake
of argument let's say there was a shot fired at 126. Connally hears that
about 128. That's 36 frames or about two seconds after hearing the shot.
That would indicate a fairly slow reaction by him. Possible but I find a
more abrupt reaction, about 12 frames after hearing a sound more likely.
What is your source for Hickey's statement? I looked on McAdams' witness
page and all it has is his original report. Based on that, it appears to
me that like others who were on the right of the limos (Hill, Jackie,
Nellie), he didn't even recognize the first shot. His description seems to
indicate he thought JFK was hit by the first shot which he recognized.
Based on his description, it seems he heard a double sound from the head
shot.
"The motorcade then left the airport and proceeded along the parade route.
Just prior to the shooting the Presidential car turned left at the
intersection and started down an incline toward an underpass followed by
679X. After a very short distance I heard a loud report which sounded like
a firecracker. It appeared to come from the right and rear and seemed to
me to be at ground level. I stood up and looked to my right and rear in an
attempt to identify it. Nothing caught my attention except people shouting
and cheering. A disturbance in 679X caused me to look forward toward the
President's car. Perhaps 2 or 3 seconds elapsed from the time I looked to
the rear and then looked at the President. He was slumped forward and to
his left, and was straightening up to an almost erect sitting position as
I turned and looked. At the moment he was almost sitting erect I heard two
reports which I thought were shots and that appeared to me completely
different in sound than the first report and were in such rapid succession
that there seemed to be practically no time element between them. It
looked to me as if the President was struck in the right upper rear of his
head. The first shot of the second two seemed as if it missed because the
hair on the right side of his head flew forward and there didn't seem to
be any impact against his head. The last shot seemed to hit his head and
cause a noise at the point of impact which made him fall forward and to
his left again. - Possibly four or five seconds elapsed from the time of
the first report and the last."
Hickey's recollection seems similar to Hill's whom he was close to when
the shooting began. Neither had a recollection of a first shot miss, both
saw that JFK had been hit by the first shot they remembered, and both
heard a double sound associated with the head shot. Also, if he heard a
first shot at about 126, that is about ten seconds before the head shot,
more than double what he estimated in his report. On the other hand it
fits perfectly with him only hearing the last two shots which were 4.9
seconds apart. It's possible his estimate could be wrong but that is a
considerable discrepancy. I really don't think Hickey recognized the
actual first shot.

There is no way you can fit Hickey's description of the last two shots
with the single bullet and the head shot. Those two came almost five
seconds apart. Hickey said there was almost no time between them. That
indicates to me he heard two sounds produced by the head shot and that he
didn't recognize the actual first shot as such.

Post by ***@yahoo.com
As for seeing a giggling camera and relating that to when the shots
were fired, I wouldn't put too much stock in that or bet the farm on it.
If you notice the very beginning of the Zapruder film when the motorcycle
cops are coming on to Elm street from Houston, the camera jiggles are too
numerous to count, and there were no shots being fired at that time.
Maybe Zapruder was just a nervous guy or there was a defect in the camera
that caused the jiggling, I once had a camera that did that, couldn't be
fixed, got a new and better one.

Zapruder had vertigo and he needed his secretary, Sitzman, to hold him
steady as he stood on the concrete pedestal.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abraham_Zapruder#:~:text=Zapruder's%20secretary,%20Marilyn%20Sitzman,%20offered%20to%20assist%20Zapruder,Elm%20Street%20in%20front%20of%20the%20Book%20Depository.

If the Alvarez theory is valid, every jiggle is not the result of a gun
shot but every gun shot will cause a jiggle. For the two shots for which
we know when they were fired, the jiggle came 7-8 frames after the shot.
That allows for the time it would take the sound to reach Zapruder and
time for Zapruder to react to it. Since Zapruder was a constant distance
from Oswald for all three shots, we can expect the same time lag (7-8
frames) for all three shots if all three were fired during filming. We
have that if the shot was fired at the 150-151 frame because we see a
definite jiggle at 158.

allan...@yahoo.com

2021-02-01 17:23:17 UTC

I agree John, Clint Hill is consistent with his original views from 1963.
He is one of several witnesses who only heard two shots. He gives enough
information to associate the two shots with events we see the Zapruder
Shot 1 - JFK raises his arms and starts slumping to his left.
Shot 2 - JFK is hit in the head.
If all of the witnesses had said this was what happened we would have a
very simple case to solve!

John, I don't "rely primarily on witnesses", I primarily rely on the films
and photos for my work, with the witness evidence fitting into the visual
narrative. For example if a witness said JFK raised his arms after the
first shot I deduce the shot was fired in the second or so just before
what we see at Z225-Z230 in the Zapruder film.
All my percentages come from the published statements and testimony as
https://github.com/matyler/mc63.dpws/blob/master/mc63_dpws.csv
If you spot any errors or omissions, or disagree with my workings I'm
happy to listen and improve things if I am wrong.
I agree with you, I'm sure some witnesses did get important things wrong,
but I don't see how so many witnesses only heard one early shot before JFK
and Connally reacted to being wounded. A small amount like 10-20% I could
understand as they may have been distracted or been some distance away,
but surely the dozens of people in front of the TSBD couldn't all miss
such a noisy gunshot? The simplest and easiest explanation is that there
was no shot before Z180, then the witness evidence makes perfect sense and
fits into the Zapruder film narrative without any timing anomalies.

Connally said he felt pain two seconds after the noise of the first shot
(the rapidity of the two shots was a point he emphasised many times, which
seems credible given his experience with bolt action guns). This means
his testimony is *NOT* consistent with a shot at Z150, which he heard
circa Z155-Z160, and him being hit later at Z225 (a gap of 3.8 seconds).
In summary, the Connally head turn is the cornerstone of the evidence in
favour of the Z150 shot theory, which is based on his own testimony.
However, for this timing to be correct you have to ignore Connally's often
repeated explanation of the first shot and his own injury. Accepting one
statement from Connally as gospel truth, but ignoring or rejecting another
without good reason seems like cherry-picking. Without other clear
witness or film support, I have no choice but to conclude it's a theory
without concrete foundations (despite it's enduring popularity with many
researchers).

Weighing the various parts of Connally's statement is not cherry picking.
We can give credibility to the parts that are corroborated by the Z-film.
He said upon hearing the first shot he turned to look to his right and
unable to see anything, he was starting to turn back to his left when he
felt the bullet strike him in the back. He believed he was facing directly
to the front when he felt the bullet hit but the Z-film indicates he was
still turned to his right when the bullet struck. His belief there was two
seconds between the shots is pure guesswork because he wasn't timing the
shots. There is nothing that indicates his guess is an an accurate one.
Like most witnesses, Connally was right about somethings and demonstrably
wrong about others. It makes no sense to take the position that we must
accept all or nothing regarding his account. We can accept those elements
for which there is supporting evidence and reject those parts that are
refuted. That is how we should treat the statements of any witness. Accept
what is corroborated and reject what is refuted. If we don't have evidence
that is either corroborates or refutes what a witness has told us, we
simply have to regard such an account as unconfirmed.

Corroboration is indeed the key, so can you list the witnesses statements
from 1963/4 that corroborate the Z150 first shot theory?

I don't use witnesses to corroborate anything. That's putting the cart
before the horse. Witnesses need to be corroborated.

On the contrary, there is ample concrete and consistent evidence of when

Nonsense. It is based solely on your interpretation of what select
witnesses said. There is nothing concrete about it.

Post by Mark Tyler
- Z190-Z210 is the largest and longest blurring episode of the Z-film
before the fatal shot, indicating Zapruder being startled just after the
first shot was fired.

That should tell you the blurring is probably not the result of a gunshot.
Why would we expect the blurring for that shot to be longer than that
following the other two shots.

So-and-so said is not concrete evidence.

Post by Mark Tyler
- Phil Willis took his photo "5" at exactly Z202 and he said he took the
photo immediately after he heard the shot noise.

So-and-so said is not concrete evidence.

Post by Mark Tyler
- Hugh Betzner took his photo "3" at exactly Z186 and he said he heard the
shot noise immediately after he took the photo (explicitly ruling out
any shot fired before Z180).

So-and-so said is not concrete evidence.

That doesn't tell us how long after the shot before he turned. Connally
also said he turned to his right after he heard the first shot. He turned
at Z164.

Again, this doesn't tell us how quickly he reacted.

One witness giving incorrect information is not corroboration for another
witness giving incorrect information.

How did you determine their memories were reliable?

That would rule out a shot before Z180 if we knew your selected witnesses
were correct. You have offered no evidence that supports them. You are
simply assuming they were correct.

That's a possibility but the evidence for that seems rather flimsy.

Post by ***@yahoo.com
The next time you see him moving his hand is when he is waving at the
crowed just before the limo passes behind the sign.

For the subsequent shots for which we know about when they were fired,
there is a noticeable camera jiggle 7-8 frames following the firing of the
shot. This accounts for the time it would take the sound to reach Zapruder
and his reaction to those sounds. These jiggles lasted 3 frames, 227-229
and 318-320. We should expect a similar reaction be Zapruder to the first
shot. It's theoretically possible both shot and reaction were before he
resumed filming. There is a clear jiggle at 134 which would equate to a
shot fired at theoretical 126-127. The problem I have with that is that
134 jiggle only lasts for one frame. By 135, he seems to have steadied the
camera. That indicates to me that jiggle might have been the result of him
pressing the trigger on the camera. Just an educated guess. For the sake
of argument let's say there was a shot fired at 126. Connally hears that
about 128. That's 36 frames or about two seconds after hearing the shot.
That would indicate a fairly slow reaction by him. Possible but I find a
more abrupt reaction, about 12 frames after hearing a sound more likely.
What is your source for Hickey's statement? I looked on McAdams' witness
page and all it has is his original report. Based on that, it appears to
me that like others who were on the right of the limos (Hill, Jackie,
Nellie), he didn't even recognize the first shot. His description seems to
indicate he thought JFK was hit by the first shot which he recognized.
Based on his description, it seems he heard a double sound from the head
shot.
"The motorcade then left the airport and proceeded along the parade route.
Just prior to the shooting the Presidential car turned left at the
intersection and started down an incline toward an underpass followed by
679X. After a very short distance I heard a loud report which sounded like
a firecracker. It appeared to come from the right and rear and seemed to
me to be at ground level. I stood up and looked to my right and rear in an
attempt to identify it. Nothing caught my attention except people shouting
and cheering. A disturbance in 679X caused me to look forward toward the
President's car. Perhaps 2 or 3 seconds elapsed from the time I looked to
the rear and then looked at the President. He was slumped forward and to
his left, and was straightening up to an almost erect sitting position as
I turned and looked. At the moment he was almost sitting erect I heard two
reports which I thought were shots and that appeared to me completely
different in sound than the first report and were in such rapid succession
that there seemed to be practically no time element between them. It
looked to me as if the President was struck in the right upper rear of his
head. The first shot of the second two seemed as if it missed because the
hair on the right side of his head flew forward and there didn't seem to
be any impact against his head. The last shot seemed to hit his head and
cause a noise at the point of impact which made him fall forward and to
his left again. - Possibly four or five seconds elapsed from the time of
the first report and the last."
Hickey's recollection seems similar to Hill's whom he was close to when
the shooting began. Neither had a recollection of a first shot miss, both
saw that JFK had been hit by the first shot they remembered, and both
heard a double sound associated with the head shot. Also, if he heard a
first shot at about 126, that is about ten seconds before the head shot,
more than double what he estimated in his report. On the other hand it
fits perfectly with him only hearing the last two shots which were 4.9
seconds apart. It's possible his estimate could be wrong but that is a
considerable discrepancy. I really don't think Hickey recognized the
actual first shot.

Zapruder had vertigo and he needed his secretary, Sitzman, to hold him
steady as he stood on the concrete pedestal.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abraham_Zapruder#:~:text=Zapruder's%20secretary,%20Marilyn%20Sitzman,%20offered%20to%20assist%20Zapruder,Elm%20Street%20in%20front%20of%20the%20Book%20Depository.
If the Alvarez theory is valid, every jiggle is not the result of a gun
shot but every gun shot will cause a jiggle. For the two shots for which
we know when they were fired, the jiggle came 7-8 frames after the shot.
That allows for the time it would take the sound to reach Zapruder and
time for Zapruder to react to it. Since Zapruder was a constant distance
from Oswald for all three shots, we can expect the same time lag (7-8
frames) for all three shots if all three were fired during filming. We
have that if the shot was fired at the 150-151 frame because we see a
definite jiggle at 158.

I think you are misunderstand what I am trying to explain. At the time
of the second shot, 224, is five seconds (91 frames) after the first shot
at 133. The third shot at 313, is five seconds (89 frames) after 224,
virtually the same amount of time. I believe Hickey was saying he turned
toward the Presidential limo and 2 or 3 seconds later the first shot that
hit the President was heard followed closely by the last shot. He said
there seemed to be 4 to 5 seconds from the first report and the last. We
know there was twice as much time between the very first shot followed by
the next two that hit the President. He was referring to the shot that
first stuck the President followed by the last shot. It's just a question
of what he recalls and relating that to what actually happened and can be
seen on film.

As for the camera jiggles, it could also be caused by Zapruder being
unsteady and nervous standing on top of that 4 foot high concrete pedestal
and using that Model 414PD Bell and Howell Zoomatic Director series
8-millimeter movie camera. Bugliosy, in Reclaiming History page 477, has
the same opinion on jiggle analysis, too many jiggles at the wrong time to
relate it to exact timing of the shots.

John Corbett

2021-02-02 01:09:25 UTC

I agree John, Clint Hill is consistent with his original views from 1963.
He is one of several witnesses who only heard two shots. He gives enough
information to associate the two shots with events we see the Zapruder
Shot 1 - JFK raises his arms and starts slumping to his left.
Shot 2 - JFK is hit in the head.
If all of the witnesses had said this was what happened we would have a
very simple case to solve!

John, I don't "rely primarily on witnesses", I primarily rely on the films
and photos for my work, with the witness evidence fitting into the visual
narrative. For example if a witness said JFK raised his arms after the
first shot I deduce the shot was fired in the second or so just before
what we see at Z225-Z230 in the Zapruder film.
All my percentages come from the published statements and testimony as
https://github.com/matyler/mc63.dpws/blob/master/mc63_dpws.csv
If you spot any errors or omissions, or disagree with my workings I'm
happy to listen and improve things if I am wrong.
I agree with you, I'm sure some witnesses did get important things wrong,
but I don't see how so many witnesses only heard one early shot before JFK
and Connally reacted to being wounded. A small amount like 10-20% I could
understand as they may have been distracted or been some distance away,
but surely the dozens of people in front of the TSBD couldn't all miss
such a noisy gunshot? The simplest and easiest explanation is that there
was no shot before Z180, then the witness evidence makes perfect sense and
fits into the Zapruder film narrative without any timing anomalies.

Connally said he felt pain two seconds after the noise of the first shot
(the rapidity of the two shots was a point he emphasised many times, which
seems credible given his experience with bolt action guns). This means
his testimony is *NOT* consistent with a shot at Z150, which he heard
circa Z155-Z160, and him being hit later at Z225 (a gap of 3.8 seconds).
In summary, the Connally head turn is the cornerstone of the evidence in
favour of the Z150 shot theory, which is based on his own testimony.
However, for this timing to be correct you have to ignore Connally's often
repeated explanation of the first shot and his own injury. Accepting one
statement from Connally as gospel truth, but ignoring or rejecting another
without good reason seems like cherry-picking. Without other clear
witness or film support, I have no choice but to conclude it's a theory
without concrete foundations (despite it's enduring popularity with many
researchers).

Weighing the various parts of Connally's statement is not cherry picking.
We can give credibility to the parts that are corroborated by the Z-film.
He said upon hearing the first shot he turned to look to his right and
unable to see anything, he was starting to turn back to his left when he
felt the bullet strike him in the back. He believed he was facing directly
to the front when he felt the bullet hit but the Z-film indicates he was
still turned to his right when the bullet struck. His belief there was two
seconds between the shots is pure guesswork because he wasn't timing the
shots. There is nothing that indicates his guess is an an accurate one.
Like most witnesses, Connally was right about somethings and demonstrably
wrong about others. It makes no sense to take the position that we must
accept all or nothing regarding his account. We can accept those elements
for which there is supporting evidence and reject those parts that are
refuted. That is how we should treat the statements of any witness. Accept
what is corroborated and reject what is refuted. If we don't have evidence
that is either corroborates or refutes what a witness has told us, we
simply have to regard such an account as unconfirmed.

Corroboration is indeed the key, so can you list the witnesses statements
from 1963/4 that corroborate the Z150 first shot theory?

I don't use witnesses to corroborate anything. That's putting the cart
before the horse. Witnesses need to be corroborated.

On the contrary, there is ample concrete and consistent evidence of when

Nonsense. It is based solely on your interpretation of what select
witnesses said. There is nothing concrete about it.

Post by Mark Tyler
- Z190-Z210 is the largest and longest blurring episode of the Z-film
before the fatal shot, indicating Zapruder being startled just after the
first shot was fired.

That should tell you the blurring is probably not the result of a gunshot.
Why would we expect the blurring for that shot to be longer than that
following the other two shots.

So-and-so said is not concrete evidence.

Post by Mark Tyler
- Phil Willis took his photo "5" at exactly Z202 and he said he took the
photo immediately after he heard the shot noise.

So-and-so said is not concrete evidence.

Post by Mark Tyler
- Hugh Betzner took his photo "3" at exactly Z186 and he said he heard the
shot noise immediately after he took the photo (explicitly ruling out
any shot fired before Z180).

So-and-so said is not concrete evidence.

That doesn't tell us how long after the shot before he turned. Connally
also said he turned to his right after he heard the first shot. He turned
at Z164.

Again, this doesn't tell us how quickly he reacted.

One witness giving incorrect information is not corroboration for another
witness giving incorrect information.

How did you determine their memories were reliable?

That would rule out a shot before Z180 if we knew your selected witnesses
were correct. You have offered no evidence that supports them. You are
simply assuming they were correct.

That's a possibility but the evidence for that seems rather flimsy.

Post by ***@yahoo.com
The next time you see him moving his hand is when he is waving at the
crowed just before the limo passes behind the sign.

For the subsequent shots for which we know about when they were fired,
there is a noticeable camera jiggle 7-8 frames following the firing of the
shot. This accounts for the time it would take the sound to reach Zapruder
and his reaction to those sounds. These jiggles lasted 3 frames, 227-229
and 318-320. We should expect a similar reaction be Zapruder to the first
shot. It's theoretically possible both shot and reaction were before he
resumed filming. There is a clear jiggle at 134 which would equate to a
shot fired at theoretical 126-127. The problem I have with that is that
134 jiggle only lasts for one frame. By 135, he seems to have steadied the
camera. That indicates to me that jiggle might have been the result of him
pressing the trigger on the camera. Just an educated guess. For the sake
of argument let's say there was a shot fired at 126. Connally hears that
about 128. That's 36 frames or about two seconds after hearing the shot.
That would indicate a fairly slow reaction by him. Possible but I find a
more abrupt reaction, about 12 frames after hearing a sound more likely.
What is your source for Hickey's statement? I looked on McAdams' witness
page and all it has is his original report. Based on that, it appears to
me that like others who were on the right of the limos (Hill, Jackie,
Nellie), he didn't even recognize the first shot. His description seems to
indicate he thought JFK was hit by the first shot which he recognized.
Based on his description, it seems he heard a double sound from the head
shot.
"The motorcade then left the airport and proceeded along the parade route.
Just prior to the shooting the Presidential car turned left at the
intersection and started down an incline toward an underpass followed by
679X. After a very short distance I heard a loud report which sounded like
a firecracker. It appeared to come from the right and rear and seemed to
me to be at ground level. I stood up and looked to my right and rear in an
attempt to identify it. Nothing caught my attention except people shouting
and cheering. A disturbance in 679X caused me to look forward toward the
President's car. Perhaps 2 or 3 seconds elapsed from the time I looked to
the rear and then looked at the President. He was slumped forward and to
his left, and was straightening up to an almost erect sitting position as
I turned and looked. At the moment he was almost sitting erect I heard two
reports which I thought were shots and that appeared to me completely
different in sound than the first report and were in such rapid succession
that there seemed to be practically no time element between them. It
looked to me as if the President was struck in the right upper rear of his
head. The first shot of the second two seemed as if it missed because the
hair on the right side of his head flew forward and there didn't seem to
be any impact against his head. The last shot seemed to hit his head and
cause a noise at the point of impact which made him fall forward and to
his left again. - Possibly four or five seconds elapsed from the time of
the first report and the last."
Hickey's recollection seems similar to Hill's whom he was close to when
the shooting began. Neither had a recollection of a first shot miss, both
saw that JFK had been hit by the first shot they remembered, and both
heard a double sound associated with the head shot. Also, if he heard a
first shot at about 126, that is about ten seconds before the head shot,
more than double what he estimated in his report. On the other hand it
fits perfectly with him only hearing the last two shots which were 4.9
seconds apart. It's possible his estimate could be wrong but that is a
considerable discrepancy. I really don't think Hickey recognized the
actual first shot.

Zapruder had vertigo and he needed his secretary, Sitzman, to hold him
steady as he stood on the concrete pedestal.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abraham_Zapruder#:~:text=Zapruder's%20secretary,%20Marilyn%20Sitzman,%20offered%20to%20assist%20Zapruder,Elm%20Street%20in%20front%20of%20the%20Book%20Depository.
If the Alvarez theory is valid, every jiggle is not the result of a gun
shot but every gun shot will cause a jiggle. For the two shots for which
we know when they were fired, the jiggle came 7-8 frames after the shot.
That allows for the time it would take the sound to reach Zapruder and
time for Zapruder to react to it. Since Zapruder was a constant distance
from Oswald for all three shots, we can expect the same time lag (7-8
frames) for all three shots if all three were fired during filming. We
have that if the shot was fired at the 150-151 frame because we see a
definite jiggle at 158.

That doesn't seem to me to be what Hickey is saying. He is saying that
after the first shot he heard, he looked toward the President and saw that
he had been hit. He does not describe hearing a second shot before he saw
JFK had been hit. He also doesn't say he looked left after hearing the
first shot. He said he turned right and then turned back toward JFK. No
mention of a turn to the left and no mention of hearing a second shot
before seeing JFK had been hit. He does say he heard two more shots after
seeing JFK had been hit that were so close together there was almost no
time between them. He also said the total time between the first and last
shot was five seconds. Under your scenario, the total time frame was
almost ten seconds. The only way I can resolve Hickey's statement with
other known facts is that like Hill, he didn't recognize the first shot
miss and thought the shot that hit JFK was the first shot.

As for the camera jiggles, it could also be caused by Zapruder being
unsteady and nervous standing on top of that 4 foot high concrete pedestal
and using that Model 414PD Bell and Howell Zoomatic Director series
8-millimeter movie camera. Bugliosy, in Reclaiming History page 477, has
the same opinion on jiggle analysis, too many jiggles at the wrong time to
relate it to exact timing of the shots.

As a I said before, every jiggle is not associated with a shot but every
shot is associated with a jiggle. If the first shot was fired at 150,
there is a jiggle 7-8 frames after each of the three shots. That allows
for the time it would take the sound to reach Zapruder and Zapruder to
react to it.

allan...@yahoo.com

2021-02-04 03:08:50 UTC

I agree John, Clint Hill is consistent with his original views from 1963.
He is one of several witnesses who only heard two shots. He gives enough
information to associate the two shots with events we see the Zapruder
Shot 1 - JFK raises his arms and starts slumping to his left.
Shot 2 - JFK is hit in the head.
If all of the witnesses had said this was what happened we would have a
very simple case to solve!

John, I don't "rely primarily on witnesses", I primarily rely on the films
and photos for my work, with the witness evidence fitting into the visual
narrative. For example if a witness said JFK raised his arms after the
first shot I deduce the shot was fired in the second or so just before
what we see at Z225-Z230 in the Zapruder film.
All my percentages come from the published statements and testimony as
https://github.com/matyler/mc63.dpws/blob/master/mc63_dpws.csv
If you spot any errors or omissions, or disagree with my workings I'm
happy to listen and improve things if I am wrong.
I agree with you, I'm sure some witnesses did get important things wrong,
but I don't see how so many witnesses only heard one early shot before JFK
and Connally reacted to being wounded. A small amount like 10-20% I could
understand as they may have been distracted or been some distance away,
but surely the dozens of people in front of the TSBD couldn't all miss
such a noisy gunshot? The simplest and easiest explanation is that there
was no shot before Z180, then the witness evidence makes perfect sense and
fits into the Zapruder film narrative without any timing anomalies.

Connally said he felt pain two seconds after the noise of the first shot
(the rapidity of the two shots was a point he emphasised many times, which
seems credible given his experience with bolt action guns). This means
his testimony is *NOT* consistent with a shot at Z150, which he heard
circa Z155-Z160, and him being hit later at Z225 (a gap of 3.8 seconds).
In summary, the Connally head turn is the cornerstone of the evidence in
favour of the Z150 shot theory, which is based on his own testimony.
However, for this timing to be correct you have to ignore Connally's often
repeated explanation of the first shot and his own injury. Accepting one
statement from Connally as gospel truth, but ignoring or rejecting another
without good reason seems like cherry-picking. Without other clear
witness or film support, I have no choice but to conclude it's a theory
without concrete foundations (despite it's enduring popularity with many
researchers).

Weighing the various parts of Connally's statement is not cherry picking.
We can give credibility to the parts that are corroborated by the Z-film.
He said upon hearing the first shot he turned to look to his right and
unable to see anything, he was starting to turn back to his left when he
felt the bullet strike him in the back. He believed he was facing directly
to the front when he felt the bullet hit but the Z-film indicates he was
still turned to his right when the bullet struck. His belief there was two
seconds between the shots is pure guesswork because he wasn't timing the
shots. There is nothing that indicates his guess is an an accurate one.
Like most witnesses, Connally was right about somethings and demonstrably
wrong about others. It makes no sense to take the position that we must
accept all or nothing regarding his account. We can accept those elements
for which there is supporting evidence and reject those parts that are
refuted. That is how we should treat the statements of any witness. Accept
what is corroborated and reject what is refuted. If we don't have evidence
that is either corroborates or refutes what a witness has told us, we
simply have to regard such an account as unconfirmed.

Corroboration is indeed the key, so can you list the witnesses statements
from 1963/4 that corroborate the Z150 first shot theory?

I don't use witnesses to corroborate anything. That's putting the cart
before the horse. Witnesses need to be corroborated.

On the contrary, there is ample concrete and consistent evidence of when

Nonsense. It is based solely on your interpretation of what select
witnesses said. There is nothing concrete about it.

Post by Mark Tyler
- Z190-Z210 is the largest and longest blurring episode of the Z-film
before the fatal shot, indicating Zapruder being startled just after the
first shot was fired.

That should tell you the blurring is probably not the result of a gunshot.
Why would we expect the blurring for that shot to be longer than that
following the other two shots.

So-and-so said is not concrete evidence.

Post by Mark Tyler
- Phil Willis took his photo "5" at exactly Z202 and he said he took the
photo immediately after he heard the shot noise.

So-and-so said is not concrete evidence.

Post by Mark Tyler
- Hugh Betzner took his photo "3" at exactly Z186 and he said he heard the
shot noise immediately after he took the photo (explicitly ruling out
any shot fired before Z180).

So-and-so said is not concrete evidence.

That doesn't tell us how long after the shot before he turned. Connally
also said he turned to his right after he heard the first shot. He turned
at Z164.

Again, this doesn't tell us how quickly he reacted.

One witness giving incorrect information is not corroboration for another
witness giving incorrect information.

How did you determine their memories were reliable?

That would rule out a shot before Z180 if we knew your selected witnesses
were correct. You have offered no evidence that supports them. You are
simply assuming they were correct.

That's a possibility but the evidence for that seems rather flimsy.

Post by ***@yahoo.com
The next time you see him moving his hand is when he is waving at the
crowed just before the limo passes behind the sign.

For the subsequent shots for which we know about when they were fired,
there is a noticeable camera jiggle 7-8 frames following the firing of the
shot. This accounts for the time it would take the sound to reach Zapruder
and his reaction to those sounds. These jiggles lasted 3 frames, 227-229
and 318-320. We should expect a similar reaction be Zapruder to the first
shot. It's theoretically possible both shot and reaction were before he
resumed filming. There is a clear jiggle at 134 which would equate to a
shot fired at theoretical 126-127. The problem I have with that is that
134 jiggle only lasts for one frame. By 135, he seems to have steadied the
camera. That indicates to me that jiggle might have been the result of him
pressing the trigger on the camera. Just an educated guess. For the sake
of argument let's say there was a shot fired at 126. Connally hears that
about 128. That's 36 frames or about two seconds after hearing the shot.
That would indicate a fairly slow reaction by him. Possible but I find a
more abrupt reaction, about 12 frames after hearing a sound more likely.
What is your source for Hickey's statement? I looked on McAdams' witness
page and all it has is his original report. Based on that, it appears to
me that like others who were on the right of the limos (Hill, Jackie,
Nellie), he didn't even recognize the first shot. His description seems to
indicate he thought JFK was hit by the first shot which he recognized.
Based on his description, it seems he heard a double sound from the head
shot.
"The motorcade then left the airport and proceeded along the parade route.
Just prior to the shooting the Presidential car turned left at the
intersection and started down an incline toward an underpass followed by
679X. After a very short distance I heard a loud report which sounded like
a firecracker. It appeared to come from the right and rear and seemed to
me to be at ground level. I stood up and looked to my right and rear in an
attempt to identify it. Nothing caught my attention except people shouting
and cheering. A disturbance in 679X caused me to look forward toward the
President's car. Perhaps 2 or 3 seconds elapsed from the time I looked to
the rear and then looked at the President. He was slumped forward and to
his left, and was straightening up to an almost erect sitting position as
I turned and looked. At the moment he was almost sitting erect I heard two
reports which I thought were shots and that appeared to me completely
different in sound than the first report and were in such rapid succession
that there seemed to be practically no time element between them. It
looked to me as if the President was struck in the right upper rear of his
head. The first shot of the second two seemed as if it missed because the
hair on the right side of his head flew forward and there didn't seem to
be any impact against his head. The last shot seemed to hit his head and
cause a noise at the point of impact which made him fall forward and to
his left again. - Possibly four or five seconds elapsed from the time of
the first report and the last."
Hickey's recollection seems similar to Hill's whom he was close to when
the shooting began. Neither had a recollection of a first shot miss, both
saw that JFK had been hit by the first shot they remembered, and both
heard a double sound associated with the head shot. Also, if he heard a
first shot at about 126, that is about ten seconds before the head shot,
more than double what he estimated in his report. On the other hand it
fits perfectly with him only hearing the last two shots which were 4.9
seconds apart. It's possible his estimate could be wrong but that is a
considerable discrepancy. I really don't think Hickey recognized the
actual first shot.

Zapruder had vertigo and he needed his secretary, Sitzman, to hold him
steady as he stood on the concrete pedestal.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abraham_Zapruder#:~:text=Zapruder's%20secretary,%20Marilyn%20Sitzman,%20offered%20to%20assist%20Zapruder,Elm%20Street%20in%20front%20of%20the%20Book%20Depository.
If the Alvarez theory is valid, every jiggle is not the result of a gun
shot but every gun shot will cause a jiggle. For the two shots for which
we know when they were fired, the jiggle came 7-8 frames after the shot.
That allows for the time it would take the sound to reach Zapruder and
time for Zapruder to react to it. Since Zapruder was a constant distance
from Oswald for all three shots, we can expect the same time lag (7-8
frames) for all three shots if all three were fired during filming. We
have that if the shot was fired at the 150-151 frame because we see a
definite jiggle at 158.

Although I totally believe Hickey when he says he looked to his right
after hearing the first shot, you never see him, on any film or photo,
doing that. On the Zapruder film, at the very beginning at 133, you see
him looking slightly right then turning left to look over the side of the
car. If the first shot was at or after 150, you have to also consider at
that time Rosemary Willis, who came out of the shadow and into the light
at 143, is already looking back and the limo is passing her. She
maintains that same posture, looking back, until she stops running many
frames later. Hickey, at the same 143 mark, is looking over the left side
of the car. As the film moves on, you only see Hickey move back to facing
forward, not looking right, until he goes off camera at the 214 mark. If
Hickey says he looked to his right after hearing the first shot, and you
don't see him doing that on camera, the first shot had to be at, slightly
before or after the 214 mark. That's less than a second from the 224
second shot that is actually verifiable. That's virtually an impossible
scenario.

The timing of the first shot is a subject that is definitely debatable.

There are many possibilities, it's just comes down to analyzing the known
evidence. I agree with virtually all of your viewpoints and positions
concerning this case, were on the same page. This one subject of when the
first shot was fired is hard to pin down with definite proof. I just
don't think it could have happened at or after the 150 mark when you never
see Hickey move to look to his right any time after that, as well as the
other evidence brought up in previous posts.

John Corbett

2021-02-04 13:47:01 UTC

Post by John Corbett
If the Alvarez theory is valid, every jiggle is not the result of a gun
shot but every gun shot will cause a jiggle. For the two shots for which
we know when they were fired, the jiggle came 7-8 frames after the shot.
That allows for the time it would take the sound to reach Zapruder and
time for Zapruder to react to it. Since Zapruder was a constant distance
from Oswald for all three shots, we can expect the same time lag (7-8
frames) for all three shots if all three were fired during filming. We
have that if the shot was fired at the 150-151 frame because we see a
definite jiggle at 158.

Why would Hickey look over the left side of the car in reaction to a sound
that he described as coming from his right rear?

Post by ***@yahoo.com
As the film moves on, you only see Hickey move back to facing
forward, not looking right, until he goes off camera at the 214 mark. If
Hickey says he looked to his right after hearing the first shot, and you
don't see him doing that on camera, the first shot had to be at, slightly
before or after the 214 mark. That's less than a second from the 224
second shot that is actually verifiable. That's virtually an impossible
scenario.

Hickey only remembers hearing two shots, the single bullet and a double
sound from the head shot which he interpreted as two shots but was almost
certainly just one. If Hickey doesn't even remember hearing the first
shot, it makes no sense to me to try to interpret any of those earlier
movements as a reaction to a gunshot. I don't believe HIckey reacted at
all to the first shot, whether you believe the first shot was pre-133 or
post-150.

Post by ***@yahoo.com
The timing of the first shot is a subject that is definitely debatable.

As I have said all along. I see absolutely nothing in the Z-film from 133
going forward that would indicate a shot had already been fired nor have I
read anyone's description of what they saw or heard that would indicate
that.

Post by ***@yahoo.com
There are many possibilities, it's just comes down to analyzing the known
evidence. I agree with virtually all of your viewpoints and positions
concerning this case, were on the same page. This one subject of when the
first shot was fired is hard to pin down with definite proof. I just
don't think it could have happened at or after the 150 mark when you never
see Hickey move to look to his right any time after that, as well as the
other evidence brought up in previous posts.

I wouldn't expect to see a reaction by Hickey since he seems not not have
heard a shot until the one that hit JFK by which time he was out of the
picture. He does seem to be looking back to the right in the Altgens
photo. That fits perfectly with how he described his reaction to what he
thought was the first shot but was probably the second.

allan...@yahoo.com

2021-02-04 23:41:49 UTC

Why would Hickey look over the left side of the car in reaction to a sound
that he described as coming from his right rear?

Post by ***@yahoo.com
The timing of the first shot is a subject that is definitely debatable.

Where do you think Hickey is in the Altgens photo? The person behind
the driver looking back is Ken O'Donnell, the two agents on the right side
of the car looking back are John Ready and Paul Landis (who, by the way,
stated (Reclaiming History, page 39) he also immediately looked to his
right after hearing the first shot but you never see him doing that on the
Zapruder film from the time he first appears at 154 until 203 when he goes
off. Hickey is in the back seat, seen next to Glen Bennett sitting to his
right, his face is obscured by the sun visor above the drivers head. If
the first shot was at or after 203, that's only 21 frames until the next
shot, not a very likely scenario, another reason to think the first shot
was way before 154). The Altgens photo was taken at or after the 260
mark. You can tell that by the position of Jackies hand on Johns arm on
the Zapruder film, she didn't get it to that position until that time.
That's at least two seconds after the second shot. That's plenty of time
to see Ready and Landis responding to the second shot, not the first, by
looking to the right rear.

There is no evidence on the Zapruder film of Hickey and Landis looking
to their right after hearing the first shot, but I believe them when they
stated that. They were right, it did come from the right. Meaning if the
first shot wasn't taken before they appeared on camera, it was taken
during or after they appear. There is no evidence of either of them
turning to their right while on camera. If the first shot was fired after
they appeared on camera, 203 for Landis, 214 for Hickey, that's too short
a time frame between 1 and 2. If any visual evidence is ever produced to
show Hickey or Landis looking to their right after 150 and before 224, or
sooner, that would change my opinion, I'll keep an open mind and keep
looking.

I believe Landis did turn to his right after hearing the first shot,
but you don't see him doing that any time after the 156 mark when he first
appeared on camera, The same with Hickey, you never see him looking right
after he appears on camera at the beginning starting at 133 until going
off at 214. Combine that with Rosemary Willis looking behind to her to
the right after coming out of the shadows at the 143 mark, after the limo
is starting to pass her by, and maintaining that position until she stops
running, just makes me believe the first shot was at or just before the
133 mark.

John Corbett

2021-02-05 03:54:14 UTC

Why would Hickey look over the left side of the car in reaction to a sound
that he described as coming from his right rear?

Post by ***@yahoo.com
The timing of the first shot is a subject that is definitely debatable.

I don't get your reasoning. If that isn't Hickey turning to look back to
the right then we have no photographic record of what Hickey did following
the single bullet. You keep ignoring the fact that Hickey didn't hear the
first shot so we have no reason to expect to see a reaction to that shot.
The single bullet was fired at about Z220 and Hickey would have heard it
about Z223. He likely would have reacted at about Z227. There is no reason
to expect to see a reaction before that and after that he is out of the
picture so the fact we don't see Hickey turned to his right is
meaningless. We shouldn't see that.

There is no evidence on the Zapruder film of Hickey and Landis looking
to their right after hearing the first shot, but I believe them when they
stated that.

See above. Hickey didn't hear the first shot. He is out of the picture
when the second shot was fired. Why would you expect to see him turned to
the right?

They were right, it did come from the right. Meaning if the
first shot wasn't taken before they appeared on camera, it was taken
during or after they appear. There is no evidence of either of them
turning to their right while on camera.

Nor should we expect any.

If the first shot was fired after
they appeared on camera, 203 for Landis, 214 for Hickey, that's too short
a time frame between 1 and 2. If any visual evidence is ever produced to
show Hickey or Landis looking to their right after 150 and before 224, or
sooner, that would change my opinion, I'll keep an open mind and keep
looking.

Until you accept the fact Hickey did not hear the first shot, you aren't
going to figure this out. He didn't hear a shot until he was out of the
picture.

I believe Landis did turn to his right after hearing the first shot,
but you don't see him doing that any time after the 156 mark when he first
appeared on camera, The same with Hickey, you never see him looking right
after he appears on camera at the beginning starting at 133 until going
off at 214. Combine that with Rosemary Willis looking behind to her to
the right after coming out of the shadows at the 143 mark, after the limo
is starting to pass her by, and maintaining that position until she stops
running, just makes me believe the first shot was at or just before the
133 mark.

Since you introduced Landis into the conversation, I went back and checked
his report. Like Hickey and Hill, he seems not to have noticed the first
shot. He believes the first shot hit JFK and the second shot was the head
shot. That means he didn't hear the first shot miss and therefore we would
have no reason to expect to see his reaction. His report said his first
reaction was to look toward the President. It really doesn't matter
because like Hickey he was out of the picture when he first heard a shot.

It makes no sense to expect to see Hickey or Landis react to a shot they
didn't notice nor does it make sense to expect to see a reaction by them
to a shot that wasn't fired until they were out of view of Zapruder's
camera. The lack of a visible reaction from either man means nothing.
Their reaction was out of sight.

allan...@yahoo.com

2021-02-05 19:20:11 UTC

Why would Hickey look over the left side of the car in reaction to a sound
that he described as coming from his right rear?

Post by ***@yahoo.com
The timing of the first shot is a subject that is definitely debatable.

There is no evidence on the Zapruder film of Hickey and Landis looking
to their right after hearing the first shot, but I believe them when they
stated that.

See above. Hickey didn't hear the first shot. He is out of the picture
when the second shot was fired. Why would you expect to see him turned to
the right?

Nor should we expect any.

Until you accept the fact Hickey did not hear the first shot, you aren't
going to figure this out. He didn't hear a shot until he was out of the
picture.

Since you introduced Landis into the conversation, I went back and checked
his report. Like Hickey and Hill, he seems not to have noticed the first
shot. He believes the first shot hit JFK and the second shot was the head
shot. That means he didn't hear the first shot miss and therefore we would
have no reason to expect to see his reaction. His report said his first
reaction was to look toward the President. It really doesn't matter
because like Hickey he was out of the picture when he first heard a shot.
It makes no sense to expect to see Hickey or Landis react to a shot they
didn't notice nor does it make sense to expect to see a reaction by them
to a shot that wasn't fired until they were out of view of Zapruder's
camera. The lack of a visible reaction from either man means nothing.
Their reaction was out of sight.

If you're saying Hickey and Landis didn't react until hearing a shot
after they went off camera, that is too short of time between the first
shot and second. Landis is off camera at 203, Hickey at 214. The second
shot hit at 224 can be accurately determined, it's on camera. That means
that there was less than a second after Hickey heard the shot and a little
more than a second for Landis. Way too short a time for Oswald to get off
two shots in that time frame. As I stated before, you don't see a turn to
the right from Landis and Hickey (except Hickey turning from his right to
his left at starting at 133) at ANY time during the Zapruder film. After
they go off camera you cannot see their reactions, so the exact timing of
the first shot cannot be determined that way.

Again, as I pointed out previously, that is NOT Hickey behind the
driver in the followup car in the Altgens photo, it's not him looking
back, it is Ken O'Donnell. Look again carefully at it. You will see the
left hand of O'Donnell on the grab bar behind the driver, it's not the
drivers hand on the steering wheel, O'Donnell is looking back over to his
right at the same time as the two SS Agents on the right side running
board, John Ready and Paul Landis. The grab bar is between the first row
seats and the second row. Ken O'Donnell was sitting directly behind the
driver and Dave Powers was sitting to the right of O'Donnell in the second
row.. Hickey is in the third row seat to the left of Glen Bennett.
Also, as I mentioned before, that picture was taken by Altgens no sooner
than the 260 mark of the Zapruder film. You can tell that by the the
position of Jackies hand on JFK's arm on the Zapruder film. She didn't
move it to that position until at least the 260 mark, or even later.
That means the reaction of the Agents and O'Donnell is at least two
seconds AFTER the second shot. Plenty of time to look back after the shot
was heard. It's is their reaction to the SECOND shot, not the first.

allan...@yahoo.com

2021-02-05 19:20:27 UTC

Why would Hickey look over the left side of the car in reaction to a sound
that he described as coming from his right rear?

Post by ***@yahoo.com
The timing of the first shot is a subject that is definitely debatable.

There is no evidence on the Zapruder film of Hickey and Landis looking
to their right after hearing the first shot, but I believe them when they
stated that.

See above. Hickey didn't hear the first shot. He is out of the picture
when the second shot was fired. Why would you expect to see him turned to
the right?

Nor should we expect any.

Until you accept the fact Hickey did not hear the first shot, you aren't
going to figure this out. He didn't hear a shot until he was out of the
picture.

Since you introduced Landis into the conversation, I went back and checked
his report. Like Hickey and Hill, he seems not to have noticed the first
shot. He believes the first shot hit JFK and the second shot was the head
shot. That means he didn't hear the first shot miss and therefore we would
have no reason to expect to see his reaction. His report said his first
reaction was to look toward the President. It really doesn't matter
because like Hickey he was out of the picture when he first heard a shot.
It makes no sense to expect to see Hickey or Landis react to a shot they
didn't notice nor does it make sense to expect to see a reaction by them
to a shot that wasn't fired until they were out of view of Zapruder's
camera. The lack of a visible reaction from either man means nothing.
Their reaction was out of sight.

Also, as we both pointed out before, witness recollections of the
events and their memory of the timing of things varies from witness to
witness, even concerning the same issue. Some can be verified, others are
subject to more confirming proof and evidence. Video and photo evidence
is a better source of that then what people recollect.

John Corbett

2021-02-06 20:26:13 UTC

Why would Hickey look over the left side of the car in reaction to a sound
that he described as coming from his right rear?

Post by ***@yahoo.com
The timing of the first shot is a subject that is definitely debatable.

There is no evidence on the Zapruder film of Hickey and Landis looking
to their right after hearing the first shot, but I believe them when they
stated that.

See above. Hickey didn't hear the first shot. He is out of the picture
when the second shot was fired. Why would you expect to see him turned to
the right?

Nor should we expect any.

Until you accept the fact Hickey did not hear the first shot, you aren't
going to figure this out. He didn't hear a shot until he was out of the
picture.

Since you introduced Landis into the conversation, I went back and checked
his report. Like Hickey and Hill, he seems not to have noticed the first
shot. He believes the first shot hit JFK and the second shot was the head
shot. That means he didn't hear the first shot miss and therefore we would
have no reason to expect to see his reaction. His report said his first
reaction was to look toward the President. It really doesn't matter
because like Hickey he was out of the picture when he first heard a shot.
It makes no sense to expect to see Hickey or Landis react to a shot they
didn't notice nor does it make sense to expect to see a reaction by them
to a shot that wasn't fired until they were out of view of Zapruder's
camera. The lack of a visible reaction from either man means nothing.
Their reaction was out of sight.

I agree. The point is that there is nothing in the Z-film that by itself
would indicate a pre-133 shot. Your whole argument seems to be that Hickey
said he turned to his right upon hearing the first shot and we don't see
him turning right. If Hickey correctly described his action following the
first shot he heard, that leaves us with two possibilities. The first shot
he heard came before 133 or the first shot he heard came after 214 when he
disappears from view. The problem with the pre-133 shot is that it doesn't
fit with the other things he said. He said after turning to his right he
looked back at JFK and saw that he had been hit. He describes no other
intervening shot so either he didn't hear the first shot or JFK was hit by
the first shot. Hickey goes on to describe two more shots right on top of
each other and that was the headshot. Most likely he heard two sounds from
the same shot. It's clear Hickey (and Landis and Hill) did not hear one of
the three shots. When you look at the totality of evidence, it is easy to
make the case that it was the first shot they didn't hear. It would be
very difficult to resolve them hearing the first shot and not the second
based on everything else we know. On top of everything else, Hickey and
Landis both estimated there were 4 to 5 seconds from the first shot they
heard until the last. That fits perfectly with the two shots they heard
being the single bullet and the headshot and doesn't fit at all with them
hearing a pre-133 shot. That would double the total elapsed time for the
shooting to about 10 seconds.

allan...@yahoo.com

2021-02-07 19:02:49 UTC

Why would Hickey look over the left side of the car in reaction to a sound
that he described as coming from his right rear?

Post by ***@yahoo.com
The timing of the first shot is a subject that is definitely debatable.

There is no evidence on the Zapruder film of Hickey and Landis looking
to their right after hearing the first shot, but I believe them when they
stated that.

See above. Hickey didn't hear the first shot. He is out of the picture
when the second shot was fired. Why would you expect to see him turned to
the right?

Nor should we expect any.

Until you accept the fact Hickey did not hear the first shot, you aren't
going to figure this out. He didn't hear a shot until he was out of the
picture.

Since you introduced Landis into the conversation, I went back and checked
his report. Like Hickey and Hill, he seems not to have noticed the first
shot. He believes the first shot hit JFK and the second shot was the head
shot. That means he didn't hear the first shot miss and therefore we would
have no reason to expect to see his reaction. His report said his first
reaction was to look toward the President. It really doesn't matter
because like Hickey he was out of the picture when he first heard a shot.
It makes no sense to expect to see Hickey or Landis react to a shot they
didn't notice nor does it make sense to expect to see a reaction by them
to a shot that wasn't fired until they were out of view of Zapruder's
camera. The lack of a visible reaction from either man means nothing.
Their reaction was out of sight.

As I asked previously, do you still think that is Hickey behind the
driver in the Altgens photo turning around to his right after the second
shot? It is O'Donnell, 100%. That affects the analysis of the timing of
the events. That photo was taken at least two seconds after the second
shot and Hickey is not turning to his right.

According to what you see, Including Hill, that makes at least 4 SS
Agents who didn't hear or respond in any way after the first shot was
fired before the 224 shot (Hill, Hickey, Landis and Ready). These are
trained, experienced and professional SS Agents, not a believable
likelihood. When Landis was referring to the first and second shots he
heard he was describing the first and second shots that actually hit the
President. He actually did hear the all three. In Reclaiming History,
page 39, where witness accounts of hearing the first shot at the 0:00
start time are described - SS agent Paul Landis, riding on the right
running board of the SS followup car, knows immediately what the sound is,
the report of a high-powered rifle coming from over his right shoulder.
Landis snaps his head back toward the Depository. Nothing. He begins
scanning the crowd but doesn't see anything unusual. "What was it" agent
Ready says (standing on the same running board in front of Landis and
hearing the same sound at the same time) "a firecracker?".

In his Warren Commission appearance , If you check the Landis
testimony where he is describing his reactions to hearing the shots, he
says the same thing, he is describing 3 shots. He describes hearing that
first shot JUST AS his vehicle rounded the corner onto Elm street and was
behind the Presidential car. The 224 shot was at least 5 seconds minimum
after 133 when you first see his vehicle already behind the Presidential
limo. That's too long a time frame and too far downrange to claim he
heard that first shot when the President was hit the first time at 224.
You will see more clearly from his WC testimony that he is describing his
reaction to hearing all three shots, not just two. Again, when he is
referring to the first and second shots he means the timing and reaction
of the President being hit with those last 2 shots. Because Landis and
Ready cannot be seen until the 156 mark of the Zapruder film, and go off
at the 203 mark (2 1/2 seconds later), during which time no shots were
fired and you see no turn to the right, they had already responded
before156 when describing hearing what sounded like a firecracker, and
Landis saying he immediately knew what the sound was and snaps his head
back toward the Depository, supports the first shot being fired before the
133 start time of the Zapruder film.

John Corbett

2021-02-08 01:11:17 UTC

Why would Hickey look over the left side of the car in reaction to a sound
that he described as coming from his right rear?

Post by ***@yahoo.com
The timing of the first shot is a subject that is definitely debatable.

There is no evidence on the Zapruder film of Hickey and Landis looking
to their right after hearing the first shot, but I believe them when they
stated that.

See above. Hickey didn't hear the first shot. He is out of the picture
when the second shot was fired. Why would you expect to see him turned to
the right?

Nor should we expect any.

Until you accept the fact Hickey did not hear the first shot, you aren't
going to figure this out. He didn't hear a shot until he was out of the
picture.

Since you introduced Landis into the conversation, I went back and checked
his report. Like Hickey and Hill, he seems not to have noticed the first
shot. He believes the first shot hit JFK and the second shot was the head
shot. That means he didn't hear the first shot miss and therefore we would
have no reason to expect to see his reaction. His report said his first
reaction was to look toward the President. It really doesn't matter
because like Hickey he was out of the picture when he first heard a shot.
It makes no sense to expect to see Hickey or Landis react to a shot they
didn't notice nor does it make sense to expect to see a reaction by them
to a shot that wasn't fired until they were out of view of Zapruder's
camera. The lack of a visible reaction from either man means nothing.
Their reaction was out of sight.

If that is not Hickey, we don't know which way he is turned and even if he
is not turned to the right, it proves nothing. He said he turned right and
then looked back toward the President. We don't know how long it took him
to make either move so at that point he could be looking right or straight
ahead. Either would fit with him hearing the second shot and believing it
was the first.

Post by ***@yahoo.com
According to what you see, Including Hill, that makes at least 4 SS
Agents who didn't hear or respond in any way after the first shot was
fired before the 224 shot (Hill, Hickey, Landis and Ready).

With the motorcycles roaring right next to them, that is a very real
possibility. They had just come out of a sharp turn and when a
motorcyclist hits the throttle, there will be a roar. In this case times
four. It's easy to understand that the sound of the first gun shot could
have been drown out or caused them to mistake the sound for a motorcycle
backfire. In any case, we have the same conundrum whether we believe the
first shot was fired at Z150 or pre-133. The shot these men described as
the first shot sounds as if they are describing the second. The only other
way to resolve this problem is to accept that they really did hear the
first shot and the miss came after that shot. That doesn't work for you
pre-133 shot. It also leaves unexplained why Connally heard a shot several
seconds before he felt the shot that hit him.

Post by ***@yahoo.com
These are trained, experienced and professional SS Agents, not a believable
likelihood.

That doesn't give them super human powers. They would not be able to hear
better than ordinary laymen when motorcycles were roaring at the time the
first shot was fired.

Post by ***@yahoo.com
When Landis was referring to the first and second shots he
heard he was describing the first and second shots that actually hit the
President.

Agreed. So how does that fit with your pre-133 shot?

Post by ***@yahoo.com
He actually did hear the all three. In Reclaiming History,
page 39, where witness accounts of hearing the first shot at the 0:00
start time are described - SS agent Paul Landis, riding on the right
running board of the SS followup car, knows immediately what the sound is,
the report of a high-powered rifle coming from over his right shoulder.
Landis snaps his head back toward the Depository.

How do you establish that was the first shot he was reacting to?

Post by ***@yahoo.com
Nothing. He begins
scanning the crowd but doesn't see anything unusual. "What was it" agent
Ready says (standing on the same running board in front of Landis and
hearing the same sound at the same time) "a firecracker?".
In his Warren Commission appearance , If you check the Landis
testimony where he is describing his reactions to hearing the shots, he
says the same thing, he is describing 3 shots. He describes hearing that
first shot JUST AS his vehicle rounded the corner onto Elm street and was
behind the Presidential car. The 224 shot was at least 5 seconds minimum
after 133 when you first see his vehicle already behind the Presidential
limo. That's too long a time frame and too far downrange to claim he
heard that first shot when the President was hit the first time at 224.

Why? Do you think anybody took note of precisely where the cars were on
Elm St. When they first heard a shot. Again, you are putting too much
faith in individuals to precisely remember the timing and sequence of
events.

Post by ***@yahoo.com
You will see more clearly from his WC testimony that he is describing his
reaction to hearing all three shots, not just two.

I have no idea how you reach that conclusion. McAdams' witness page
shows no WC testimony from Landis nor does this index of WC witnesses.
Do you know something they don't?

What we have is Landis' report. This is the pertinent parargraph:

"It was at this moment that I heard a second report and it appeared that
the President's head split open with a muffled exploding sound. I can best
describe the sound as I heard it, as the sound you would get by shooting a
high powered bullet into a five gallon can of water or shooting into a
melon. I saw pieces of flesh and blood flying through the air and the
President slumped out of sight towards Mrs. Kennedy."

There you have it. By Landis account, it was the SECOND shot he heard that
hit the President in the head. I don't know how you resolve that with him
hearing three shots unless you think he heard one after the headshot. Up
until this point in his report, he had described only hearing one other
shot and then how he reacted to it.

Post by ***@yahoo.com
Again, when he is
referring to the first and second shots he means the timing and reaction
of the President being hit with those last 2 shots.

Now you are just assuming things he never said.

Post by ***@yahoo.com
Because Landis and
Ready cannot be seen until the 156 mark of the Zapruder film, and go off
at the 203 mark (2 1/2 seconds later), during which time no shots were
fired

Probably not. My belief is the shot occurred a split second earlier and
didn't recognize it.

Post by ***@yahoo.com
and you see no turn to the right, they had already responded
before156 when describing hearing what sounded like a firecracker,

Pure assumption by you. You have offered no evidence to support it.

Post by ***@yahoo.com
Landis saying he immediately knew what the sound was and snaps his head
back toward the Depository, supports the first shot being fired before the
133 start time of the Zapruder film.

If he snapped his head to the right before 133, how would you even know
it?

allan...@yahoo.com

2021-02-09 03:40:07 UTC

Why would Hickey look over the left side of the car in reaction to a sound
that he described as coming from his right rear?

Post by ***@yahoo.com
The timing of the first shot is a subject that is definitely debatable.

There is no evidence on the Zapruder film of Hickey and Landis looking
to their right after hearing the first shot, but I believe them when they
stated that.

See above. Hickey didn't hear the first shot. He is out of the picture
when the second shot was fired. Why would you expect to see him turned to
the right?

Nor should we expect any.

Until you accept the fact Hickey did not hear the first shot, you aren't
going to figure this out. He didn't hear a shot until he was out of the
picture.

Since you introduced Landis into the conversation, I went back and checked
his report. Like Hickey and Hill, he seems not to have noticed the first
shot. He believes the first shot hit JFK and the second shot was the head
shot. That means he didn't hear the first shot miss and therefore we would
have no reason to expect to see his reaction. His report said his first
reaction was to look toward the President. It really doesn't matter
because like Hickey he was out of the picture when he first heard a shot.
It makes no sense to expect to see Hickey or Landis react to a shot they
didn't notice nor does it make sense to expect to see a reaction by them
to a shot that wasn't fired until they were out of view of Zapruder's
camera. The lack of a visible reaction from either man means nothing.
Their reaction was out of sight.

Post by ***@yahoo.com
These are trained, experienced and professional SS Agents, not a believable
likelihood.

That doesn't give them super human powers. They would not be able to hear
better than ordinary laymen when motorcycles were roaring at the time the
first shot was fired.

Post by ***@yahoo.com
When Landis was referring to the first and second shots he
heard he was describing the first and second shots that actually hit the
President.

Agreed. So how does that fit with your pre-133 shot?

How do you establish that was the first shot he was reacting to?

Post by ***@yahoo.com
You will see more clearly from his WC testimony that he is describing his
reaction to hearing all three shots, not just two.

I have no idea how you reach that conclusion. McAdams' witness page
shows no WC testimony from Landis nor does this index of WC witnesses.
Do you know something they don't?
"It was at this moment that I heard a second report and it appeared that
the President's head split open with a muffled exploding sound. I can best
describe the sound as I heard it, as the sound you would get by shooting a
high powered bullet into a five gallon can of water or shooting into a
melon. I saw pieces of flesh and blood flying through the air and the
President slumped out of sight towards Mrs. Kennedy."
There you have it. By Landis account, it was the SECOND shot he heard that
hit the President in the head. I don't know how you resolve that with him
hearing three shots unless you think he heard one after the headshot. Up
until this point in his report, he had described only hearing one other
shot and then how he reacted to it.

Post by ***@yahoo.com
Again, when he is
referring to the first and second shots he means the timing and reaction
of the President being hit with those last 2 shots.

Now you are just assuming things he never said.

Post by ***@yahoo.com
Because Landis and
Ready cannot be seen until the 156 mark of the Zapruder film, and go off
at the 203 mark (2 1/2 seconds later), during which time no shots were
fired

Probably not. My belief is the shot occurred a split second earlier and
didn't recognize it.

Post by ***@yahoo.com
and you see no turn to the right, they had already responded
before156 when describing hearing what sounded like a firecracker,

Pure assumption by you. You have offered no evidence to support it.

If he snapped his head to the right before 133, how would you even know
it?

You can see Hickey in the Altgens photo, sitting to the left of Bennett
in the third row, face obscured by the sun visor above the drivers head.
He is looking forward and seems to be moving around like he's about to
reach for the AR-15. At this time he had already done his look to the
right, he was not looking right at the timing of this photo, at least 2 or
more seconds after the shot. As I pointed out before you can tell the
time of the Altgen's photo by the position of Jackie's hand on JFK's arm.
By looking the Zapruder film you can see she doesn't move her hand to that
position before the 260 mark, which is 2 seconds, and probably more, after
the second shot hit Kennedy in the back.

The Landis statements are in his report to the commission, not a
personal appearance, you are correct in that. The same applies to the
statement given by Glen Bennett, sitting in the rear of the SS followup
car to the right of Hickey and next to Landis riding on the outside
running board. His statement is consistent to what Landis reported, it's
just a question of Landis in his description how many he heard. In it,
Bennett states specifically he heard all three shots. He too states he
heard a first shot, followed by a second shot and then a third. When
describing the sequence he refers to the first and second shots as the
shots that actually hit Kennedy, this AFTER he heard and reacted to the
first shot sooner than that = The motorcade entered the intersection and
then proceeded down a grade. At this point I heard what sounded like a
fire cracker. I immediately look right/crowd/physical area/and then
looked toward the President. At the moment I looked at the back of the
President I heard another firecracker noise and saw the shot hit the
President about four inches down from the right shoulder. A second shot
followed immediately and hit the right rear high of the Presidents head.
I immediately hollered He's Hit and reached for the AR-15. Special agent
Hickey had already picked it up.

Again, this matches just what Landis said, and he was more specific
about the timing of the shots, he did hear and describe three shots in
sequence. When he is referring to the first and second shots he is
describing the two shots that actually hit the President, just as Landis
did, not all three (first shot sounded like a fire cracker, NEXT shot
heard hit back, 1st shot in his description, NEXT shot hit head, which he
described as the 2nd shot). The first shot, again, was heard "just as the
SS car proceeded down the grade", which occurred at or before the 133
mark, and matches what Landis said, but Bennett was very clear about when
he heard all three shots.

In a previous post you stated that the time Hickey is looking to his
left in the Zapruder film (starting to turn left at 133 and continues
until he is completely turned) he was just looking around, but that is not
entirely true. He is looking left and OVER the side of the car, his hand
supporting him on the door. This at the same time Rosemary Willis has
come out of the shadows and is looking back when the Presidents limo is
passing her and maintains that looking back position until she stops
running. Both reactions support a first shot at or before the start of
the Zapruder film, as well as the recollections of the SS agents stating
the first shot was just as they completed their turn onto Elm street.

allan...@yahoo.com

2021-02-09 03:40:10 UTC

Why would Hickey look over the left side of the car in reaction to a sound
that he described as coming from his right rear?

Post by ***@yahoo.com
The timing of the first shot is a subject that is definitely debatable.

There is no evidence on the Zapruder film of Hickey and Landis looking
to their right after hearing the first shot, but I believe them when they
stated that.

See above. Hickey didn't hear the first shot. He is out of the picture
when the second shot was fired. Why would you expect to see him turned to
the right?

Nor should we expect any.

Until you accept the fact Hickey did not hear the first shot, you aren't
going to figure this out. He didn't hear a shot until he was out of the
picture.

Since you introduced Landis into the conversation, I went back and checked
his report. Like Hickey and Hill, he seems not to have noticed the first
shot. He believes the first shot hit JFK and the second shot was the head
shot. That means he didn't hear the first shot miss and therefore we would
have no reason to expect to see his reaction. His report said his first
reaction was to look toward the President. It really doesn't matter
because like Hickey he was out of the picture when he first heard a shot.
It makes no sense to expect to see Hickey or Landis react to a shot they
didn't notice nor does it make sense to expect to see a reaction by them
to a shot that wasn't fired until they were out of view of Zapruder's
camera. The lack of a visible reaction from either man means nothing.
Their reaction was out of sight.

Post by ***@yahoo.com
These are trained, experienced and professional SS Agents, not a believable
likelihood.

That doesn't give them super human powers. They would not be able to hear
better than ordinary laymen when motorcycles were roaring at the time the
first shot was fired.

Post by ***@yahoo.com
When Landis was referring to the first and second shots he
heard he was describing the first and second shots that actually hit the
President.

Agreed. So how does that fit with your pre-133 shot?

How do you establish that was the first shot he was reacting to?

Post by ***@yahoo.com
You will see more clearly from his WC testimony that he is describing his
reaction to hearing all three shots, not just two.

Post by ***@yahoo.com
Again, when he is
referring to the first and second shots he means the timing and reaction
of the President being hit with those last 2 shots.

Now you are just assuming things he never said.

Post by ***@yahoo.com
Because Landis and
Ready cannot be seen until the 156 mark of the Zapruder film, and go off
at the 203 mark (2 1/2 seconds later), during which time no shots were
fired

Probably not. My belief is the shot occurred a split second earlier and
didn't recognize it.

Post by ***@yahoo.com
and you see no turn to the right, they had already responded
before156 when describing hearing what sounded like a firecracker,

Pure assumption by you. You have offered no evidence to support it.

If he snapped his head to the right before 133, how would you even know
it?

One other thing, it does mean something when people are mistaken in
their belief that it is Hickey behind the driver looking behind him in the
Altgens photo when, on closer observation, it is O'Donnell, but are
unwilling to acknowledge it. If they're mistaken about that and won't
admit It (not saying you) then they cannot be counted on to have an open
mind about this case. You, as well as me, try to analyze things based on
facts, evidence, witness testimony, logic, and probability and that's the
best way to do it. It is just this one issue about the timing of the
first shot where we seem to have a different opinion. I'm good with that
and will keep an open mind about it until I find definitive proof one way
or the other, which will probably never happen unless someone can come
forward or find other irreputable evidence.

John Corbett

2021-02-10 01:17:48 UTC

Why would Hickey look over the left side of the car in reaction to a sound
that he described as coming from his right rear?

Post by ***@yahoo.com
The timing of the first shot is a subject that is definitely debatable.

There is no evidence on the Zapruder film of Hickey and Landis looking
to their right after hearing the first shot, but I believe them when they
stated that.

See above. Hickey didn't hear the first shot. He is out of the picture
when the second shot was fired. Why would you expect to see him turned to
the right?

Nor should we expect any.

Until you accept the fact Hickey did not hear the first shot, you aren't
going to figure this out. He didn't hear a shot until he was out of the
picture.

Since you introduced Landis into the conversation, I went back and checked
his report. Like Hickey and Hill, he seems not to have noticed the first
shot. He believes the first shot hit JFK and the second shot was the head
shot. That means he didn't hear the first shot miss and therefore we would
have no reason to expect to see his reaction. His report said his first
reaction was to look toward the President. It really doesn't matter
because like Hickey he was out of the picture when he first heard a shot.
It makes no sense to expect to see Hickey or Landis react to a shot they
didn't notice nor does it make sense to expect to see a reaction by them
to a shot that wasn't fired until they were out of view of Zapruder's
camera. The lack of a visible reaction from either man means nothing.
Their reaction was out of sight.

Post by ***@yahoo.com
These are trained, experienced and professional SS Agents, not a believable
likelihood.

That doesn't give them super human powers. They would not be able to hear
better than ordinary laymen when motorcycles were roaring at the time the
first shot was fired.

Post by ***@yahoo.com
When Landis was referring to the first and second shots he
heard he was describing the first and second shots that actually hit the
President.

Agreed. So how does that fit with your pre-133 shot?

How do you establish that was the first shot he was reacting to?

Post by ***@yahoo.com
You will see more clearly from his WC testimony that he is describing his
reaction to hearing all three shots, not just two.

Post by ***@yahoo.com
Again, when he is
referring to the first and second shots he means the timing and reaction
of the President being hit with those last 2 shots.

Now you are just assuming things he never said.

Post by ***@yahoo.com
Because Landis and
Ready cannot be seen until the 156 mark of the Zapruder film, and go off
at the 203 mark (2 1/2 seconds later), during which time no shots were
fired

Probably not. My belief is the shot occurred a split second earlier and
didn't recognize it.

Post by ***@yahoo.com
and you see no turn to the right, they had already responded
before156 when describing hearing what sounded like a firecracker,

Pure assumption by you. You have offered no evidence to support it.

If he snapped his head to the right before 133, how would you even know
it?

It really doesn't matter if that is Hickey or O'Donnell in the Altgens
photo. It doesn't help your case. You are postulating a shot prior to 133
without any evidence to support it. There is nothing in the Z-film
post-133 that indicates a shot had just been fire and there is nothing in
the statements of any of the witnesses that would indicate an early shot.
In fact a reading of the statements of the agents seems to indicate that
most of them did not even recognize the first shot. Hill, Hickey, and
Landis all describe hearing just two shots. All of them believe the first
shot they heard was the one that hit JFK in the back. Only Bennett
remembers hearing a shot before seeing a second shot hit JFK in the back.
Hickey and Landis both estimated there were 4 to 5 seconds between the
first shot they heard and the last. That fits with the 4.9 seconds there
were between the two shots that hit JFK. While there is no proof there
wasn't a shot pre-133, there is no evidence to support one either.

Anthony Marsh

2021-02-10 10:51:08 UTC

Why would Hickey look over the left side of the car in reaction to a sound
that he described as coming from his right rear?

Post by ***@yahoo.com
The timing of the first shot is a subject that is definitely debatable.

Where do you think Hickey is in the Altgens photo? The person behind

The best source is Rodd Vauhan's motorcade drawing. Even though I had to
point to a conspiracy website. Todd is a EC defender

http://jfk.hood.edu/Collection/Weisberg%20Subject%20Index%20Files/M%20Disk/Motorcade%20Route/Item%2015.pdf

the driver looking back is Ken O'Donnell, the two agents on the right side
of the car looking back are John Ready and Paul Landis (who, by the way,
stated (Reclaiming History, page 39) he also immediately looked to his
right after hearing the first shot but you never see him doing that on the
Zapruder film from the time he first appears at 154 until 203 when he goes
off. Hickey is in the back seat, seen next to Glen Bennett sitting to his
right, his face is obscured by the sun visor above the drivers head. If
the first shot was at or after 203, that's only 21 frames until the next
shot, not a very likely scenario, another reason to think the first shot
was way before 154). The Altgens photo was taken at or after the 260
mark. You can tell that by the position of Jackies hand on Johns arm on
the Zapruder film, she didn't get it to that position until that time.
That's at least two seconds after the second shot. That's plenty of time
to see Ready and Landis responding to the second shot, not the first, by
looking to the right rear.

There is no evidence on the Zapruder film of Hickey and Landis looking
to their right after hearing the first shot, but I believe them when they
stated that.

See above. Hickey didn't hear the first shot. He is out of the picture
when the second shot was fired. Why would you expect to see him turned to
the right?

Nor should we expect any.

Until you accept the fact Hickey did not hear the first shot, you aren't
going to figure this out. He didn't hear a shot until he was out of the
picture.

Since you introduced Landis into the conversation, I went back and checked
his report. Like Hickey and Hill, he seems not to have noticed the first
shot. He believes the first shot hit JFK and the second shot was the head
shot. That means he didn't hear the first shot miss and therefore we would
have no reason to expect to see his reaction. His report said his first
reaction was to look toward the President. It really doesn't matter
because like Hickey he was out of the picture when he first heard a shot.
It makes no sense to expect to see Hickey or Landis react to a shot they
didn't notice nor does it make sense to expect to see a reaction by them
to a shot that wasn't fired until they were out of view of Zapruder's
camera. The lack of a visible reaction from either man means nothing.
Their reaction was out of sight.

Post by ***@yahoo.com
These are trained, experienced and professional SS Agents, not a believable
likelihood.

That doesn't give them super human powers. They would not be able to hear
better than ordinary laymen when motorcycles were roaring at the time the
first shot was fired.

Post by ***@yahoo.com
When Landis was referring to the first and second shots he
heard he was describing the first and second shots that actually hit the
President.

Agreed. So how does that fit with your pre-133 shot?

How do you establish that was the first shot he was reacting to?

Post by ***@yahoo.com
You will see more clearly from his WC testimony that he is describing his
reaction to hearing all three shots, not just two.

Post by ***@yahoo.com
Again, when he is
referring to the first and second shots he means the timing and reaction
of the President being hit with those last 2 shots.

Now you are just assuming things he never said.

Post by ***@yahoo.com
Because Landis and
Ready cannot be seen until the 156 mark of the Zapruder film, and go off
at the 203 mark (2 1/2 seconds later), during which time no shots were
fired

Probably not. My belief is the shot occurred a split second earlier and
didn't recognize it.

Post by ***@yahoo.com
and you see no turn to the right, they had already responded
before156 when describing hearing what sounded like a firecracker,

Pure assumption by you. You have offered no evidence to support it.

If he snapped his head to the right before 133, how would you even know
it?

Anthony Marsh

2021-02-06 20:26:19 UTC

I agree John, Clint Hill is consistent with his original views from 1963.
He is one of several witnesses who only heard two shots. He gives enough
information to associate the two shots with events we see the Zapruder
Shot 1 - JFK raises his arms and starts slumping to his left.
Shot 2 - JFK is hit in the head.
If all of the witnesses had said this was what happened we would have a
very simple case to solve!

John, I don't "rely primarily on witnesses", I primarily rely on the films
and photos for my work, with the witness evidence fitting into the visual
narrative. For example if a witness said JFK raised his arms after the
first shot I deduce the shot was fired in the second or so just before
what we see at Z225-Z230 in the Zapruder film.
All my percentages come from the published statements and testimony as
https://github.com/matyler/mc63.dpws/blob/master/mc63_dpws.csv
If you spot any errors or omissions, or disagree with my workings I'm
happy to listen and improve things if I am wrong.
I agree with you, I'm sure some witnesses did get important things wrong,
but I don't see how so many witnesses only heard one early shot before JFK
and Connally reacted to being wounded. A small amount like 10-20% I could
understand as they may have been distracted or been some distance away,
but surely the dozens of people in front of the TSBD couldn't all miss
such a noisy gunshot? The simplest and easiest explanation is that there
was no shot before Z180, then the witness evidence makes perfect sense and
fits into the Zapruder film narrative without any timing anomalies.

Connally said he felt pain two seconds after the noise of the first shot
(the rapidity of the two shots was a point he emphasised many times, which
seems credible given his experience with bolt action guns). This means
his testimony is *NOT* consistent with a shot at Z150, which he heard
circa Z155-Z160, and him being hit later at Z225 (a gap of 3.8 seconds).
In summary, the Connally head turn is the cornerstone of the evidence in
favour of the Z150 shot theory, which is based on his own testimony.
However, for this timing to be correct you have to ignore Connally's often
repeated explanation of the first shot and his own injury. Accepting one
statement from Connally as gospel truth, but ignoring or rejecting another
without good reason seems like cherry-picking. Without other clear
witness or film support, I have no choice but to conclude it's a theory
without concrete foundations (despite it's enduring popularity with many
researchers).

Weighing the various parts of Connally's statement is not cherry picking.
We can give credibility to the parts that are corroborated by the Z-film.
He said upon hearing the first shot he turned to look to his right and
unable to see anything, he was starting to turn back to his left when he
felt the bullet strike him in the back. He believed he was facing directly
to the front when he felt the bullet hit but the Z-film indicates he was
still turned to his right when the bullet struck. His belief there was two
seconds between the shots is pure guesswork because he wasn't timing the
shots. There is nothing that indicates his guess is an an accurate one.
Like most witnesses, Connally was right about somethings and demonstrably
wrong about others. It makes no sense to take the position that we must
accept all or nothing regarding his account. We can accept those elements
for which there is supporting evidence and reject those parts that are
refuted. That is how we should treat the statements of any witness. Accept
what is corroborated and reject what is refuted. If we don't have evidence
that is either corroborates or refutes what a witness has told us, we
simply have to regard such an account as unconfirmed.

Corroboration is indeed the key, so can you list the witnesses statements
from 1963/4 that corroborate the Z150 first shot theory?

I don't use witnesses to corroborate anything. That's putting the cart
before the horse. Witnesses need to be corroborated.

On the contrary, there is ample concrete and consistent evidence of when

Nonsense. It is based solely on your interpretation of what select
witnesses said. There is nothing concrete about it.

Post by Mark Tyler
- Z190-Z210 is the largest and longest blurring episode of the Z-film
before the fatal shot, indicating Zapruder being startled just after the
first shot was fired.

That should tell you the blurring is probably not the result of a gunshot.
Why would we expect the blurring for that shot to be longer than that
following the other two shots.

So-and-so said is not concrete evidence.

Post by Mark Tyler
- Phil Willis took his photo "5" at exactly Z202 and he said he took the
photo immediately after he heard the shot noise.

So-and-so said is not concrete evidence.

Post by Mark Tyler
- Hugh Betzner took his photo "3" at exactly Z186 and he said he heard the
shot noise immediately after he took the photo (explicitly ruling out
any shot fired before Z180).

So-and-so said is not concrete evidence.

That doesn't tell us how long after the shot before he turned. Connally
also said he turned to his right after he heard the first shot. He turned
at Z164.

Again, this doesn't tell us how quickly he reacted.

One witness giving incorrect information is not corroboration for another
witness giving incorrect information.

How did you determine their memories were reliable?

That would rule out a shot before Z180 if we knew your selected witnesses
were correct. You have offered no evidence that supports them. You are
simply assuming they were correct.

That's a possibility but the evidence for that seems rather flimsy.

Post by ***@yahoo.com
The next time you see him moving his hand is when he is waving at the
crowed just before the limo passes behind the sign.

For the subsequent shots for which we know about when they were fired,
there is a noticeable camera jiggle 7-8 frames following the firing of the
shot. This accounts for the time it would take the sound to reach Zapruder
and his reaction to those sounds. These jiggles lasted 3 frames, 227-229
and 318-320. We should expect a similar reaction be Zapruder to the first
shot. It's theoretically possible both shot and reaction were before he
resumed filming. There is a clear jiggle at 134 which would equate to a
shot fired at theoretical 126-127. The problem I have with that is that
134 jiggle only lasts for one frame. By 135, he seems to have steadied the
camera. That indicates to me that jiggle might have been the result of him
pressing the trigger on the camera. Just an educated guess. For the sake
of argument let's say there was a shot fired at 126. Connally hears that
about 128. That's 36 frames or about two seconds after hearing the shot.
That would indicate a fairly slow reaction by him. Possible but I find a
more abrupt reaction, about 12 frames after hearing a sound more likely.
What is your source for Hickey's statement? I looked on McAdams' witness
page and all it has is his original report. Based on that, it appears to
me that like others who were on the right of the limos (Hill, Jackie,
Nellie), he didn't even recognize the first shot. His description seems to
indicate he thought JFK was hit by the first shot which he recognized.
Based on his description, it seems he heard a double sound from the head
shot.
"The motorcade then left the airport and proceeded along the parade route.
Just prior to the shooting the Presidential car turned left at the
intersection and started down an incline toward an underpass followed by
679X. After a very short distance I heard a loud report which sounded like
a firecracker. It appeared to come from the right and rear and seemed to
me to be at ground level. I stood up and looked to my right and rear in an
attempt to identify it. Nothing caught my attention except people shouting
and cheering. A disturbance in 679X caused me to look forward toward the
President's car. Perhaps 2 or 3 seconds elapsed from the time I looked to
the rear and then looked at the President. He was slumped forward and to
his left, and was straightening up to an almost erect sitting position as
I turned and looked. At the moment he was almost sitting erect I heard two
reports which I thought were shots and that appeared to me completely
different in sound than the first report and were in such rapid succession
that there seemed to be practically no time element between them. It
looked to me as if the President was struck in the right upper rear of his
head. The first shot of the second two seemed as if it missed because the
hair on the right side of his head flew forward and there didn't seem to
be any impact against his head. The last shot seemed to hit his head and
cause a noise at the point of impact which made him fall forward and to
his left again. - Possibly four or five seconds elapsed from the time of
the first report and the last."
Hickey's recollection seems similar to Hill's whom he was close to when
the shooting began. Neither had a recollection of a first shot miss, both
saw that JFK had been hit by the first shot they remembered, and both
heard a double sound associated with the head shot. Also, if he heard a
first shot at about 126, that is about ten seconds before the head shot,
more than double what he estimated in his report. On the other hand it
fits perfectly with him only hearing the last two shots which were 4.9
seconds apart. It's possible his estimate could be wrong but that is a
considerable discrepancy. I really don't think Hickey recognized the
actual first shot.

Zapruder had vertigo and he needed his secretary, Sitzman, to hold him
steady as he stood on the concrete pedestal.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abraham_Zapruder#:~:text=Zapruder's%20secretary,%20Marilyn%20Sitzman,%20offered%20to%20assist%20Zapruder,Elm%20Street%20in%20front%20of%20the%20Book%20Depository.
If the Alvarez theory is valid, every jiggle is not the result of a gun
shot but every gun shot will cause a jiggle. For the two shots for which
we know when they were fired, the jiggle came 7-8 frames after the shot.
That allows for the time it would take the sound to reach Zapruder and
time for Zapruder to react to it. Since Zapruder was a constant distance
from Oswald for all three shots, we can expect the same time lag (7-8
frames) for all three shots if all three were fired during filming. We
have that if the shot was fired at the 150-151 frame because we see a
definite jiggle at 158.

I think you are misunderstand what I am trying to explain. At the time
of the second shot, 224, is five seconds (91 frames) after the first shot
at 133. The third shot at 313, is five seconds (89 frames) after 224,
virtually the same amount of time. I believe Hickey was saying he turned
toward the Presidential limo and 2 or 3 seconds later the first shot that
hit the President was heard followed closely by the last shot. He said
there seemed to be 4 to 5 seconds from the first report and the last. We
know there was twice as much time between the very first shot followed by
the next two that hit the President. He was referring to the shot that
first stuck the President followed by the last shot. It's just a question
of what he recalls and relating that to what actually happened and can be
seen on film.
As for the camera jiggles, it could also be caused by Zapruder being
unsteady and nervous standing on top of that 4 foot high concrete pedestal
and using that Model 414PD Bell and Howell Zoomatic Director series

Something like that except that we would see jiggles all the time and
not just during the shots.

Post by ***@yahoo.com
8-millimeter movie camera. Bugliosy, in Reclaiming History page 477, has
the same opinion on jiggle analysis, too many jiggles at the wrong time to
relate it to exact timing of the shots.

Yes, but he was a peofessional liar and we assume you are not.

Anthony Marsh

2021-02-03 02:12:24 UTC

I agree John, Clint Hill is consistent with his original views from 1963.
He is one of several witnesses who only heard two shots. He gives enough
information to associate the two shots with events we see the Zapruder
Shot 1 - JFK raises his arms and starts slumping to his left.
Shot 2 - JFK is hit in the head.
If all of the witnesses had said this was what happened we would have a
very simple case to solve!

John, I don't "rely primarily on witnesses", I primarily rely on the films
and photos for my work, with the witness evidence fitting into the visual
narrative. For example if a witness said JFK raised his arms after the
first shot I deduce the shot was fired in the second or so just before
what we see at Z225-Z230 in the Zapruder film.
All my percentages come from the published statements and testimony as
https://github.com/matyler/mc63.dpws/blob/master/mc63_dpws.csv
If you spot any errors or omissions, or disagree with my workings I'm
happy to listen and improve things if I am wrong.
I agree with you, I'm sure some witnesses did get important things wrong,
but I don't see how so many witnesses only heard one early shot before JFK
and Connally reacted to being wounded. A small amount like 10-20% I could
understand as they may have been distracted or been some distance away,
but surely the dozens of people in front of the TSBD couldn't all miss
such a noisy gunshot? The simplest and easiest explanation is that there
was no shot before Z180, then the witness evidence makes perfect sense and
fits into the Zapruder film narrative without any timing anomalies.

Connally said he felt pain two seconds after the noise of the first shot
(the rapidity of the two shots was a point he emphasised many times, which
seems credible given his experience with bolt action guns). This means
his testimony is *NOT* consistent with a shot at Z150, which he heard
circa Z155-Z160, and him being hit later at Z225 (a gap of 3.8 seconds).
In summary, the Connally head turn is the cornerstone of the evidence in
favour of the Z150 shot theory, which is based on his own testimony.
However, for this timing to be correct you have to ignore Connally's often
repeated explanation of the first shot and his own injury. Accepting one
statement from Connally as gospel truth, but ignoring or rejecting another
without good reason seems like cherry-picking. Without other clear
witness or film support, I have no choice but to conclude it's a theory
without concrete foundations (despite it's enduring popularity with many
researchers).

Weighing the various parts of Connally's statement is not cherry picking.
We can give credibility to the parts that are corroborated by the Z-film.
He said upon hearing the first shot he turned to look to his right and
unable to see anything, he was starting to turn back to his left when he
felt the bullet strike him in the back. He believed he was facing directly
to the front when he felt the bullet hit but the Z-film indicates he was
still turned to his right when the bullet struck. His belief there was two
seconds between the shots is pure guesswork because he wasn't timing the
shots. There is nothing that indicates his guess is an an accurate one.
Like most witnesses, Connally was right about somethings and demonstrably
wrong about others. It makes no sense to take the position that we must
accept all or nothing regarding his account. We can accept those elements
for which there is supporting evidence and reject those parts that are
refuted. That is how we should treat the statements of any witness. Accept
what is corroborated and reject what is refuted. If we don't have evidence
that is either corroborates or refutes what a witness has told us, we
simply have to regard such an account as unconfirmed.

Corroboration is indeed the key, so can you list the witnesses statements
from 1963/4 that corroborate the Z150 first shot theory?

I don't use witnesses to corroborate anything. That's putting the cart
before the horse. Witnesses need to be corroborated.

On the contrary, there is ample concrete and consistent evidence of when

Nonsense. It is based solely on your interpretation of what select
witnesses said. There is nothing concrete about it.

Post by Mark Tyler
- Z190-Z210 is the largest and longest blurring episode of the Z-film
before the fatal shot, indicating Zapruder being startled just after the
first shot was fired.

That should tell you the blurring is probably not the result of a gunshot.
Why would we expect the blurring for that shot to be longer than that
following the other two shots.

So-and-so said is not concrete evidence.

Post by Mark Tyler
- Phil Willis took his photo "5" at exactly Z202 and he said he took the
photo immediately after he heard the shot noise.

So-and-so said is not concrete evidence.

Post by Mark Tyler
- Hugh Betzner took his photo "3" at exactly Z186 and he said he heard the
shot noise immediately after he took the photo (explicitly ruling out
any shot fired before Z180).

So-and-so said is not concrete evidence.

That doesn't tell us how long after the shot before he turned. Connally
also said he turned to his right after he heard the first shot. He turned
at Z164.

Again, this doesn't tell us how quickly he reacted.

One witness giving incorrect information is not corroboration for another
witness giving incorrect information.

How did you determine their memories were reliable?

That would rule out a shot before Z180 if we knew your selected witnesses
were correct. You have offered no evidence that supports them. You are
simply assuming they were correct.

That's a possibility but the evidence for that seems rather flimsy.

Post by ***@yahoo.com
The next time you see him moving his hand is when he is waving at the
crowed just before the limo passes behind the sign.

For the subsequent shots for which we know about when they were fired,
there is a noticeable camera jiggle 7-8 frames following the firing of the
shot. This accounts for the time it would take the sound to reach Zapruder
and his reaction to those sounds. These jiggles lasted 3 frames, 227-229
and 318-320. We should expect a similar reaction be Zapruder to the first
shot. It's theoretically possible both shot and reaction were before he
resumed filming. There is a clear jiggle at 134 which would equate to a
shot fired at theoretical 126-127. The problem I have with that is that
134 jiggle only lasts for one frame. By 135, he seems to have steadied the
camera. That indicates to me that jiggle might have been the result of him
pressing the trigger on the camera. Just an educated guess. For the sake
of argument let's say there was a shot fired at 126. Connally hears that
about 128. That's 36 frames or about two seconds after hearing the shot.
That would indicate a fairly slow reaction by him. Possible but I find a
more abrupt reaction, about 12 frames after hearing a sound more likely.
What is your source for Hickey's statement? I looked on McAdams' witness
page and all it has is his original report. Based on that, it appears to
me that like others who were on the right of the limos (Hill, Jackie,
Nellie), he didn't even recognize the first shot. His description seems to
indicate he thought JFK was hit by the first shot which he recognized.
Based on his description, it seems he heard a double sound from the head
shot.
"The motorcade then left the airport and proceeded along the parade route.
Just prior to the shooting the Presidential car turned left at the
intersection and started down an incline toward an underpass followed by
679X. After a very short distance I heard a loud report which sounded like
a firecracker. It appeared to come from the right and rear and seemed to
me to be at ground level. I stood up and looked to my right and rear in an
attempt to identify it. Nothing caught my attention except people shouting
and cheering. A disturbance in 679X caused me to look forward toward the
President's car. Perhaps 2 or 3 seconds elapsed from the time I looked to
the rear and then looked at the President. He was slumped forward and to
his left, and was straightening up to an almost erect sitting position as
I turned and looked. At the moment he was almost sitting erect I heard two
reports which I thought were shots and that appeared to me completely
different in sound than the first report and were in such rapid succession
that there seemed to be practically no time element between them. It
looked to me as if the President was struck in the right upper rear of his
head. The first shot of the second two seemed as if it missed because the
hair on the right side of his head flew forward and there didn't seem to
be any impact against his head. The last shot seemed to hit his head and
cause a noise at the point of impact which made him fall forward and to
his left again. - Possibly four or five seconds elapsed from the time of
the first report and the last."
Hickey's recollection seems similar to Hill's whom he was close to when
the shooting began. Neither had a recollection of a first shot miss, both
saw that JFK had been hit by the first shot they remembered, and both
heard a double sound associated with the head shot. Also, if he heard a
first shot at about 126, that is about ten seconds before the head shot,
more than double what he estimated in his report. On the other hand it
fits perfectly with him only hearing the last two shots which were 4.9
seconds apart. It's possible his estimate could be wrong but that is a
considerable discrepancy. I really don't think Hickey recognized the
actual first shot.

Except that ALvazez actually tested it and it was confirmed by the HSCA.

Post by ***@yahoo.com
If you notice the very beginning of the Zapruder film when the motorcycle
cops are coming on to Elm street from Houston, the camera jiggles are too
numerous to count, and there were no shots being fired at that time.
Maybe Zapruder was just a nervous guy or there was a defect in the camera
that caused the jiggling, I once had a camera that did that, couldn't be
fixed, got a new and better one.

Show me. List the frame numbers.

Mark Tyler

2021-01-30 05:22:48 UTC

I agree John, Clint Hill is consistent with his original views from 1963.
He is one of several witnesses who only heard two shots. He gives enough
information to associate the two shots with events we see the Zapruder
Shot 1 - JFK raises his arms and starts slumping to his left.
Shot 2 - JFK is hit in the head.
If all of the witnesses had said this was what happened we would have a
very simple case to solve!

John, I don't "rely primarily on witnesses", I primarily rely on the films
and photos for my work, with the witness evidence fitting into the visual
narrative. For example if a witness said JFK raised his arms after the
first shot I deduce the shot was fired in the second or so just before
what we see at Z225-Z230 in the Zapruder film.
All my percentages come from the published statements and testimony as
https://github.com/matyler/mc63.dpws/blob/master/mc63_dpws.csv
If you spot any errors or omissions, or disagree with my workings I'm
happy to listen and improve things if I am wrong.
I agree with you, I'm sure some witnesses did get important things wrong,
but I don't see how so many witnesses only heard one early shot before JFK
and Connally reacted to being wounded. A small amount like 10-20% I could
understand as they may have been distracted or been some distance away,
but surely the dozens of people in front of the TSBD couldn't all miss
such a noisy gunshot? The simplest and easiest explanation is that there
was no shot before Z180, then the witness evidence makes perfect sense and
fits into the Zapruder film narrative without any timing anomalies.

Connally said he felt pain two seconds after the noise of the first shot
(the rapidity of the two shots was a point he emphasised many times, which
seems credible given his experience with bolt action guns). This means
his testimony is *NOT* consistent with a shot at Z150, which he heard
circa Z155-Z160, and him being hit later at Z225 (a gap of 3.8 seconds).
In summary, the Connally head turn is the cornerstone of the evidence in
favour of the Z150 shot theory, which is based on his own testimony.
However, for this timing to be correct you have to ignore Connally's often
repeated explanation of the first shot and his own injury. Accepting one
statement from Connally as gospel truth, but ignoring or rejecting another
without good reason seems like cherry-picking. Without other clear
witness or film support, I have no choice but to conclude it's a theory
without concrete foundations (despite it's enduring popularity with many
researchers).

Weighing the various parts of Connally's statement is not cherry picking.
We can give credibility to the parts that are corroborated by the Z-film.
He said upon hearing the first shot he turned to look to his right and
unable to see anything, he was starting to turn back to his left when he
felt the bullet strike him in the back. He believed he was facing directly
to the front when he felt the bullet hit but the Z-film indicates he was
still turned to his right when the bullet struck. His belief there was two
seconds between the shots is pure guesswork because he wasn't timing the
shots. There is nothing that indicates his guess is an an accurate one.
Like most witnesses, Connally was right about somethings and demonstrably
wrong about others. It makes no sense to take the position that we must
accept all or nothing regarding his account. We can accept those elements
for which there is supporting evidence and reject those parts that are
refuted. That is how we should treat the statements of any witness. Accept
what is corroborated and reject what is refuted. If we don't have evidence
that is either corroborates or refutes what a witness has told us, we
simply have to regard such an account as unconfirmed.

Corroboration is indeed the key, so can you list the witnesses statements
from 1963/4 that corroborate the Z150 first shot theory?

I don't use witnesses to corroborate anything. That's putting the cart
before the horse. Witnesses need to be corroborated.

On the contrary, there is ample concrete and consistent evidence of when

Nonsense. It is based solely on your interpretation of what select
witnesses said. There is nothing concrete about it.

Post by Mark Tyler
- Z190-Z210 is the largest and longest blurring episode of the Z-film
before the fatal shot, indicating Zapruder being startled just after the
first shot was fired.

That should tell you the blurring is probably not the result of a gunshot.
Why would we expect the blurring for that shot to be longer than that
following the other two shots.

So-and-so said is not concrete evidence.

Post by Mark Tyler
- Phil Willis took his photo "5" at exactly Z202 and he said he took the
photo immediately after he heard the shot noise.

So-and-so said is not concrete evidence.

Post by Mark Tyler
- Hugh Betzner took his photo "3" at exactly Z186 and he said he heard the
shot noise immediately after he took the photo (explicitly ruling out
any shot fired before Z180).

So-and-so said is not concrete evidence.

That doesn't tell us how long after the shot before he turned. Connally
also said he turned to his right after he heard the first shot. He turned
at Z164.

Again, this doesn't tell us how quickly he reacted.

One witness giving incorrect information is not corroboration for another
witness giving incorrect information.

How did you determine their memories were reliable?

That would rule out a shot before Z180 if we knew your selected witnesses
were correct. You have offered no evidence that supports them. You are
simply assuming they were correct.

Ken O'Donnell is indeed holding on to the grab bar, and you can see him
from another angle in the Willis 5 photo:
Loading Image...

By the Altgens 6 photo his left hand seems to have moved towards the
centre of the car, so it does look like he has shifted himself to look to
the rear in those few seconds, well spotted! I would guess that Hickey is
obscured by Clint Hill in the Altgens 6 photo. Thanks for explaining!

The earliest Hickey statements are these two in the Warren Commission
volumes:
https://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh18/html/WH_Vol18_0390a.htm
https://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh18/html/WH_Vol18_0388b.htm

In both he says after the first shot he partially stood up and immediately
looked to his right and the rear. After 2-3 seconds he looked back to his
left/front and he saw JFK. Then he heard two shots fired with no time
between them and the final one hit JFK in the head.

Hickey at Z133-Z180 of the Z-film does indeed seem to be looking to his
left and towards the road. If he has already heard a shot, then the next
shots he hears must be the pair of shots fired around the head shot (lets
say somewhere around Z280-Z320). In that scenario he must have missed the
single bullet theory shot fired just before Z225. The 2-3 seconds he
quotes is also curious because if Hickey looked to the rear before Z133,
the gap to turning back and seeing the head shot at Z313 is about 8-9
seconds which seems too long to be described as 2-3 seconds. Let me know
if I have misunderstood your scenario or if I have missed another
statement that Hickey made. It's easy to get these things wrong, so I
apologise in advance if I have got the wrong end of the stick.

John Corbett

2021-01-31 02:10:21 UTC

I agree John, Clint Hill is consistent with his original views from 1963.
He is one of several witnesses who only heard two shots. He gives enough
information to associate the two shots with events we see the Zapruder
Shot 1 - JFK raises his arms and starts slumping to his left.
Shot 2 - JFK is hit in the head.
If all of the witnesses had said this was what happened we would have a
very simple case to solve!

John, I don't "rely primarily on witnesses", I primarily rely on the films
and photos for my work, with the witness evidence fitting into the visual
narrative. For example if a witness said JFK raised his arms after the
first shot I deduce the shot was fired in the second or so just before
what we see at Z225-Z230 in the Zapruder film.
All my percentages come from the published statements and testimony as
https://github.com/matyler/mc63.dpws/blob/master/mc63_dpws.csv
If you spot any errors or omissions, or disagree with my workings I'm
happy to listen and improve things if I am wrong.
I agree with you, I'm sure some witnesses did get important things wrong,
but I don't see how so many witnesses only heard one early shot before JFK
and Connally reacted to being wounded. A small amount like 10-20% I could
understand as they may have been distracted or been some distance away,
but surely the dozens of people in front of the TSBD couldn't all miss
such a noisy gunshot? The simplest and easiest explanation is that there
was no shot before Z180, then the witness evidence makes perfect sense and
fits into the Zapruder film narrative without any timing anomalies.

Connally said he felt pain two seconds after the noise of the first shot
(the rapidity of the two shots was a point he emphasised many times, which
seems credible given his experience with bolt action guns). This means
his testimony is *NOT* consistent with a shot at Z150, which he heard
circa Z155-Z160, and him being hit later at Z225 (a gap of 3.8 seconds).
In summary, the Connally head turn is the cornerstone of the evidence in
favour of the Z150 shot theory, which is based on his own testimony.
However, for this timing to be correct you have to ignore Connally's often
repeated explanation of the first shot and his own injury. Accepting one
statement from Connally as gospel truth, but ignoring or rejecting another
without good reason seems like cherry-picking. Without other clear
witness or film support, I have no choice but to conclude it's a theory
without concrete foundations (despite it's enduring popularity with many
researchers).

Weighing the various parts of Connally's statement is not cherry picking.
We can give credibility to the parts that are corroborated by the Z-film.
He said upon hearing the first shot he turned to look to his right and
unable to see anything, he was starting to turn back to his left when he
felt the bullet strike him in the back. He believed he was facing directly
to the front when he felt the bullet hit but the Z-film indicates he was
still turned to his right when the bullet struck. His belief there was two
seconds between the shots is pure guesswork because he wasn't timing the
shots. There is nothing that indicates his guess is an an accurate one.
Like most witnesses, Connally was right about somethings and demonstrably
wrong about others. It makes no sense to take the position that we must
accept all or nothing regarding his account. We can accept those elements
for which there is supporting evidence and reject those parts that are
refuted. That is how we should treat the statements of any witness. Accept
what is corroborated and reject what is refuted. If we don't have evidence
that is either corroborates or refutes what a witness has told us, we
simply have to regard such an account as unconfirmed.

Corroboration is indeed the key, so can you list the witnesses statements
from 1963/4 that corroborate the Z150 first shot theory?

I don't use witnesses to corroborate anything. That's putting the cart
before the horse. Witnesses need to be corroborated.

On the contrary, there is ample concrete and consistent evidence of when

Nonsense. It is based solely on your interpretation of what select
witnesses said. There is nothing concrete about it.

Post by Mark Tyler
- Z190-Z210 is the largest and longest blurring episode of the Z-film
before the fatal shot, indicating Zapruder being startled just after the
first shot was fired.

That should tell you the blurring is probably not the result of a gunshot.
Why would we expect the blurring for that shot to be longer than that
following the other two shots.

So-and-so said is not concrete evidence.

Post by Mark Tyler
- Phil Willis took his photo "5" at exactly Z202 and he said he took the
photo immediately after he heard the shot noise.

So-and-so said is not concrete evidence.

Post by Mark Tyler
- Hugh Betzner took his photo "3" at exactly Z186 and he said he heard the
shot noise immediately after he took the photo (explicitly ruling out
any shot fired before Z180).

So-and-so said is not concrete evidence.

That doesn't tell us how long after the shot before he turned. Connally
also said he turned to his right after he heard the first shot. He turned
at Z164.

Again, this doesn't tell us how quickly he reacted.

One witness giving incorrect information is not corroboration for another
witness giving incorrect information.

How did you determine their memories were reliable?

That would rule out a shot before Z180 if we knew your selected witnesses
were correct. You have offered no evidence that supports them. You are
simply assuming they were correct.

Ken O'Donnell is indeed holding on to the grab bar, and you can see him
https://www.jfkassassinationgallery.com/albums/userpics/10001/willis05.jpg
By the Altgens 6 photo his left hand seems to have moved towards the
centre of the car, so it does look like he has shifted himself to look to
the rear in those few seconds, well spotted! I would guess that Hickey is
obscured by Clint Hill in the Altgens 6 photo. Thanks for explaining!
The earliest Hickey statements are these two in the Warren Commission
https://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh18/html/WH_Vol18_0390a.htm
https://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh18/html/WH_Vol18_0388b.htm
In both he says after the first shot he partially stood up and immediately
looked to his right and the rear. After 2-3 seconds he looked back to his
left/front and he saw JFK. Then he heard two shots fired with no time
between them and the final one hit JFK in the head.
Hickey at Z133-Z180 of the Z-film does indeed seem to be looking to his
left and towards the road. If he has already heard a shot, then the next
shots he hears must be the pair of shots fired around the head shot (lets
say somewhere around Z280-Z320). In that scenario he must have missed the
single bullet theory shot fired just before Z225. The 2-3 seconds he
quotes is also curious because if Hickey looked to the rear before Z133,
the gap to turning back and seeing the head shot at Z313 is about 8-9
seconds which seems too long to be described as 2-3 seconds. Let me know
if I have misunderstood your scenario or if I have missed another
statement that Hickey made. It's easy to get these things wrong, so I
apologise in advance if I have got the wrong end of the stick.

It is a mistake to equate two sounds to two shots because a single shot
can produce multiple sounds. Possibilities are the muzzle blast, echo,
mini-sonic boom produced by a supersonic bullet, impact, etc. When a
witness hears two sounds with almost no time between, there is a good
chance he is hearing multiple sounds from a single shot because all these
various sounds are not going to reach his ears at the same time.

I told this story a number of years ago but I'll repeat it again. I was
out walking my dogs on my five acre wooded lot. We were going in an oval
shaped path around the property. The property to the south is open farm
land and my neighbor was taking target practice with his muzzle loading
rifle. What I was hearing varied depending on where I was at any given
time. In some places I heard a single sound. BOOM. In other places I heard
a double sound. B-BOOM. In still other places I heard two distinct sounds,
BOOM-BOOM. My guess is the when I heard more than one sound, the second
was an echo. Depending on where I was, that echo was reaching me at
different times in relation to the initial blast. In some places, I was
not hearing the echo at all. Since my neighbor was firing a muzzle loader,
there is no chance he could have been firing two shots.

allan...@yahoo.com

2021-02-01 02:58:42 UTC

I agree John, Clint Hill is consistent with his original views from 1963.
He is one of several witnesses who only heard two shots. He gives enough
information to associate the two shots with events we see the Zapruder
Shot 1 - JFK raises his arms and starts slumping to his left.
Shot 2 - JFK is hit in the head.
If all of the witnesses had said this was what happened we would have a
very simple case to solve!

John, I don't "rely primarily on witnesses", I primarily rely on the films
and photos for my work, with the witness evidence fitting into the visual
narrative. For example if a witness said JFK raised his arms after the
first shot I deduce the shot was fired in the second or so just before
what we see at Z225-Z230 in the Zapruder film.
All my percentages come from the published statements and testimony as
https://github.com/matyler/mc63.dpws/blob/master/mc63_dpws.csv
If you spot any errors or omissions, or disagree with my workings I'm
happy to listen and improve things if I am wrong.
I agree with you, I'm sure some witnesses did get important things wrong,
but I don't see how so many witnesses only heard one early shot before JFK
and Connally reacted to being wounded. A small amount like 10-20% I could
understand as they may have been distracted or been some distance away,
but surely the dozens of people in front of the TSBD couldn't all miss
such a noisy gunshot? The simplest and easiest explanation is that there
was no shot before Z180, then the witness evidence makes perfect sense and
fits into the Zapruder film narrative without any timing anomalies.

Connally said he felt pain two seconds after the noise of the first shot
(the rapidity of the two shots was a point he emphasised many times, which
seems credible given his experience with bolt action guns). This means
his testimony is *NOT* consistent with a shot at Z150, which he heard
circa Z155-Z160, and him being hit later at Z225 (a gap of 3.8 seconds).
In summary, the Connally head turn is the cornerstone of the evidence in
favour of the Z150 shot theory, which is based on his own testimony.
However, for this timing to be correct you have to ignore Connally's often
repeated explanation of the first shot and his own injury. Accepting one
statement from Connally as gospel truth, but ignoring or rejecting another
without good reason seems like cherry-picking. Without other clear
witness or film support, I have no choice but to conclude it's a theory
without concrete foundations (despite it's enduring popularity with many
researchers).

Weighing the various parts of Connally's statement is not cherry picking.
We can give credibility to the parts that are corroborated by the Z-film.
He said upon hearing the first shot he turned to look to his right and
unable to see anything, he was starting to turn back to his left when he
felt the bullet strike him in the back. He believed he was facing directly
to the front when he felt the bullet hit but the Z-film indicates he was
still turned to his right when the bullet struck. His belief there was two
seconds between the shots is pure guesswork because he wasn't timing the
shots. There is nothing that indicates his guess is an an accurate one.
Like most witnesses, Connally was right about somethings and demonstrably
wrong about others. It makes no sense to take the position that we must
accept all or nothing regarding his account. We can accept those elements
for which there is supporting evidence and reject those parts that are
refuted. That is how we should treat the statements of any witness. Accept
what is corroborated and reject what is refuted. If we don't have evidence
that is either corroborates or refutes what a witness has told us, we
simply have to regard such an account as unconfirmed.

Corroboration is indeed the key, so can you list the witnesses statements
from 1963/4 that corroborate the Z150 first shot theory?

I don't use witnesses to corroborate anything. That's putting the cart
before the horse. Witnesses need to be corroborated.

On the contrary, there is ample concrete and consistent evidence of when

Nonsense. It is based solely on your interpretation of what select
witnesses said. There is nothing concrete about it.

Post by Mark Tyler
- Z190-Z210 is the largest and longest blurring episode of the Z-film
before the fatal shot, indicating Zapruder being startled just after the
first shot was fired.

That should tell you the blurring is probably not the result of a gunshot.
Why would we expect the blurring for that shot to be longer than that
following the other two shots.

So-and-so said is not concrete evidence.

Post by Mark Tyler
- Phil Willis took his photo "5" at exactly Z202 and he said he took the
photo immediately after he heard the shot noise.

So-and-so said is not concrete evidence.

Post by Mark Tyler
- Hugh Betzner took his photo "3" at exactly Z186 and he said he heard the
shot noise immediately after he took the photo (explicitly ruling out
any shot fired before Z180).

So-and-so said is not concrete evidence.

That doesn't tell us how long after the shot before he turned. Connally
also said he turned to his right after he heard the first shot. He turned
at Z164.

Again, this doesn't tell us how quickly he reacted.

One witness giving incorrect information is not corroboration for another
witness giving incorrect information.

How did you determine their memories were reliable?

That would rule out a shot before Z180 if we knew your selected witnesses
were correct. You have offered no evidence that supports them. You are
simply assuming they were correct.

After first turning to his right after hearing the first shot, not seen
on video, he turned to his left and looked over the side of the car,
thought it might be a firecracker, then turned to the front just as he
goes off camera. Then 2 or 3 seconds later, he's not seen on video at
this time, he heard the second an then third shot. This is only a 5
second time frame (133 to 224).
In the Altgen's photo, if you get a good look at it, you can identify
the passengers in the followup car. Sam Kinney is the driver, to the
right of him is Emory Roberts, behind him in the second row is Dave
Powers, face partially obscured by the rear few mirror, to the left of
him, behind the driver is Ken O'Donnell standing up and looking back, to
the right of him in the picture and in the back seat is Hickey, his face
is not seen, it's obscured by the sun visor but you can see his white
shirt, black coat and tie, to the right of him in the back seat is Glen
Bennett, a good look at just his face. Just as Hickey said, he was facing
forward at the time of the second shot.

John Corbett

2021-02-01 13:11:21 UTC

I agree John, Clint Hill is consistent with his original views from 1963.
He is one of several witnesses who only heard two shots. He gives enough
information to associate the two shots with events we see the Zapruder
Shot 1 - JFK raises his arms and starts slumping to his left.
Shot 2 - JFK is hit in the head.
If all of the witnesses had said this was what happened we would have a
very simple case to solve!

John, I don't "rely primarily on witnesses", I primarily rely on the films
and photos for my work, with the witness evidence fitting into the visual
narrative. For example if a witness said JFK raised his arms after the
first shot I deduce the shot was fired in the second or so just before
what we see at Z225-Z230 in the Zapruder film.
All my percentages come from the published statements and testimony as
https://github.com/matyler/mc63.dpws/blob/master/mc63_dpws.csv
If you spot any errors or omissions, or disagree with my workings I'm
happy to listen and improve things if I am wrong.
I agree with you, I'm sure some witnesses did get important things wrong,
but I don't see how so many witnesses only heard one early shot before JFK
and Connally reacted to being wounded. A small amount like 10-20% I could
understand as they may have been distracted or been some distance away,
but surely the dozens of people in front of the TSBD couldn't all miss
such a noisy gunshot? The simplest and easiest explanation is that there
was no shot before Z180, then the witness evidence makes perfect sense and
fits into the Zapruder film narrative without any timing anomalies.

Connally said he felt pain two seconds after the noise of the first shot
(the rapidity of the two shots was a point he emphasised many times, which
seems credible given his experience with bolt action guns). This means
his testimony is *NOT* consistent with a shot at Z150, which he heard
circa Z155-Z160, and him being hit later at Z225 (a gap of 3.8 seconds).
In summary, the Connally head turn is the cornerstone of the evidence in
favour of the Z150 shot theory, which is based on his own testimony.
However, for this timing to be correct you have to ignore Connally's often
repeated explanation of the first shot and his own injury. Accepting one
statement from Connally as gospel truth, but ignoring or rejecting another
without good reason seems like cherry-picking. Without other clear
witness or film support, I have no choice but to conclude it's a theory
without concrete foundations (despite it's enduring popularity with many
researchers).

Weighing the various parts of Connally's statement is not cherry picking.
We can give credibility to the parts that are corroborated by the Z-film.
He said upon hearing the first shot he turned to look to his right and
unable to see anything, he was starting to turn back to his left when he
felt the bullet strike him in the back. He believed he was facing directly
to the front when he felt the bullet hit but the Z-film indicates he was
still turned to his right when the bullet struck. His belief there was two
seconds between the shots is pure guesswork because he wasn't timing the
shots. There is nothing that indicates his guess is an an accurate one.
Like most witnesses, Connally was right about somethings and demonstrably
wrong about others. It makes no sense to take the position that we must
accept all or nothing regarding his account. We can accept those elements
for which there is supporting evidence and reject those parts that are
refuted. That is how we should treat the statements of any witness. Accept
what is corroborated and reject what is refuted. If we don't have evidence
that is either corroborates or refutes what a witness has told us, we
simply have to regard such an account as unconfirmed.

Corroboration is indeed the key, so can you list the witnesses statements
from 1963/4 that corroborate the Z150 first shot theory?

I don't use witnesses to corroborate anything. That's putting the cart
before the horse. Witnesses need to be corroborated.

On the contrary, there is ample concrete and consistent evidence of when

Nonsense. It is based solely on your interpretation of what select
witnesses said. There is nothing concrete about it.

Post by Mark Tyler
- Z190-Z210 is the largest and longest blurring episode of the Z-film
before the fatal shot, indicating Zapruder being startled just after the
first shot was fired.

That should tell you the blurring is probably not the result of a gunshot.
Why would we expect the blurring for that shot to be longer than that
following the other two shots.

So-and-so said is not concrete evidence.

Post by Mark Tyler
- Phil Willis took his photo "5" at exactly Z202 and he said he took the
photo immediately after he heard the shot noise.

So-and-so said is not concrete evidence.

Post by Mark Tyler
- Hugh Betzner took his photo "3" at exactly Z186 and he said he heard the
shot noise immediately after he took the photo (explicitly ruling out
any shot fired before Z180).

So-and-so said is not concrete evidence.

That doesn't tell us how long after the shot before he turned. Connally
also said he turned to his right after he heard the first shot. He turned
at Z164.

Again, this doesn't tell us how quickly he reacted.

One witness giving incorrect information is not corroboration for another
witness giving incorrect information.

How did you determine their memories were reliable?

That would rule out a shot before Z180 if we knew your selected witnesses
were correct. You have offered no evidence that supports them. You are
simply assuming they were correct.

Where does he say he did that?

Post by ***@yahoo.com
Then 2 or 3 seconds later, he's not seen on video at
this time, he heard the second an then third shot. This is only a 5
second time frame (133 to 224).

And another 5 seconds until the headshot. That's a total of ten seconds
for the entire shooting when he estimated there were only 5 total. Either
he didn't hear the first shot or he badly misjudged the amount of time
between the first and last shot.

Post by ***@yahoo.com
In the Altgen's photo, if you get a good look at it, you can identify
the passengers in the followup car. Sam Kinney is the driver, to the
right of him is Emory Roberts, behind him in the second row is Dave
Powers, face partially obscured by the rear few mirror, to the left of
him, behind the driver is Ken O'Donnell standing up and looking back, to
the right of him in the picture and in the back seat is Hickey, his face
is not seen, it's obscured by the sun visor but you can see his white
shirt, black coat and tie, to the right of him in the back seat is Glen
Bennett, a good look at just his face. Just as Hickey said, he was facing
forward at the time of the second shot.

Anthony Marsh

2021-01-30 15:11:51 UTC

I agree John, Clint Hill is consistent with his original views from 1963.
He is one of several witnesses who only heard two shots. He gives enough
information to associate the two shots with events we see the Zapruder
Shot 1 - JFK raises his arms and starts slumping to his left.
Shot 2 - JFK is hit in the head.
If all of the witnesses had said this was what happened we would have a
very simple case to solve!

John, I don't "rely primarily on witnesses", I primarily rely on the films
and photos for my work, with the witness evidence fitting into the visual
narrative. For example if a witness said JFK raised his arms after the
first shot I deduce the shot was fired in the second or so just before
what we see at Z225-Z230 in the Zapruder film.
All my percentages come from the published statements and testimony as
https://github.com/matyler/mc63.dpws/blob/master/mc63_dpws.csv
If you spot any errors or omissions, or disagree with my workings I'm
happy to listen and improve things if I am wrong.
I agree with you, I'm sure some witnesses did get important things wrong,
but I don't see how so many witnesses only heard one early shot before JFK
and Connally reacted to being wounded. A small amount like 10-20% I could
understand as they may have been distracted or been some distance away,
but surely the dozens of people in front of the TSBD couldn't all miss
such a noisy gunshot? The simplest and easiest explanation is that there
was no shot before Z180, then the witness evidence makes perfect sense and
fits into the Zapruder film narrative without any timing anomalies.

Connally said he felt pain two seconds after the noise of the first shot
(the rapidity of the two shots was a point he emphasised many times, which
seems credible given his experience with bolt action guns). This means
his testimony is *NOT* consistent with a shot at Z150, which he heard
circa Z155-Z160, and him being hit later at Z225 (a gap of 3.8 seconds).
In summary, the Connally head turn is the cornerstone of the evidence in
favour of the Z150 shot theory, which is based on his own testimony.
However, for this timing to be correct you have to ignore Connally's often
repeated explanation of the first shot and his own injury. Accepting one
statement from Connally as gospel truth, but ignoring or rejecting another
without good reason seems like cherry-picking. Without other clear
witness or film support, I have no choice but to conclude it's a theory
without concrete foundations (despite it's enduring popularity with many
researchers).

Weighing the various parts of Connally's statement is not cherry picking.
We can give credibility to the parts that are corroborated by the Z-film.
He said upon hearing the first shot he turned to look to his right and
unable to see anything, he was starting to turn back to his left when he
felt the bullet strike him in the back. He believed he was facing directly
to the front when he felt the bullet hit but the Z-film indicates he was
still turned to his right when the bullet struck. His belief there was two
seconds between the shots is pure guesswork because he wasn't timing the
shots. There is nothing that indicates his guess is an an accurate one.
Like most witnesses, Connally was right about somethings and demonstrably
wrong about others. It makes no sense to take the position that we must
accept all or nothing regarding his account. We can accept those elements
for which there is supporting evidence and reject those parts that are
refuted. That is how we should treat the statements of any witness. Accept
what is corroborated and reject what is refuted. If we don't have evidence
that is either corroborates or refutes what a witness has told us, we
simply have to regard such an account as unconfirmed.

Corroboration is indeed the key, so can you list the witnesses statements
from 1963/4 that corroborate the Z150 first shot theory?

I don't use witnesses to corroborate anything. That's putting the cart
before the horse. Witnesses need to be corroborated.

On the contrary, there is ample concrete and consistent evidence of when

Nonsense. It is based solely on your interpretation of what select
witnesses said. There is nothing concrete about it.

Post by Mark Tyler
- Z190-Z210 is the largest and longest blurring episode of the Z-film
before the fatal shot, indicating Zapruder being startled just after the
first shot was fired.

That should tell you the blurring is probably not the result of a gunshot.
Why would we expect the blurring for that shot to be longer than that
following the other two shots.

hUH? dO YOU EVEN UNDERSTAND THE THEORY BEHIND JIGGLE ANALYSIS?

So-and-so said is not concrete evidence.

Post by Mark Tyler
- Phil Willis took his photo "5" at exactly Z202 and he said he took the
photo immediately after he heard the shot noise.

So-and-so said is not concrete evidence.

Post by Mark Tyler
- Hugh Betzner took his photo "3" at exactly Z186 and he said he heard the
shot noise immediately after he took the photo (explicitly ruling out
any shot fired before Z180).

So-and-so said is not concrete evidence.

That doesn't tell us how long after the shot before he turned. Connally
also said he turned to his right after he heard the first shot. He turned
at Z164.

Again, this doesn't tell us how quickly he reacted.

One witness giving incorrect information is not corroboration for another
witness giving incorrect information.

How did you determine their memories were reliable?

That would rule out a shot before Z180 if we knew your selected witnesses
were correct. You have offered no evidence that supports them. You are
simply assuming they were correct.

Anthony Marsh

2021-01-30 15:11:54 UTC

I agree John, Clint Hill is consistent with his original views from 1963.
He is one of several witnesses who only heard two shots. He gives enough
information to associate the two shots with events we see the Zapruder
Shot 1 - JFK raises his arms and starts slumping to his left.
Shot 2 - JFK is hit in the head.
If all of the witnesses had said this was what happened we would have a
very simple case to solve!

John, I don't "rely primarily on witnesses", I primarily rely on the films
and photos for my work, with the witness evidence fitting into the visual
narrative. For example if a witness said JFK raised his arms after the
first shot I deduce the shot was fired in the second or so just before
what we see at Z225-Z230 in the Zapruder film.
All my percentages come from the published statements and testimony as
https://github.com/matyler/mc63.dpws/blob/master/mc63_dpws.csv
If you spot any errors or omissions, or disagree with my workings I'm
happy to listen and improve things if I am wrong.
I agree with you, I'm sure some witnesses did get important things wrong,
but I don't see how so many witnesses only heard one early shot before JFK
and Connally reacted to being wounded. A small amount like 10-20% I could
understand as they may have been distracted or been some distance away,
but surely the dozens of people in front of the TSBD couldn't all miss
such a noisy gunshot? The simplest and easiest explanation is that there
was no shot before Z180, then the witness evidence makes perfect sense and
fits into the Zapruder film narrative without any timing anomalies.

Connally said he felt pain two seconds after the noise of the first shot
(the rapidity of the two shots was a point he emphasised many times, which
seems credible given his experience with bolt action guns). This means
his testimony is *NOT* consistent with a shot at Z150, which he heard
circa Z155-Z160, and him being hit later at Z225 (a gap of 3.8 seconds).
In summary, the Connally head turn is the cornerstone of the evidence in
favour of the Z150 shot theory, which is based on his own testimony.
However, for this timing to be correct you have to ignore Connally's often
repeated explanation of the first shot and his own injury. Accepting one
statement from Connally as gospel truth, but ignoring or rejecting another
without good reason seems like cherry-picking. Without other clear
witness or film support, I have no choice but to conclude it's a theory
without concrete foundations (despite it's enduring popularity with many
researchers).

Weighing the various parts of Connally's statement is not cherry picking.
We can give credibility to the parts that are corroborated by the Z-film.
He said upon hearing the first shot he turned to look to his right and
unable to see anything, he was starting to turn back to his left when he
felt the bullet strike him in the back. He believed he was facing directly
to the front when he felt the bullet hit but the Z-film indicates he was
still turned to his right when the bullet struck. His belief there was two
seconds between the shots is pure guesswork because he wasn't timing the
shots. There is nothing that indicates his guess is an an accurate one.
Like most witnesses, Connally was right about somethings and demonstrably
wrong about others. It makes no sense to take the position that we must
accept all or nothing regarding his account. We can accept those elements
for which there is supporting evidence and reject those parts that are
refuted. That is how we should treat the statements of any witness. Accept
what is corroborated and reject what is refuted. If we don't have evidence
that is either corroborates or refutes what a witness has told us, we
simply have to regard such an account as unconfirmed.

Corroboration is indeed the key, so can you list the witnesses statements
from 1963/4 that corroborate the Z150 first shot theory?

I don't use witnesses to corroborate anything. That's putting the cart
before the horse. Witnesses need to be corroborated.

On the contrary, there is ample concrete and consistent evidence of when

Nonsense. It is based solely on your interpretation of what select
witnesses said. There is nothing concrete about it.

Post by Mark Tyler
- Z190-Z210 is the largest and longest blurring episode of the Z-film
before the fatal shot, indicating Zapruder being startled just after the
first shot was fired.

That should tell you the blurring is probably not the result of a gunshot.
Why would we expect the blurring for that shot to be longer than that
following the other two shots.

Why?
Do you even understand jiggle anaylysis?

So-and-so said is not concrete evidence.

Post by Mark Tyler
- Phil Willis took his photo "5" at exactly Z202 and he said he took the
photo immediately after he heard the shot noise.

So-and-so said is not concrete evidence.

Post by Mark Tyler
- Hugh Betzner took his photo "3" at exactly Z186 and he said he heard the
shot noise immediately after he took the photo (explicitly ruling out
any shot fired before Z180).

So-and-so said is not concrete evidence.

That doesn't tell us how long after the shot before he turned. Connally
also said he turned to his right after he heard the first shot. He turned
at Z164.

Again, this doesn't tell us how quickly he reacted.

One witness giving incorrect information is not corroboration for another
witness giving incorrect information.

How did you determine their memories were reliable?

That would rule out a shot before Z180 if we knew your selected witnesses
were correct. You have offered no evidence that supports them. You are
simply assuming they were correct.

Anthony Marsh

2021-01-30 05:22:30 UTC

I agree John, Clint Hill is consistent with his original views from 1963.
He is one of several witnesses who only heard two shots. He gives enough
information to associate the two shots with events we see the Zapruder
Shot 1 - JFK raises his arms and starts slumping to his left.
Shot 2 - JFK is hit in the head.
If all of the witnesses had said this was what happened we would have a
very simple case to solve!

John, I don't "rely primarily on witnesses", I primarily rely on the films
and photos for my work, with the witness evidence fitting into the visual
narrative. For example if a witness said JFK raised his arms after the
first shot I deduce the shot was fired in the second or so just before
what we see at Z225-Z230 in the Zapruder film.
All my percentages come from the published statements and testimony as
https://github.com/matyler/mc63.dpws/blob/master/mc63_dpws.csv
If you spot any errors or omissions, or disagree with my workings I'm
happy to listen and improve things if I am wrong.
I agree with you, I'm sure some witnesses did get important things wrong,
but I don't see how so many witnesses only heard one early shot before JFK
and Connally reacted to being wounded. A small amount like 10-20% I could
understand as they may have been distracted or been some distance away,
but surely the dozens of people in front of the TSBD couldn't all miss
such a noisy gunshot? The simplest and easiest explanation is that there
was no shot before Z180, then the witness evidence makes perfect sense and
fits into the Zapruder film narrative without any timing anomalies.

Post by Mark Tyler
Bennett and Connally are worth studying in more detail, but they can
easily be misinterpreted if researchers see certainty where there is
ambiguity. For example Connally like Clint Hill only actually heard
two shots, and simply assumed another 'quiet' shot hit him. What if
this assumption was wrong and he was hit by the first shot at Z190,
but the pain took a couple of seconds to manifest itself at Z225? A
shot from LHO during Z180-Z190 and going through the oak tree may
also explain why the bullet hit JFK in the back rather than the head
(i.e. Oswald was distracted by tree foliage in the final second of
aiming while the trigger was being squeezed after Z160).

Connally was not relying on assumptions. He was relying on his senses. He

He also had an advange which you did not.

He examined hi-res slides of the Zapruder frames.

Post by John Corbett
heard two shots and he felt one shot which was distinct from the two
he heard and was the middle of the the three shots. Connally's
description of the shooting is corroborated by the Z-film which shows
him reacting to the sound of the first shot several seconds before
the one that struck him which was followed 4.9 seconds later by the
one that struck JFK in the head.

Connally said he felt pain two seconds after the noise of the first
shot (the rapidity of the two shots was a point he emphasised many
times, which seems credible given his experience with bolt action
guns). This means his testimony is *NOT* consistent with a shot at
Z150, which he heard circa Z155-Z160, and him being hit later at Z225
(a gap of 3.8 seconds).
In summary, the Connally head turn is the cornerstone of the evidence
in favour of the Z150 shot theory, which is based on his own
testimony. However, for this timing to be correct you have to ignore
Connally's often repeated explanation of the first shot and his own
injury. Accepting one statement from Connally as gospel truth, but
ignoring or rejecting another without good reason seems like
cherry-picking. Without other clear witness or film support, I have no
choice but to conclude it's a theory without concrete foundations
(despite it's enduring popularity with many researchers).

Weighing the various parts of Connally's statement is not cherry picking.
We can give credibility to the parts that are corroborated by the Z-film.
He said upon hearing the first shot he turned to look to his right and
unable to see anything, he was starting to turn back to his left when he
felt the bullet strike him in the back. He believed he was facing directly
to the front when he felt the bullet hit but the Z-film indicates he was
still turned to his right when the bullet struck. His belief there was two
seconds between the shots is pure guesswork because he wasn't timing the
shots. There is nothing that indicates his guess is an an accurate one.
Like most witnesses, Connally was right about somethings and demonstrably
wrong about others. It makes no sense to take the position that we must
accept all or nothing regarding his account. We can accept those elements
for which there is supporting evidence and reject those parts that are
refuted. That is how we should treat the statements of any witness. Accept
what is corroborated and reject what is refuted. If we don't have evidence
that is either corroborates or refutes what a witness has told us, we
simply have to regard such an account as unconfirmed.

Corroboration is indeed the key, so can you list the witnesses statements
from 1963/4 that corroborate the Z150 first shot theory?

On the contrary, there is ample concrete and consistent evidence of when
- Z190-Z210 is the largest and longest blurring episode of the Z-film
before the fatal shot, indicating Zapruder being startled just after the
first shot was fired.
- AJ Milican was standing by the lamppost and said that the limo had just
passed him when he heard the first shot. By my judgement of the Betzner
3 photo and Z-film the limo passes the lamppost at about Z180-Z190, so a
shot fired any time after this is consistent with his statement (but not
before Z180).
- Karen Westbrook and Gloria Calvery both said that the limo was "almost
directly in front of where I was standing when I heard the first shot.".
The limo is in front of them during Z190-Z210 judging from the Betzner 3
photo, Willis 5 photo, and the Z-film.
- Phil Willis took his photo "5" at exactly Z202 and he said he took the
photo immediately after he heard the shot noise.
- Hugh Betzner took his photo "3" at exactly Z186 and he said he heard the
shot noise immediately after he took the photo (explicitly ruling out
any shot fired before Z180).
- SS agent George Hickey said he turned to his right after he heard the
first shot. The Z-film shows him looking to his left at Z193, with him
starting to turn to his right at Z195, and looking fully to the rear by
Z255 when seen in the Altgens 6 photo.
- SS agent John Ready starts moving, and shuffling his arms around during
Z198-Z208 just before he goes out of frame in the Z-film. By Z255 the
Altgens 6 photo shows him looking fully to the rear.
- John Connally said he was hit 2 seconds after he heard the first shot.
We see him reacting to being shot at Z225 so if the timing statement is
taken literally he heard the first shot circa Z188.
Notice how John Connally's timing comment is corroborated by the other
witness statements to within half a second, so you are wrong to say "There
is nothing that indicates his guess is an an accurate one". All of these
witnesses were directly in front of the TSBD so they were in a great
position to hear any shots from that location. All this is supported by
the Zapruder film, two photos, and early 1963/4 witness statements or
interviews (i.e. from fresh and reliable memories). Note also how several
of these witness statements rule out a shot fired before Z180, which is a
very clear refutation of the Z150 first shot theory, or any other shots
before that.
If anyone can present some hard evidence in support of the Z150 shot
theory, or refute the points above regarding the Z185 shot theory, please
let me know and I will be happy to listen.

John Corbett

2021-01-24 21:36:42 UTC

I agree John, Clint Hill is consistent with his original views from 1963.
He is one of several witnesses who only heard two shots. He gives enough
information to associate the two shots with events we see the Zapruder
Shot 1 - JFK raises his arms and starts slumping to his left.
Shot 2 - JFK is hit in the head.
If all of the witnesses had said this was what happened we would have a
very simple case to solve!

Several witnesses did indeed report two shots before JFK was hit, but
85-89% of witnesses heard only one shot just before JFK raised his arms
and slumped. Deciding which witnesses are right and wrong in this part of
the shooting is not easy, but if it was a popularity contest, then the
first shot hit JFK and no other shots were fired for another 4-6 seconds.
I'm very open to the idea of witnesses missing shots if they were
distracted, but if 85-89% of witnesses didn't hear it maybe it never
happened? Perhaps the 11-15% of witnesses who did hear an extra shot
merely heard echoes?
Bennett and Connally are worth studying in more detail, but they can
easily be misinterpreted if researchers see certainty where there is
ambiguity. For example Connally like Clint Hill only actually heard two
shots, and simply assumed another 'quiet' shot hit him. What if this
assumption was wrong and he was hit by the first shot at Z190, but the
pain took a couple of seconds to manifest itself at Z225? A shot from LHO
during Z180-Z190 and going through the oak tree may also explain why the
bullet hit JFK in the back rather than the head (i.e. Oswald was
distracted by tree foliage in the final second of aiming while the trigger
was being squeezed after Z160).

I meant to comment on the second part of the final paragraph in my first
reply. If we are to believe Connally had a delayed reaction of about two
seconds to a shot he heard but didn't feel right away, we have to believe
JFK had to have that exact same delayed reaction because both of them
reacted simultaneously at Z226. Otherwise you would have to have two
gunmen because Oswald could not have fired both shots. The other obvious
question is why would Oswald have even tried an obscured shot through the
foliage of the tree when he would have his target in the clear in just a
few seconds. It makes no sense. You are trying to force fit a theory of a
missed third shot which is based upon the flimsiest of evidence when there
is a much simpler explanation available which doesn't require such mental
gymnastics to make it work. All it requires is for us to dismiss the few
witnesses who believed there was a shot following the head shot. We know
many witnesses got it wrong because they don't all agree. That group that
claimed there was a missed third shot seems like a good candidate for
dismissal.

Edward Bauer

2021-01-23 00:37:47 UTC

Exactly, John. Hill’s WC testimony must have priority over any
later memories. Hill stated that the first shot was fired “as
we…began to straighten up” during the turn from Houston
onto Elm. SS Agent Paul Landis agreed, testifying that “both
[cars] were straightening out” during the turn. This is exactly
where the FBI spliced 8 frames from Tina Towner’s film to hide her
camera jiggle reaction to that explosive first shot directly above her
head. It missed because it wasn’t fired at the limo in the first
place; it was Oswald’s indispensable zeroing shot. ------- The
Final Truth: Solving the Mystery of the JFK Assassination
http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/1490350578

John McAdams

2021-01-23 00:45:35 UTC

Exactly, John. Hills WC testimony must have priority over any
later memories. Hill stated that the first shot was fired as
webegan to straighten up during the turn from Houston
onto Elm. SS Agent Paul Landis agreed, testifying that both
[cars] were straightening out during the turn.

OK, but statements like this are far less precise than you seem to
believe.

This is exactly
where the FBI spliced 8 frames from Tina Towners film to hide her
camera jiggle reaction to that explosive first shot directly above her
head.

Really? Why would the FBI want to hide an early first shot?

And had "jiggle analysis" been invented then? I thought that was much
later, via Alvarez.

It missed because it wasnt fired at the limo in the first
place; it was Oswalds indispensable zeroing shot. ------- The
Final Truth: Solving the Mystery of the JFK Assassination
http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/1490350578

You seem to be embracing the Holland/Searce early shot theory.

I would say it's possible, but I don't think witness testimony is
sufficient to establish is.

.John
-----------------------
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/home.htm

Martin Caidin

2021-01-23 00:38:00 UTC

If we accept the estimate that the limo was going 11 mph, I can't imagine
Clint Hill in street shoes could have been running faster than about 15
mph which gives a closing speed of about 4 mph. That's walking speed so
even though it was a short distance between the two cars, it would have
taken him several seconds to reach the limo. The Altgens photo still shows
him on the running board and I think that photo was taken around Z255.
That's about 3 seconds before Oswald fired the head shot. I don't see how
he could have got there in time after seeing the second shot had hit JFK.

In the Muchmore film, Hill is about even with the front wheel of the
backup car when Kennedy is hit in the head, so no, he was never close to
preventing the assassination. For the record, Hill doesn't believe in the
single bullet theory.

John McAdams

2021-01-23 00:41:38 UTC

For the record, Hill doesn't believe in the
single bullet theory.

Do you have a source on that?

It would be a bit odd, since the clips of him I posted seem to show
him saying there were only two shots.

If there were only two shots, the SBT would be necessary.

.John
-----------------------
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/home.htm

Martin Caidin

2021-01-23 04:09:09 UTC

For the record, Hill doesn't believe in the
single bullet theory.

Do you have a source on that?
It would be a bit odd, since the clips of him I posted seem to show
him saying there were only two shots.
If there were only two shots, the SBT would be necessary.
.John
-----------------------
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/home.htm

Loading Image...

John McAdams

2021-01-23 04:20:06 UTC

For the record, Hill doesn't believe in the
single bullet theory.

Do you have a source on that?
It would be a bit odd, since the clips of him I posted seem to show
him saying there were only two shots.
If there were only two shots, the SBT would be necessary.

https://2.bp.blogspot.com/--tMiBa8OycM/W16AARcnt3I/AAAAAAAAShw/7JpNVCyB5xIswIW3ne4m36yn61bUU_FZwCLcBGAs/s1600/37954456_10215566581293161_2877552703054020608_o.jpg

Interesting, although it conflicts with his accounts in the video,
where he only mentioned two shots.

Connally was sure the second bullet hit him. That's consistent with
the current LGT consensus.

https://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/video/Connally_SBT.mp4

I'm wondering if Clint Hill is just following JBC about this. And JBC
simply believed Nellie about the first bullet hitting JFK.

While we are at it, Hill puts the entrance in the back of Kennedy's
head low at the EOP. That's what the autopsy said, but not what the
photos and x-rays show.

While we are at it, his version of the "great defect" in the head
looks to be based on the Zapruder film, and may or may not have been
something he could actually see.

I'll confess I have not read the Hill/McCubbins book.

.John
-----------------------
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/home.htm

Mark Tyler

2021-01-23 20:51:09 UTC

For the record, Hill doesn't believe in the
single bullet theory.

Do you have a source on that?
It would be a bit odd, since the clips of him I posted seem to show
him saying there were only two shots.
If there were only two shots, the SBT would be necessary.

https://2.bp.blogspot.com/--tMiBa8OycM/W16AARcnt3I/AAAAAAAAShw/7JpNVCyB5xIswIW3ne4m36yn61bUU_FZwCLcBGAs/s1600/37954456_10215566581293161_2877552703054020608_o.jpg

Interesting, although it conflicts with his accounts in the video,
where he only mentioned two shots.
Connally was sure the second bullet hit him. That's consistent with
the current LGT consensus.

Connally said that the shot that hit him was fired so rapidly after the
first he thought two gunman were involved or an automatic weapon was used.
He also mentioned feeling pain 2 seconds after the first shot which
contradicts the popular Z150-Z155 early missed shot idea which is the
cornerstone of the "LGT consensus". It's very easy to rely on fragments
of witness statements that match a consensus, but in this case Connally is
also challenging the consensus.

There is a different interpretation of what Connally said which does
support another lone gunman theory. We are all implicitly assuming that a
shot hitting JFK and Connally would create a near instant victim reaction
which we see at Z225-Z230 (thus a shot fired circa Z210-Z220 with a short
reaction time of well under a second). This is my current assumption too,
but what if we are all wrong? What if JFK & Connally were hit circa Z190
as the HSCA said, and the victims started reacting behind the Stemmons
sign in some way, or possibly the victims had some sort of delayed
reaction until Z225?

Supporting this idea is that Connally never heard the shot that hit him,
he just *ASSUMED* a second shot was fired. So just like Clint Hill we
have a witness assuming something, which is rather dangerous. If there
was a slight delay in the victims reacting, this would explain how all of
the evidence might line up. Most other witnesses described one early
shot, then a noticeable pause, followed by the head shot. Apart from the
large number who heard bunched shots, almost all of the witness evidence
lines up with this scenario.

Maybe LHO rattled off a quick final shot at Z370 as he saw the limo speed
away which could even qualify as a late "bunch"? With gaps of 6-7 seconds
and 3 seconds between shots, this matches the large number of witnesses
who said that the last two shots were closer than the first two. Then we
have no contradictions with the vast majority of witnesses (apart from
those who were distracted and failed to hear one of the shots, or those
who heard echoes and thought two shots were fired when it was only one).
By contrast, shots at Z150, Z220, and Z310 requires us to ignore 85-89% of
witnesses who only heard one shot before JFK was hit, and to ignore the
second largest Z-film jiggle during Z190-Z210. None of this seems right
to me.

Post by John McAdams
https://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/video/Connally_SBT.mp4
I'm wondering if Clint Hill is just following JBC about this. And JBC
simply believed Nellie about the first bullet hitting JFK.

I think this is exactly what happened, with Nellie persuading many people
of how events unfolded. The early FBI theory was that JFK was hit first,
then Connally, then JFK again, as per this conversation with J Edgar
Hoover a week after the assassination:

The Zapruder film seems to debunk this theory as it shows JFK and Connally
reacting at exactly the same time, which is circumstantial support for the
SBT.

Post by John McAdams
While we are at it, Hill puts the entrance in the back of Kennedy's
head low at the EOP. That's what the autopsy said, but not what the
photos and x-rays show.
While we are at it, his version of the "great defect" in the head
looks to be based on the Zapruder film, and may or may not have been
something he could actually see.
I'll confess I have not read the Hill/McCubbins book.
.John
-----------------------
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/home.htm

John Corbett

2021-01-23 14:11:31 UTC

For the record, Hill doesn't believe in the
single bullet theory.

Do you have a source on that?
It would be a bit odd, since the clips of him I posted seem to show
him saying there were only two shots.
If there were only two shots, the SBT would be necessary.
.John
-----------------------
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/home.htm

https://2.bp.blogspot.com/--tMiBa8OycM/W16AARcnt3I/AAAAAAAAShw/7JpNVCyB5xIswIW3ne4m36yn61bUU_FZwCLcBGAs/s1600/37954456_10215566581293161_2877552703054020608_o.jpg

Clint Hill is simply not credible on this point. He had no idea when JBC
was hit. He didn't remember hearing one of the shots so how could he have
known whether the shot he didn't hear occurred before or after he saw JFK
had been hit. His view of JBC would have been blocked when he saw that JFK
had been hit in the back so he couldn't have known whether that shot had
also hit JBC. Once he realized JFK had been hit and was racing to the
limo, I'm sure 100% of his focus would have been on getting JFK and Jackie
out of harms way. He probably didn't even realize JBC had been hit until
the limo was racing to Parkland.

Like so many of the witnesses, Hill got some things right and some things
wrong. The one witness we know got everything right was Zapruder's camera.
That witness shows us that JFK and JBC reacted to being shot and the same
instant. It strains believability to argue that JFK was hit by the first
and third shots and JBC the second. The two shots that struck JFK were
fired about 4.9 seconds apart. That is just 0.1 second above what the FBI
determined was the minimum time needed to fire three aimed shots. JFK
reacted to being shot at Z226 when his arms suddenly flew upward towards
his throat. That would indicate a strike in the early 220s. One second
later at Z240 we see Connally twisting and dipping to his right, obviously
he has been hit.

Loading Image...

There is no way Oswald could have fired two shots in that amount of time.
Even if we push back the shot that hit JFK to the earliest moment the WC
the theorized, Z210, that is still just 30 frames from JBC's Z240 reaction
which actually began even before that. 30 frames is 1.64 seconds.
Theoretically, a Carcano can be fired twice in that amount of time but not
if one takes the time to aim the second shot.

There is no getting around it. Either JFK and JBC were hit by the same
shot or there was a second gunman. The evidence overwhelmingly indicates
the former is true.

Anthony Marsh

2021-01-24 21:37:00 UTC

The limo slowed down to about 8MPH just before the head shot.

Mark Tyler

2021-01-25 01:59:25 UTC

Post by Anthony Marsh

The limo slowed down to about 8MPH just before the head shot.

Correct, that's what my measurements show, and is also consistent with the
1975 Luis Alvarez paper on the Z-film.

allan...@yahoo.com

2021-01-26 17:44:21 UTC

If you observe the Orville Nix film at the 10 second mark, the time
JFK's head exploded with the third shot, you can see Hill still just
beginning to leap off the side of the followup car. His right hand is
still on the limo and his left foot is just starting to touch the ground.
He always said he saw the shot hit JFK as he was approaching the limo,
this is not true, it's only his recollection, same goes with hearing only
two shots, it's only his recollection.

John Corbett

2021-01-26 23:56:20 UTC