Mark Tyler Posted August 8, 2020 Share Posted August 8, 2020 I have spent the last few months studying the hundreds of witness statements from Dealey Plaza, and in particular I have focused on what they reported regarding the shots. I thought it would be useful to share this work in a forum post and stimulate feedback in the hope of learning new insights. During this process researchers can then explore how the survey results support or contradict the popular theories in this case. The latest raw data is held in a spreadsheet here: https://raw.githubusercontent.com/matyler/mc63.dpws/master/mc63_dpws.csv https://github.com/matyler/mc63.dpws The value of an ordered spreadsheet is that it enables quick and easy analysis via graphs, pivot tables, or filters. For example by putting the data into Excel you can set a filter on the column headers and quickly identify witnesses who were located in a particular area. Here is a filter on Location_A which shows who was inside the TSBD: There is also a column for witnesses who made films or photos, which is why Elsie Dorman has "Film" listed in the above screenshot. The following filter on Location_B shows who was standing outside the TSBD: Crucially I have evaluated the quality of the witness statements relative to: How much measurable information they share (e.g. associating a shot with an event like JFK's arms being raised). How soon after the event they publicly shared their information. If someone didn't report their story until many years later I mark their quality down as we can't be sure that's what they originally thought happened. Later statements tend to be somewhat less reliable than earlier statements (e.g. Jean Hill). Are the statements clear or unambiguous? If something can be interpreted in more than one way then it's quality is marked down. By filtering by this criteria I can ensure I only take notice of the more reliable witnesses, and avoid the weaker or more ambiguous statements. Hopefully people find this useful in their own analysis. For more detailed references to the original statements that the witnesses gave, see these rather helpful sources: John McAdams - https://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/shots.htm Josiah Thompson - "Six Seconds In Dallas" appendix A, p.252 https://archive.org/details/SixSecondsInDallas Mike Russ - http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/russ/wit.htm Pat Speer - Chapters 5-9 - http://www.patspeer.com/chapter5%3Athejigsawpuzzle Stewart Galanor - https://www.history-matters.com/analysis/witness/index.htm Todd Wayne Vaughan - http://jfk.hood.edu/Collection/Weisberg Subject Index Files/M Disk/Motorcade Route/Item 15.pdf Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mark Tyler Posted August 8, 2020 Author Share Posted August 8, 2020 The witness statements tend to mostly cluster around a few different shot scenarios. Rather helpfully the Willis family testimony that appeared in the Warren Commission volumes describes the most common scenarios that most of the witnesses reported that day. Phil Willis said about the shots fired and the photos he took: "No, sir; I took that picture just seconds before the first shot was fired, to get back close up. Then I started down the street, and the regular weekly edition of Life magazine came out and shows me in about three different pictures going down the street. Then my next shot was taken at the very-in fact, the shot caused me to squeeze the camera shutter, and I got a picture of the President as he was hit with the first shot. So instantaneous, in fact, that the crowd hadn’t had time to react." "Mr. LIEBELER. Picture No. 4 in your group of slides was taken shortly before picture No. 5 was taken, is that right?" "Mr. WILLIS. Yes, sir ; not more than 3 seconds." 7H493 : https://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh7/pdf/WH7_PhillipWillis.pdf Here are the two photos that were mentioned: "Willis 4" and "Willis 5": I calculate Willis 4 to have be taken at Z133 and Willis 5 at Z202 which is a gap of 3.8 seconds (18.3 FPS), so his estimate of 3 seconds is fairly close to what happened. From a different angle here is what Abraham Zapruder saw at those same points of time: Using a literal interpretation of his shot gap timings he is describing shots being fired at roughly these points relative to the Zapruder film: Shot 1 - Z188 (3 seconds after the photo Z133, with the noise causing him to take the photo at Z202) Shot 2 - Z224 (2 seconds after shot 1) Shot 3 - Z261 (2 seconds after shot 2) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mark Tyler Posted August 8, 2020 Author Share Posted August 8, 2020 Linda Willis said about the shots: "Yes; I heard one. Then there was a little bit of time, and then there were two real fast bullets together. When the first one hit, well, the President turned from waving to the people, and he grabbed his throat, and he kind of slumped forward, and then I couldn't tell where the second shot went." "Yes; the first one, I heard the first shot come and then he slumped forward, and then I couldn't tell where the second shot went, and then the third one, and that was the last one that hit him in the head." 7H498 : https://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh7/pdf/WH7_LindaWillis.pdf Using the Zapruder film as a guide, the shots she heard were fired around these points: Shot 1 - Z210-Z220 Shot 2 - Z280-Z300 Shot 3 - Z310 Marilyn Willis said this about the shots in an FBI statement: "Mrs WILLIS advised that when the motorcade passed on Elm Street in front of where she was standing she heard a noise that sounded like a firecracker or a backfire. A few seconds following this, she stated she heard another report and saw the top of President KENNEDY's head 'blow off and ringed by a red halo.' She stated she believes she heard another shot following this." CD1245 : https://www.history-matters.com/analysis/witness/witnessMap/documents/wcd_hsca/wcd_hsca_0026a.gif Sadly she wasn't specific about the timing of the final shot, but it's probably safe to assume it was 2-5 seconds after the head shot. Likewise when saying "few seconds following" I assume this means 3-5 seconds which allows me to judge her shot pattern as: Shot 1 - Z220-Z250 Shot 2 - Z310 Shot 3 - Z350-Z400 In summary, each of the Willis witnesses report hearing three shots but they each seem to be describing a different pattern: One of the witnesses describes a shot before Z200. All three witnesses are describing a shot around Z220, which we can see the effects of in the Zapruder film when JFK and Connally start reacting in the car Z225-Z230. Two of the witnesses are describing a shot around Z250-Z300. Two of the witnesses saw the effects of the fatal head shot at Z313. One of the witnesses heard a shot after Z350. What is the best way to make sense of this? Should we conclude that there were actually five shots fired and each witness missed two of them because they were so close to the other shots, or in the case of the final shot people were distracted by the sirens and screaming after Z313? Or should we conclude that only three shots were fired and their memories were faulty because of the stressful situation and the echoes of the shots? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Micah Mileto Posted August 8, 2020 Share Posted August 8, 2020 This is a great spreadsheet! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mark Tyler Posted August 8, 2020 Author Share Posted August 8, 2020 10 minutes ago, Micah Mileto said: This is a great spreadsheet! I hope you find it useful Micah! If you spot any errors or omissions please let me know and I will fix as necessary. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cliff Varnell Posted August 9, 2020 Share Posted August 9, 2020 Richard Hocking compiled this list of ear witnesses who reported a “bang...bang-bang” shot sequence. Jack Bell SSA Glen Bennett Lee Bowers Mayor Earle Cabell Rose Clark Deputy Roger Craig James Crawford Chief Jesse Curry Dep. Harold Elkins Buell Wesley Frazier SSA William Greer Officer Clyde Haygood Ruby Henderson Georgia Ruth Hendrix SSA George Hickey Emmett J. Hudson Hurchell Jacks Robert H. Jackson James "Junior" Jarman Lady Bird Johnson Dep. C. M. Jones SSA Roy Kellerman SSA Sam Kinney SSA Winston G. Lawson Roy Edward Lewis Billy Lovelady SSA Bill McIntyre Mary Ann Mitchell Joe Molina Dep. Luke Mooney Lillian Mooneyham Samuel Paternostro Ptrl. Joe Henry Rich SSA Emory Roberts Arnold Rowland Barbara Rowland William Shelley Edward Shields Ruth Smith John Solon SSA Forrest Sorrels Pearl Springer Dep. Alan Sweatt SSA Woody Taylor Ruth Thornton Carolyn Walther Dep. Seymour Weitzman Bonnie Ray Williams Linda Willis Dep. John "Bill" Wiseman Mary Woodward Sen. Ralph Yarborough SSA Rufus Youngblood Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Micah Mileto Posted August 9, 2020 Share Posted August 9, 2020 (edited) Where is that list someone made of "nosewitnesses" to gunpowder? I think there were at least 9 of them? Edited August 9, 2020 by Micah Mileto Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Greg Doudna Posted August 9, 2020 Share Posted August 9, 2020 (edited) Yes, in reading Pat Speer's compilation of witness testimonies it seems so clear there was a first "bang" like a firecracker, then a pause, then a final flurry of two or three shots very close together. The idea of three evenly-spaced shots seems to have been driven by a need to have timings of shots compatible with a single shooter, rather than the weight of the witness testimonies. From the blur analyses the second strongest indication next to Z313 and Z330 seems to be around Z290, but that was not considered a shot, including by Alvarez who wrote the original blur analysis and recognized a major blur there, due to impossibility of a single shooter, as brought out in work of Robert Harris. But this raises the question of the Connally hit, which everyone places ca. Z220-230 (including Harris, who interprets Z290 as a missed shot which Nellie Connally mistakenly thought hit Connally even though Connally had actually been hit earlier). But the witness testimonies do not generally seem to support a shot heard at ca. Z220-230. Nor does a Connally hit at that point agree with his own testimony that he turned right, then turned back and was facing about forward when he was hit and Nellie then pulled him down, whereupon he heard JFK hit with the head shot immediately. This sounds and looks in Zapruder like Connally hit at Z290. Compare Connally telling of it himself here starting at 4:22: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZqpfHEkRpIw. But that leaves the Connally grimace, the lapel bulge, and the hat flip at Z220s, usually interpreted as reactions to being hit--but can those be interpreted otherwise (Connally shouting "no, no, no" = the "grimace"?)? There is a major blur at Z313 matching the head shot and then another major blur at Z330 but then there are actually three major blurs after that, perhaps reflecting Zapruder's own trembling and shock at seeing what happened in the JFK head shot at that point (didn't Zapruder say he was weeping at that point?). If the major post-Z330 blurs can be from other causes perhaps the Z330 blur could be too. Some witnesses said they heard a shot after the head shot, but if there were two or three rapid shots between Z290 and Z313 could there be confusion to witnesses as to which sound was associated with the head shot that they saw with their eyes? In reading the strength of the witness testimonies of the "bang" ... then 4-5 seconds ... "bang-bang-(bang)" ... Pat Speer brings out another phenomenon which is striking: a majority of the witnesses located at the corner of Elm and Houston heard four, whereas those at the Grassy Knoll and in the motorcade heard only three, not four. It occurs to me there could be a simple explanation for this unequal distribution corresponding to physical location of who heard four shots. How far apart in time do two shots need to be for the average human to hear them as two, rather than one, shots? A guess: maybe one-quarter second. Less would be heard as one shot, more heard as two. If, say, a shot was fired from a building near Elm and Houston 0.3 seconds earlier in absolute time than a shot fired at the Grassy Knoll, and if it takes 0.15 seconds for the sound of a muzzle blast at Elm and Houston to reach people at the Grassy Knoll, then those two muzzle blasts would be heard at the Grassy Knoll only 0.15 second apart = as one shot. But witnesses standing at Elm and Houston would hear those two muzzle blasts 0.45 seconds apart = as two shots. In this scenario there would actually be four shots--one plus a final flurry of three close together--but two of that final flurry were so very close together that they were not distinguished by many witnesses depending on their physical location and the amount of time it takes sound to travel. And the cumulative weight of the witnesses hearing a single "bang" followed by several seconds and then a flurry of either two or three more shots very close together ... is inconsistent with a single shooter with a bolt-operated rifle. Is the interpretation of the witness testimonies of the hearing of these shots a case of the weight of the sheer aggregate numbers for a final two or three very close together have been there all along but have not been "seen" so clearly in the history of expert analyses due to a filtering effect on interpretation from the single-shooter presupposition? Edited August 9, 2020 by Greg Doudna Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mark Tyler Posted August 9, 2020 Author Share Posted August 9, 2020 12 hours ago, Cliff Varnell said: Richard Hocking compiled this list of ear witnesses who reported a “bang...bang-bang” shot sequence. This shot pattern was indeed very popular with the witnesses. Most of these witnesses are referring to the double bang finishing at the head shot (such as Linda Willis as mentioned earlier in the thread). However, some witnesses failed to hear the first shot and their trailing double bang was around the time of Z370-Z430. For example Lee Bowers said the final shot of the double bang was fired around the time that the Presidential limo appeared again in his view which is around Z400 as shown in this animation frame in the purple area : This is why witnesses like Bowers are so useful because they give enough detail to know exactly what they saw and heard relative to a specific time frame. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mark Tyler Posted August 9, 2020 Author Share Posted August 9, 2020 11 hours ago, Micah Mileto said: Where is that list someone made of "nosewitnesses" to gunpowder? I think there were at least 9 of them? Several witnesses did indeed mention the smell of gunpowder. I wrote a small segment about this in my technical handbook and I put it into the "ambiguities" section because the information that the witnesses gave was rather difficult to pin down. Most of the people that reported the smell were on Elm Street, but Earle Brown was over 100 yards away and he said he could smell it also. It could well have been related to the shots fired, but it's also possible it was purely psychological due to the sound of guns and the stress of the moment. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John Butler Posted August 9, 2020 Share Posted August 9, 2020 16 hours ago, Mark Tyler said: I have spent the last few months studying the hundreds of witness statements from Dealey Plaza, and in particular I have focused on what they reported regarding the shots. I thought it would be useful to share this work in a forum post and stimulate feedback in the hope of learning new insights. During this process researchers can then explore how the survey results support or contradict the popular theories in this case. The latest raw data is held in a spreadsheet here: https://raw.githubusercontent.com/matyler/mc63.dpws/master/mc63_dpws.csv https://github.com/matyler/mc63.dpws Mark, When I attempt to look at this I get just a text file not a spreadsheet. Advise on where I am going wrong. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mark Tyler Posted August 9, 2020 Author Share Posted August 9, 2020 10 hours ago, Greg Doudna said: Yes, in reading Pat Speer's compilation of witness testimonies it seems so clear there was a first "bang" like a firecracker, then a pause, then a final flurry of two or three shots very close together. The idea of three evenly-spaced shots seems to have been driven by a need to have timings of shots compatible with a single shooter, rather than the weight of the witness testimonies. From the blur analyses the second strongest indication next to Z313 and Z330 seems to be around Z290, but that was not considered a shot, including by Alvarez who wrote the original blur analysis and recognized a major blur there, due to impossibility of a single shooter, as brought out in work of Robert Harris. Probably the strongest evidence of a shot around Z260-Z290 is the behaviour of William Greer who was driving the limo. He said he heard a sound that resembled a backfire and then 3 seconds later it happened again and he turned around to see Connally falling down which is exactly what we see in the Zapruder film Z280-Z300. He then said that the final shot was fired immediately after this which must have been the shot fired at Z310. 10 hours ago, Greg Doudna said: But this raises the question of the Connally hit, which everyone places ca. Z220-230 (including Harris, who interprets Z290 as a missed shot which Nellie Connally mistakenly thought hit Connally even though Connally had actually been hit earlier). But the witness testimonies do not generally seem to support a shot heard at ca. Z220-230. Nor does a Connally hit at that point agree with his own testimony that he turned right, then turned back and was facing about forward when he was hit and Nellie then pulled him down, whereupon he heard JFK hit with the head shot immediately. This sounds and looks in Zapruder like Connally hit at Z290. Compare Connally telling of it himself here starting at 4:22: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZqpfHEkRpIw. But that leaves the Connally grimace, the lapel bulge, and the hat flip at Z220s, usually interpreted as reactions to being hit--but can those be interpreted otherwise (Connally shouting "no, no, no" = the "grimace"?)? As I recall when Connally was shown the Zapruder film he thought that he was hit by Z230. I think its impossible to know exactly when Connally was first hit, but the very close proximity to when JFK raises his arms is very striking. Due to the entrance wound being in his back I don't think he could have been hit after Z250 as he started to turn around to face JFK. 10 hours ago, Greg Doudna said: There is a major blur at Z313 matching the head shot and then another major blur at Z330 but then there are actually three major blurs after that, perhaps reflecting Zapruder's own trembling and shock at seeing what happened in the JFK head shot at that point (didn't Zapruder say he was weeping at that point?). If the major post-Z330 blurs can be from other causes perhaps the Z330 blur could be too. Some witnesses said they heard a shot after the head shot, but if there were two or three rapid shots between Z290 and Z313 could there be confusion to witnesses as to which sound was associated with the head shot that they saw with their eyes? I agree, I think the major blurs after the head shot are entirely down to Zapruders distressed state. Sadly when two shots are fired in rapid succession it would be very difficult for a witness to know which shot caused which reaction. 10 hours ago, Greg Doudna said: In reading the strength of the witness testimonies of the "bang" ... then 4-5 seconds ... "bang-bang-(bang)" ... Pat Speer brings out another phenomenon which is striking: a majority of the witnesses located at the corner of Elm and Houston heard four, whereas those at the Grassy Knoll and in the motorcade heard only three, not four. It occurs to me there could be a simple explanation for this unequal distribution corresponding to physical location of who heard four shots. How far apart in time do two shots need to be for the average human to hear them as two, rather than one, shots? A guess: maybe one-quarter second. Less would be heard as one shot, more heard as two. If, say, a shot was fired from a building near Elm and Houston 0.3 seconds earlier in absolute time than a shot fired at the Grassy Knoll, and if it takes 0.15 seconds for the sound of a muzzle blast at Elm and Houston to reach people at the Grassy Knoll, then those two muzzle blasts would be heard at the Grassy Knoll only 0.15 second apart = as one shot. But witnesses standing at Elm and Houston would hear those two muzzle blasts 0.45 seconds apart = as two shots. In this scenario there would actually be four shots--one plus a final flurry of three close together--but two of that final flurry were so very close together that they were not distinguished by many witnesses depending on their physical location and the amount of time it takes sound to travel. I am sure that peoples position in the Plaza affected how they heard the shots. As you say, if there were two guns firing from different positions some people would hear just a single shot whereas other would hear both in rapid succession. This sounds like a very plausible explanation for some of the contradictions between witness statements. 10 hours ago, Greg Doudna said: And the cumulative weight of the witnesses hearing a single "bang" followed by several seconds and then a flurry of either two or three more shots very close together ... is inconsistent with a single shooter with a bolt-operated rifle. Is the interpretation of the witness testimonies of the hearing of these shots a case of the weight of the sheer aggregate numbers for a final two or three very close together have been there all along but have not been "seen" so clearly in the history of expert analyses due to a filtering effect on interpretation from the single-shooter presupposition? Absolutely, if the witnesses reporting two shots within two seconds were not being fooled by echoes then there must have been a second gun firing. Committed lone gunman purists do seem to struggle with this possibility and try very hard to discredit the witnesses. I think the ultimate proof of a second gunman may well be in establishing the true trajectory of the single bullet theory. If this trajectory leads back to a position other than the sixth floor window then that would be enough to debunk the lone gunman theory. For example some have suggested the path through JFK is far too flat to lead back to such a high position as the sixth floor. Most 3D models I have seen do not use the correct wound locations so they don't seem very helpful, but hopefully one day someone can explain what really happened to that bullet. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mark Tyler Posted August 9, 2020 Author Share Posted August 9, 2020 16 minutes ago, John Butler said: Mark, When I attempt to look at this I get just a text file not a spreadsheet. Advise on where I am going wrong. If you download the CSV file to your PC, and then import it into Excel (or any other spreadsheet program) it should recognise the CSV file extension and load it accordingly. You could also try the online version of Excel which is free if you have a Microsoft account: https://www.office.com/ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Micah Mileto Posted August 9, 2020 Share Posted August 9, 2020 3 hours ago, Mark Tyler said: Several witnesses did indeed mention the smell of gunpowder. I wrote a small segment about this in my technical handbook and I put it into the "ambiguities" section because the information that the witnesses gave was rather difficult to pin down. Most of the people that reported the smell were on Elm Street, but Earle Brown was over 100 yards away and he said he could smell it also. It could well have been related to the shots fired, but it's also possible it was purely psychological due to the sound of guns and the stress of the moment. I found the list of nosewitnesses, in Chapter 3 of Murder From Within: 1. Patrolman Joe M. Smith, 2. Elizabeth Cabell, 3. Congressman Ray Roberts, 4. Tom C. Dillard, 5. Robert H. Jackson, 6. Vergie Rackley, 7. Sen. Ralph W. Yarboroogh, 8. Motorcycle Escort Billy J. Martin, 9. Patrolman Earle V. Brown (on next overpass), 10. Nurse Bertha Lozano, Parkland Hospital (smelled smoke coming from Connally's stretcher as it was wheeled by) Also from the Chicago Tribune, 11/22/1963, p. 9: "... seconds later the cavalcade was gone. The area still reeked with the smell of gunpowder" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mark Tyler Posted August 9, 2020 Author Share Posted August 9, 2020 2 hours ago, Micah Mileto said: I found the list of nosewitnesses, in Chapter 3 of Murder From Within: 1. Patrolman Joe M. Smith, 2. Elizabeth Cabell, 3. Congressman Ray Roberts, 4. Tom C. Dillard, 5. Robert H. Jackson, 6. Vergie Rackley, 7. Sen. Ralph W. Yarboroogh, 8. Motorcycle Escort Billy J. Martin, 9. Patrolman Earle V. Brown (on next overpass), 10. Nurse Bertha Lozano, Parkland Hospital (smelled smoke coming from Connally's stretcher as it was wheeled by) Also from the Chicago Tribune, 11/22/1963, p. 9: "... seconds later the cavalcade was gone. The area still reeked with the smell of gunpowder" Thanks for the tip Micah. It's certainly a good collection of witnesses who smelt something that day, most of whom were positioned on Elm Street. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Please sign in to comment
You will be able to leave a comment after signing in
Sign In Now