claviger wrote:
> On May 29, 8:49 am, Andrew Mason <a.ma...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
>
>>claviger wrote:
>>
>>>Andrew,
>>
>>>I think your theory is very interesting. The method you use to find a
shot
>>>between z224 and z313 that matches the auricular perception of a
majority
>>>of witnesses is a good example of deductive logic based on the premise
3
>>>shots were fired and all 3 hit targets separately, and most im****tant,
the
>>>first shot struck the President. Some eyewitness testimony would seem
to
>>>verify the first shot did indeed strike the President in the back. As I
>>>mentioned before Howard Donahue, an expert in the field of ballistics,
>>>thinks 3 shots were fired, all 3 resulting in wounds to the President.
>>>However, he believes the first shot hit the street and the President
was
>>>wounded by a fragment created by the ricochet.
>>
>>>Using the perceived sound pattern mentioned by a majority of witnesses
as
>>>the most im****tant factor that must be explained, there are only 3
options
>>>that make sense: The Mason theory, Holland theory, or the Donahue
theory.
>>>Those are the only theories that can account for 3 shots, the last 2
>>>closer than the first 2.
>>
>>The Holland theory requires a shot before Zapruder started filming -
>>even then he gets 7 seconds and 5 seconds between shots. The last two
>>are hardly in rapid succession and the 7:5 ratio is far from the 2:1
>>ratio that many of the witnesses estimated.
>
> The Max Holland theory is interesting because if there was no shot
> between the back shot and the head shot the first shot must have taken
> place at or before z133 to fit the time perception of the last two
> shots being closer together compared to the first two. The Zapruder
> film was estimated to be 18.3 frames per second. Some think it was a
> bit slower, but using the 18.3 number simple math reveals the time
> interval between z224 and z313 is 4.86 seconds. From z133 to z224 is
> 4.97 seconds. As you can see that puts z224 halfway between the first
> and last shots in the shooting sequence.
>
> However, according to a majority of the witnesses the last two shots
> were perceived to be closer than the first two. Unless it can be
> proved there was a shot between the two known shots at z224 and z313,
> the first shot must have come before z224. If it did, based on the
> majority of the collective witness sound perceptions, the first shot
> must have come at z133 or earlier. Either that is the case or the
> majority of witnesses were wrong.
First of all it is very doubtful that a shot occurred at z224. This is
based on all the evidence - particularly the shot pattern evidence but
also the evidence that JFK was hit by the first shot and the last shot was
at z313. If there was a first shot at z224, there simply is not time for 3
shots from Oswald in those 4.87 seconds if the last two are noticeably
closer together. If there was a second shot at z224, there is almost five
seconds until the third, which does not fit the description of "rapid
succession" or "real close". In any event, in order to have the last two
closer together than 1 and 2, you would need a first shot 8-10 seconds
earlier and there is abundant evidence that this did not occur*.
Besides, witnesses described the actions of JFK just before the first
"horrible ear-shattering noise". Mary Woodward said he was looking at them
and just turned forward when the first shot sounded. Several others had
similar observations. JFK turns forward just before z200.
There is another explanation: a first shot at z200, a second at z271 and a
third at z313. That fits all the evidence.
* Note: A first shot at z133 is not early enough if the second shot was
before z224 in order to fit the shot pattern that witnesses heard. In any
event, even z133 is far too early by all witness accounts (Zapruder,
Betzner, Croft, Willis, all the motorcade witnesses (22), and the first
shot location witnesses who put JFK past or passing them at the time of
the first shot - all after z190).
>
>
>>>While your theory is unique, and well researched, it has some major
>>>problems to overcome. A significant group of witnesses saw the first
shot
>>>miss and bounce off the street, or heard the first shot prior to z224.
>>>Those witnesses cannot be easily dismissed.
>>
>>No. None saw a shot miss and bounce off the street. Some said they
>>recalled something bounce off the street or curb.
>
> And what would that "something" be? Two police officers thought it was
> a bullet. So did two citizens. They say it was the first shot so it
> can't be skull fragments.
Which two officers? Martin? Chaney? Ellis? Hardly, as set out below in my
last post. Even Royce Skelton did not notice anything until after the
second shot when the car was well down Elm (he was on the overpass).
>
> ________________________________________________
>
>>>"On hearing the first burst of firing, Sheriff Bill Decker glances back
>>>and thinks he sees a bullet bouncing off the street pavement.
Motorcycle
>>>officer, Starvis Ellis also will testify he sees a bullet hit the
>>>pavement. (Neither Decker nor Ellis will ever be questioned about this
by
>>>the Warren Commission.) Motorcycle officer James Chaney will also tell
>>>newsmen this day that the first shot missed. It is suggested that JFK
is
>>>hit by small pieces of the street pavement, and stops waving for a
>>>moment."
>>
>>This evidence is not accurate. You need the actual statements, not the
>>editorialized versions.
>>
>>Decker stated that he recalled two shots and the first one did not hit
>>the pavement - it hit JFK:
>>
>>"As the Motorcade was proceeding down Elm Street, I distinctly remember
>>hearing 2 shots. As I heard the first retort, I looked back over my
>>shoulder and saw what appeared to me to bo a spray of water coming out
>>of the rear seat of the President's car ."
>>
>>Decker Exhibit 5323, 19 H 458
>>
>>http://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh19/html/WH_Vol...
>
> If Decker looked back at the time of the head shot then he could have
> seen a fragment of the bullet bounce off the street pavement or a
> piece of skull. According to this quote he only heard 2 shots. If so
> he is one more witness where the first sound didn't register as a
> gunshot. However, the other quote by Decker sounds like he saw a
> bullet bounce off the pavement at some point when shots were fired.
All of the shots were audible - very loud, in fact. No one was unable to
hear it. The question is whether people's brains processed the sound.
Connally did not hear the second shot because of the impact it had on him.
This is a well understood phenomenon. The brain senses the extreme trauma
before the sound arrives at the ear and does not process the subsequent
sound. Whether this same phenomenon can occur to someone who is standing
around and not hit is highly speculative.
If there was only one shot, are you suggesting that there would be people
who would not hear anything? It is much more likely that they heard all
three shots but could not recall after the fact how many there were.
>
>>Stavis Ellis never gave a statement to the WC. He made a statement in
>>1978 to the HSCA and for the first time ever mentioned something
>>hitting the road. He said he was 100 feet ahead of the President's car
>>on a motorcycle. Ellis says he looked back and saw something hit the
>>curb. It may be recalled that photographer Ike Altgens also said he saw
>>particles hit the road near him: pieces of flesh and brain of the
>>President. If it had been a bullet, one might expect to see a mark on
>>the curb, such as the mark found on the curb next to James Tague. No
>>mark was ever found despite meticulous searching by the FBI.
>
> Yes, the quote I gave you earlier said neither Ellis nor Decker were
> called to testify before the WC. Ellis gave a detailed description of
> what he saw to this writer.
The only evidence that matters is evidence taken at the earliest
op****tunity. It is almost impossible to be sure that the evidence is not
tainted by what the witness has heard or seen since the events. That is
why the witness statements from Nov 22/63 are so im****tant.
>
>
>>Chaney was quoted in the Houston Chronicle on Nov. 24/63 (referred to by
>>Mark Lane before the WC at 2 H 43) saying that he thought the first shot
>>missed. He didn't say why he thought that and, in particular, he didn't
>>say that it hit the road or anything else.
>
> No one said he saw anything hit the road. Chaney is a corroborating
> witness in the motorcade who states the first shot missed.
There are two reasons for a witness believing a shot missed: 1. the
witness saw it hit something other than the target (JFK) or 2. the witness
did not see the reaction he would have expected if it had hit the target
(JFK). If 1., the witness would not say that he thought it missed. He
would say that he saw it hit something else. If 2. he would say he thought
it missed.
>
>
>>BJ Martin is often referred to as a "first shot miss" witness based on
>>his testimony before the HSCA. The problem is that he never said that to
>>the WC. In fact, he said this (6 H 291):
>>
>>"Mr. BALL. Did you take any notice of the President after the first
shot?
>>Mr. MARTIN. Yes, sir; I looked at the President after I heard the shot
>>and he was leaning forward-I could see the left side of his face. At the
>>time he had no expression on his face."
>>
>>That makes Martin a "first shot hit" witness. (it is certainly not a
>>description of JFK turning, smiling and waving to the crowd as we see in
>>the zfilm up to about z200).
>
> At the sound of the first shot Martin looked to his right and saw the
> TSBD, not the Grassy Knoll. Other witnesses say the first shot came
> when the Limousine was in front of the TSBD.
Who are these "other witnesses".
In a manner of speaking, the first shot DID come when the limo was in
front of the TSBD. Greer, the driver, said it sounded just as the car was
passing the west corner of the TSBD. TE Moore said the limo was just
passing the Thornton freeway sign, which if you project the sign in the
perpendicular direction to the middle of Elm, puts the limo about opposite
the west corner of the TSBD.
>
>
>>>Assassination Research.com
>>
>>>"Stavis (Steve) Ellis, motorcycle officer who saw the first shot miss
and
>>>hit the south curb of Elm Street (in Sneed's No More Silence)."
>>
>>>Notices and Recent Additions to the JFK Web Site
>>
>>>_________________________________________________
>>
>>>In addition, Victoria Adams, Emmet Hudson, Glen Bennett, and Tina
Towner
>>>also witnessed a shot prior to z224. And of course Virgie Rachley Baker
>>>and Royce Skelton were the first to mention the first shot bounced off
the
>>>street near the Limousine. There are other witnesses who mention the
>>>President slumps in his seat after the 2nd shot.
>>
>>Lots of people witnessed a first shot before z224 because the first shot
>>was around z200, according to the witnesses (Betzner, Willis, and about
>>22 others who located the first shot after z191)
>
> ______________________________________________________________
>
> Gary Mack:
>
> "One of the best witnesses is photographer Tina Towner. Tina has
> always been specific that the first shot came just a second or two
> AFTER she stopped filming; she actually stopped only a second or two
> before Z133. Your hypotheses, that the first shot came while the limo
> was in the middle of the first pair of road stripes (or earlier),
> requires the first shot to have been fired one or two seconds BEFORE
> Towner stopped filming. That just can't be true. Take a look at the
> full frame Towner film we used in the Discovery Channel show "Death In
> Dealey Plaza" and watch for the road stripes. Towner could not
> possibly have been confused about when the first shot was fired in
> relation to when her film ended.
Tina Towner finished shooting a second before Zapruder started filming
(about 18 frames before z133 if his camera had been running). Towner said
that the turned around and started walking back to the corner and was
putting her camera away when the first shot occurred. She wrote a letter
to the 6th floor museum, aparently (according to Gary Mack) and said that
the shot was about 4-6 seconds after she stopped filming. z200 is just
under 5 seconds after she stopped filming.
>
> Other evidence is even more powerful. A recorded interview with DPD
> Sgt. Jim Chaney the afternoon of the assassination places the first
> shot at around Z160. Chaney, riding only a few feet to the right rear
> of the limo, explained that the first shot came as Jackie was "looking
> to her left." She does that, very briefly, around Z160 (see the Croft
> #3 photo for reference). That frame happens to fall some two or three
> seconds after Towner stopped filming."
> ______________________________________________________________
>
>
>>Virgie Baker (Rackley) was standing in front of the TSBD. She said she
>>saw something hit in front of the President's car on the road (her
>>November 24, 1963 interview). However, in her deposition to the WC, she
>>said (7 H 510) that it hit behind the limo and said that the limo was
>>past the Stemmons sign at that time. (She marks the position at point
>>"2" on exhibit CE354). That would put the location of the car at least
>>at frame 250. Hardly a first shot, because JFK is reacting by then. And
>>hardly a miss. She may have seen flesh and blood or bone striking the
>>road, which we know occurred at about the location Baker identified.
>
> The head shot occurred way past the Stemmons sign, so it wasn't bone
> striking the road.
Keep in mind that she is standing on Elm in front of the TSBD and looking
down the road. So past the Stemmons sign for Baker is much further down
Elm than for Zapruder.
>
>
>>>From reading all the witness testimony I can find, my opinion is many
of
>>>the witnesses are confusing "the first shot" with the second shot that
>>>wounded the President. It is the second sound they heard but the first
>>>sound they perceived as a gunshot. No witness said the President
slumped
>>>after the first firecracker.
>>
>>I don't follow you. If you are saying that no witness said the President
>>slumped after the first shot-like sound, you are not correct. 19
>>witnesses by my count observed just that.
see:http://www.dufourlaw.com/jfk/first_shot_hit_witnesses.PDF
>
> Again, the first shot perceived as a gunshot, not a firecracker. Did
> any witness say the President slumped after the first firecracker?
Yes, if the first "firecracker" was the first shot. Many. Or are you
suggesting that there was a real firecracker as well as shots?
Do you think that anyone thought the first loud noise that they thought
(at the time) was a firecracker was actually a firecracker and not a shot?
>
>
>> Some witnesses did say he sat upright after
>>
>>
>>>the firecracker, which may be true according to the Donahue theory.
That
>>>theory asserts the President received a flesh wound of either a
fragment
>>>of the bullet or cement particles that embedded into his skin causing
him
>>>to exclaim, "My God, I've been hit!" It was probably the latter because
>>>cement particles were noticed on the President's face by mortuary
>>>employees.
>>
>>Again, you have to use real evidence. No one found particles on the
>>President that were actually shown to be cement. This grey powder may
>>have been his own aspirated brain cells.
>
> The mortuary employees said it was cement. Do aspirated brain cells
> turn to powder or become gritty like cement?
I don't know. Do you? Did they analyse the material?
>
>
>>>You have placed a shot at z270 which is problematic because that frame
is
>>>blocked by a lightpost.
>>
>>I don't follow you there. At z270 a lightpost blocks Zapruder's view of
>>JFK but not Oswald's.
>
> We can't see Gov. Connally because of the lightpost.
We can see him in z271 and z272. We can see his sudden forward motion, the
change in appearance of the wrist, the JFK hair flying up, Greer turning
around at z280. Nellie pulls him down, which she said she did immediately
after the shot hit.
>
>
>> However, Gov. Connally is still in an upright
>>
>>
>>>posture in that frame to be wounded in the side, but it might be the
case
>>>he is having a delayed reaction to being wounded, which is a known
medical
>>>phenomenon.
>>
>>But contrary to his very clear evidence that he felt the shot, that it
>>was very forceful, and he immediately realized he was seriously hit.
>
> From what I've read people who are shot sometimes have a delayed
> reaction. They don't even realize they have been shot for a few
> seconds.
The problem is that Connally said he knew he had been shot the instant he
was hit. People can be shot and not feel it (there is rarely pain
associated with the actual wounding) but not if it strikes bone (see: Dr.
Shaw's evidence - 4 H 116) and it certainly did that to JBC.
Others are stunned for few seconds. Even when the bullet
> feels like a mule kicked them they are stunned for a few moments and
> don't react, like ducking down. They continue to stay in the same
> position until someone else pulls them down. In this case Nellie
> Connally had to pull her husband down to get him out of the line of
> fire.
And she does that at z280-290 which she said she did immediately after
the second shot. Note this is immediately after z271-72.
>
>
>>Both the President and Gov. Connally seem slow to react to
>>
>>
>>>their wounds, but we must keep in mind each frame is only 1/18th of a
>>>second. Enlargement of frames z224-225 indicate Connally is wounded
>>>simultaneous with the President.
>>
>>In your mind, maybe. Connally said he reacted to the first shot so it is
>>not surprising that he reacts a little after we see JFK reacting. We
>>can't tell when JFK begins to react because he is behind the sign prior
>>to z223.
>
> Close inspection of a blowup of the film indicates Gov. Connally is
> reacting to a shot in z223-226.
I agree. He said he reacted to the first shot by doing exactly what is
seen in the zfilm beginning at about z226.
>
> Little JFK Page - SBT - z223-z226
> http://users.skynet.be/mar/Eng/SBT/223-226-eng.htm
>
>
How do you tell from those frames that he is hit in the back by it? How
would the reaction to the shot that he described - turning to see JFK -
differ from what you think a person would do in response to being hit in
the back? Don't we have to go with the evidence?
>>>Have you found any witnesses who claim to see a separate wound between
>>>the back shot and head shot?
>>
>>yes. Nellie Connally, David Powers, Gayle Newman, corroborated by Wm.
>>Greer. SA Hickey and SA Kinney saw JFk's hair fly up on the second
>>shot. Look at the zfilm carefully and you can see it fly up. Guess
where?
>
> The Connallys both say JBC was hit by the second shot, which is of
> course true if the first shot missed.
No. Nellie said that JFK was reacting to his neck wound before the
second shot (as did Altgens and about 16 others). JBC agreed with her
because he turned around to his right to see JFK and saw that he was not
on the right side where he expected to see him. If JFK had been in his
far right position, JBC would have no difficulty seeing him (see the
WFAA video of JBC and JFK chatting with JBC turned to his right earlier
in the motorcade).
>
> Greer:
>
> "The President's automobile was almost past this building and I was
> looking at the overpass that we were about to pass under in case
> someone was on top of it, when I heard what I thought was the backfire
> of a motorcycle behind the President's automobile. After the second
> shot, I glanced over my right shoulder and saw Governor Connally start
> to fall, I knew then that something was wrong and I immediately pushed
> the accelerator to the floor and Mr. Kellerman said, get out of here."
>
> "Mr. SPECTER. Do you have an independent recollection at this moment
> of having heard three shots at that time?
> Mr. GREER. I knew that after I heard the second one, that is when I
> looked over my shoulder, and I was conscious that there was something
> wrong, because that is when I saw Governor Connally. And when I turned
> around again, to the best of my recollection there was another one,
> right immediately after."
>
> Again, the second shot hit Gov. Connally.
>
> Hickey: Said he heard one shot that sounded like a firecracker and
> then two more shots when he saw the President's hair fly up.
>
> Kinney: "I did hear three shots but do not recall which shots were
> those that hit the President."
>
> Dave Powers is the only witness who thought he heard 3 shots and saw 3
> wounds.
>
> You are working with the assumption that a majority of witnesses can't
> be wrong about hearing a total of 3 shots with the last two being
> closer together.
Not at all. I am saying that the distribution of witness recollections
which overwhelmingly favours that pattern cannot occur randomly. There is
a reason all those witnesses had the same distinct recollection. It is
impossible for that high a pro****tion of witnesses to independently
imagine something all the same way. It cannot happen in the real world.
Either they were in error because of some phenomenon that made them
imagine the same wrong pattern,(what might that be?) or they agree because
they heard the same pattern.
A majority of witnesses heard it that way. However,
> you have the opposite problem of nothing close to a majority of
> witnesses who saw 3 wounds with 3 shots or a shot and wound between
> the back shot and head shot.
If out of 100 potential witnesses, only five witnesses actally re****t
observing a phenomenon do you say they are unreliable because 95 witnesses
did not re****t that observation?
The question is whether the witnesses who independently re****ted 3 shots
and 3 hits are contradicted by other evidence. They aren't.
Andrew Mason
|
