Dealey Plaza Witness Survey

[John Butler]

On ‎8‎/‎9‎/‎2020 at 10:28 AM, Mark Tyler said:

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/

Thanks Mark,

I haven't got a clue what I was doing wrong.  Did what you suggested first off.  I did get something that looked like a spreadsheet, but didn't work properly.  I'll try again.

Your spreadsheet has been of immense help.  By going through your witnesses I have increased mine to 75 witnesses.  Being a lazy fellow I wished you had included a reference such as Sheriff's Office, DPD Report, FBI Report, etc.  I have found that if people want to challenge your work having the work referenced to the report or document eventually sends those kind of fellows away.  They can challenge you, but not the source.

Anyway, Great Work and thanks.

PS

Sorry about the reference to sources note.  Your sources are there I just didn't see them until I figured out how to load the spreadsheet correctly.  This spreadsheet of your's is really one of the best research studies I have seen on witnesses.  You do have info on what I am researching.  But, you don't really emphasize the importance of the question where was the president when the witness heard shooting. 

Stupendous work.  Thanks again.

Edited August 10, 2020 by John Butler

[Mark Tyler]

21 hours ago, John Butler said:

Thanks Mark,

I haven't got a clue what I was doing wrong.  Did what you suggested first off.  I did get something that looked like a spreadsheet, but didn't work properly.  I'll try again.

Your spreadsheet has been of immense help.  By going through your witnesses I have increased mine to 75 witnesses.  Being a lazy fellow I wished you had included a reference such as Sheriff's Office, DPD Report, FBI Report, etc.  I have found that if people want to challenge your work having the work referenced to the report or document eventually sends those kind of fellows away.  They can challenge you, but not the source.

Anyway, Great Work and thanks.

PS

Sorry about the reference to sources note.  Your sources are there I just didn't see them until I figured out how to load the spreadsheet correctly.  This spreadsheet of your's is really one of the best research studies I have seen on witnesses.  You do have info on what I am researching.  But, you don't really emphasize the importance of the question where was the president when the witness heard shooting. 

Stupendous work.  Thanks again.

Thanks John.  I think studying the witnesses is crucial in this case.  I have heard other researchers say they are useless because there are too many disagreements between them, but I think this is a mistake (and a bit defeatist).  With effort I think it's possible to make sense of things.  For example some witnesses seemed to miss the first or last shot, which explains why there is often a mismatch between shot patterns.

The other big issue I have noticed is that most witnesses are probably too vague to be useful in terms of shot timings.  Of the 400 odd witnesses I have collected so far, only about 95 give enough detail to be certain of their view of events.

It's too early to come to any final conclusions, but with a bit more effort the spreadsheet could become very useful in debunking the weaker theories and supporting the more plausible theories.  If you spot any errors or omissions in the data let me know and I will fix as necessary.

[John Butler]

Mark,

This is my second go through of your material.  I have not found an error or omission in what you are looking for with the witnesses.  I am adding my information to your spreadsheet for my own benefit.  I have changed the format somewhat by word wrapping column G.  That puts all of that information into a readable space that doesn't run off the screen.  Columns A, B, C, D, G, and H are the ones I am most interested in.

2 hours ago, Mark Tyler said:

The other big issue I have noticed is that most witnesses are probably too vague to be useful in terms of shot timings.  Of the 400 odd witnesses I have collected so far, only about 95 give enough detail to be certain of their view of events.

I think, in part, this is intentional on the behalf of the FBI 302 writers.  I have noticed certain patterns with the FBI 302s. 

1.  There are about 70 employees at the TSBD.  All were interviewed on 11 22 63 or 11 23-25 63.  There are a few exceptions like Steven Wilson.  Some witnesses were interviewed as many as 4 times by the DPD, Sheriff's Office, and the FBI.  But, mostly by the FBI.  For many witnesses you can not find these initial reports.  What you find is the FBI Reports from March, 1964.  These are highly sanitized.

2.  If a witness didn't report the correct information then they had to make further reports until they got it right.  A good example is Bonnie Williams or Howard Brennan.

3.  In some reports the information is intentionally confusing or vague to disguise what is being said.  These are more than likely rewritten by the FBI to obscure what was said or where the witness was.  Many of these witness statements have the same arranged format stating much the same as other witnesses.  Locations are changed to protect not the innocent, but the guilty.

4.  Location of witnesses change in reports that evolve from Nov., 1963 to March, 1964.

5.  Many reports give a location with these two phrases "just after" and "immediately after" passing the TSBD.  These 2 words can be easily added as the agent writes the 302 at a later time from his notes.  Those two words can change what a witness said about location of the p. limo.

6.  I may be goofy on this one.  But, you can all most read fear in some witness statements.  Particularly,  those who make more than one statement.  Mary Hollies (who many consider a deceptive person)  as an example made statements over time that seemed to show this. 

7.  The reliability of witnesses are comprised by the FBI in later statements.  The either coerce the witnesses to make different statements than prior or rewrite them later.  It amounts to the same thing.  In this regard I stick to first day statements as much as possible.  Witnesses who know they have been comprised usually don't say anything until years later.  And, generally when a witness does make a later statement in contradicts what they are reputed to have said earlier.  I suppose that was ok with the FBI and others since that further compromises their record.

Anyway, I am enjoying your spreadsheet since it is leading me to new information.  I am into the C's an have already found 4 new witnesses whose statements contradict the main theories of the assassination as both sides of the assassination say.

[Mark Tyler]

22 hours ago, John Butler said:

Mark,

This is my second go through of your material.  I have not found an error or omission in what you are looking for with the witnesses.  I am adding my information to your spreadsheet for my own benefit.  I have changed the format somewhat by word wrapping column G.  That puts all of that information into a readable space that doesn't run off the screen.  Columns A, B, C, D, G, and H are the ones I am most interested in.

I think, in part, this is intentional on the behalf of the FBI 302 writers.  I have noticed certain patterns with the FBI 302s. 

1.  There are about 70 employees at the TSBD.  All were interviewed on 11 22 63 or 11 23-25 63.  There are a few exceptions like Steven Wilson.  Some witnesses were interviewed as many as 4 times by the DPD, Sheriff's Office, and the FBI.  But, mostly by the FBI.  For many witnesses you can not find these initial reports.  What you find is the FBI Reports from March, 1964.  These are highly sanitized.

2.  If a witness didn't report the correct information then they had to make further reports until they got it right.  A good example is Bonnie Williams or Howard Brennan.

3.  In some reports the information is intentionally confusing or vague to disguise what is being said.  These are more than likely rewritten by the FBI to obscure what was said or where the witness was.  Many of these witness statements have the same arranged format stating much the same as other witnesses.  Locations are changed to protect not the innocent, but the guilty.

4.  Location of witnesses change in reports that evolve from Nov., 1963 to March, 1964.

5.  Many reports give a location with these two phrases "just after" and "immediately after" passing the TSBD.  These 2 words can be easily added as the agent writes the 302 at a later time from his notes.  Those two words can change what a witness said about location of the p. limo.

6.  I may be goofy on this one.  But, you can all most read fear in some witness statements.  Particularly,  those who make more than one statement.  Mary Hollies (who many consider a deceptive person)  as an example made statements over time that seemed to show this. 

7.  The reliability of witnesses are comprised by the FBI in later statements.  The either coerce the witnesses to make different statements than prior or rewrite them later.  It amounts to the same thing.  In this regard I stick to first day statements as much as possible.  Witnesses who know they have been comprised usually don't say anything until years later.  And, generally when a witness does make a later statement in contradicts what they are reputed to have said earlier.  I suppose that was ok with the FBI and others since that further compromises their record.

Anyway, I am enjoying your spreadsheet since it is leading me to new information.  I am into the C's an have already found 4 new witnesses whose statements contradict the main theories of the assassination as both sides of the assassination say.

I definitely agree that some of the witnesses did seem to subtly change their testimony over time.  One pattern that did strike me was that several witnesses mentioned only hearing two shots, but later inflate this up to three to match what everybody else was saying (e.g. Howard Brennan and Bonnie Williams as you mentioned).  It's hard to know whether this shot number inflation was due to misspeaking, genuine confusion, suggestibility, or as you say deliberate corruption (or maybe a combination of all these things?).

I always favour the earlier statements if they were clear and lucid enough, as no false narratives would have time to influence the witness.  Sadly any information put into the public domain after 1965 is almost always useless as you can never really be certain if that's what the witness thought on the day.  The only exception to this is if a witness wrote down on the day what happened but this didn't emerge until many years later (e.g. in a letter or diary).  A great example of this is June Dishong whose notes written on the day was only published by the Sixth Floor Museum back in 2004:

https://emuseum.jfk.org/objects/25183/june-dishong-journal

I also agree that the witnesses as a whole do seem to refute a lot of the popular theories.  In particular the popular lone gunman narrative of an early missed shot, and the head shot being the last shot is not well supported among the witnesses.  As a fence sitter myself, I don't rule out a lone gunman scenario but this specific one is not evidence based and is significantly weaker than other evidence based theories (conspiracy or lone gunman).  About a dozen or so witnesses did say there were two shots before JFK raised his arms, but they say the shots were on top of each other and fired within a couple of seconds (i.e. not from a single bolt action gun).

[John Butler]

Mark,

Thanks for notifying me on June Dishong.  What she says is a bit different from others about the motorbikes, shots, effects of the shots, sequences, and location from many others.  I immediately keyed in on her location and where she said the p. limo was when shots were heard.  June makes 78 witnesses saying shooting occurs in front of the TSBD.  I am looking at what others say on where she was located.  They place her in Mannikin Row near the Stemmons sign.  That is not what she said.

I was reading fiction the other day and the author made the comment that a backfire sounds like a backfire and not a gunshot.  In his opinion gunshots sound like gunshots not firecrackers or backfires.  I thought about that and came to the conclusion that maybe he was right.  I suspect people who are familiar with gunfire from the military, hunting, or target practicing would recognize gun fire easier then one who has limited experience with gun shots.  As I recall Jackie Kennedy's statement, she said the motorbikes were continually backfiring due to the slow pace. 

So, I suspect this gunfire/backfire/fire cracker confusion may he part of the reason folks are saying different things.  Their is also echoes to consider.  But, as you say deliberate corruption by the FBI is something one has to consider. 

In my second run through on your list I am currently in the Cs.  I came across Rose Clark.  She said she was in Judge King's court room with Lillian Mooneyham and Jeanette Hooker.  They heard 3 shots while in that court room.  Subsequent testimony by Mooneyham and Hooker begin to change what Clark said.  I wrote this little review.  I would like to get your opinion on.

 I think this is a fine example of FBI changing witness statements to meet the official story.  What Rose Clark said was definitely not the official story.  These 3 witnesses made statements on January 10, 1964.

Dallas County Courthouse and Rose Clark, Lillian Mooneyham, and Jeanette E Hooker

Rose Clark said she viewed the motorcade from the 2^nd floor of the new courthouse on Main and Houston.  She said she viewed the motorcade with Lillian Mooneyham and Jeanette E. Hooker.  They were in Judge Henry King’s courtroom.  She said she saw the motorcade come down Main Street and turn onto Houston. 

In order to see the motorcade this way these women must have been on the south side of the courthouse.  You cannot see Main Street from the west side of the courthouse on Houston Street.  And, you can not see Elm Street from the south side of the courthouse on Main Street.

This Bond photo shows the above to be correct:

If you watched the motorcade come down Main Street from Judge Henry King’s courtroom then you could only see the p. limo until it turned the corner onto Houston Street and not any further on Houston Street.  You would not be able to see Elm Street from the south side of the courthouse.  You would have to move into a room facing on Houston Street to see Houston and Elm Street.

Watching from Judge Henry King’s court room, she said she heard 3 shots.  If so, she was an ear witness only otherwise the shooting takes place on Main.  The first was louder and the second two were not as loud and were closer together.  She noticed after the shots the p. limo came to almost a complete stop.  Before this sentence in her statement is prefaced by something not possible, but written in to throw the reader off from what she was saying.  This was her impression that the bystanders on Elm Street went toward the Grassy Knoll.  This was not possible when she was in Judge King’s courtroom.  She could only see this from Judge Meyer’s room at a later time.  You cannot see the Grassy Knoll from the south side of the courthouse.

Jeanette E. Hooker was with Rose Clark and Lilliam Mooneyham in Judge Henry King’s court room when the motorcade came down Main Street and turned onto Houston Street.  Jeanette Hooker tells a different story then Rose Clark.  They agree that they were in Judge King’s court room watching the motorcade come down Main Street.  But, instead of going to Judge Meyer’s room she said they went to Judge J. Frank Wilson’s court room.  From there she said she observed the motorcade turn onto Elm Street from Houston.  (It could be that Meyer and Wilson shared a court room)

Clark said she heard 3 shots while in Judge King’s room.  Jeanette Hooker said she heard 3 shots when the p. limo was close to the R. L. Thornton sign.  The word sign is not in the statement, but one can infer she meant near the sign rather than the actual roadway which would put the assassination past the Triple Underpass.

So, according to Hooker the p. limo was in front of the TSBD when shots were fired.

Lillian Mooneyham tells a different story in which an FBI agent’s confusion may play a part.  The agent seems to confuse Kings and Wilsons court rooms by reversing them.  And, partially clears up the confusion over Judge Meyer’s room being on the 3^rd floor rather than the second. 

Mooneyham does not say where the p. limo was when she heard shots.  She said the sequence was the first shot and then a slight pause and the second two were close together.

Hooker and Mooneyham's statements differ enough to through the 3 witnesses' statements into confusion.  Is it enough to invalidate what they say?  

Edited August 12, 2020 by John Butler

[John Butler]

Mark,

It looks like I have to change what I said on June Dishong.  Further research indicates I was wrong. 

She initially says she was 30 feet from the corner.  She didn't specify which corner, the SE corner or the SW corner.  I thought SE corner.  But, on reading further into what she said the clearly was 30 feet past the SW corner which puts her in Mannikin Row.  20 feet from where she was standing puts the p. limo behind the Stemmons sign from Zapruder.  This is in accordance with the official story when approximates distance are allowed for.

The letter looks aged and the date says 11-22-63.  This letter comes to light on CNN on 11 21 2003.  It's home is at the 6th floor museum. 

This is the way one sum's up:

Analysis: this letter, which was only discovered after Dishong’s death, sums up what would seem to be the majority view quite nicely: a first shot hit at 190 (when Kennedy stopped waving, and Jackie moved closer to him), followed by the head shot (when people started screaming and dropping to the ground), followed by a third shot. First shot hit 190. Last shot after the head shot.

This letter awakens my paranoia.  And, truthfully it doesn't take much for that to happen.  Is this letter for real or fabricated?  It is accord with the official story and not with what other witnesses (77) are saying.  The FBI interviewed everyone in the TSBD sometime during the period Nov., 1963 to March, 1964.  Where is June Dishong's  DPD statement, Sheriff's Office statement, and FBI statement?  Where is her Warren Commission testimony?  Why since she "sums up what would seem to be the majority view quite nicely" wasn't she interviewed and testimony used?  She would be a star witness for the FBI or Warrren Commission.  The nonsense she was not recognized or missed by the authorities is just that, nonsense.  Something smells here. 

Based on the provenance and what is being said one is compelled to say this is real evidence.  But, due to paranoia and other conflicting evidence I have to reserve major doubts that seriously challenge this letter's authenticity.

Edited August 12, 2020 by John Butler

[Mark Tyler]

7 hours ago, John Butler said:

I was reading fiction the other day and the author made the comment that a backfire sounds like a backfire and not a gunshot.  In his opinion gunshots sound like gunshots not firecrackers or backfires.  I thought about that and came to the conclusion that maybe he was right.  I suspect people who are familiar with gunfire from the military, hunting, or target practicing would recognize gun fire easier then one who has limited experience with gun shots.  As I recall Jackie Kennedy's statement, she said the motorbikes were continually backfiring due to the slow pace. 

So, I suspect this gunfire/backfire/fire cracker confusion may he part of the reason folks are saying different things.  Their is also echoes to consider.  But, as you say deliberate corruption by the FBI is something one has to consider. 

The ambient noise issue is really important to emphasise because when we look at the films from the day they are all silent.  However in 1963 it was a noisy parade: cheers and shouting from hundreds of people; dozens of cars and bikes revving; and possible backfires.  It's not surprising that a few distant witnesses missed the first shot (especially those on Main Street who would be less focused as the limo had long since passed by).

Helpfully Dishong mentions this noise, which I think makes her a good and observant witness:

"He drops his arm as they go by - possibly 20 feet. Suddenly - a sound. Gun shots? So hard to tell above the clamor of the crowd."

[Mark Tyler]

6 hours ago, John Butler said:

Analysis: this letter, which was only discovered after Dishong’s death, sums up what would seem to be the majority view quite nicely: a first shot hit at 190 (when Kennedy stopped waving, and Jackie moved closer to him), followed by the head shot (when people started screaming and dropping to the ground), followed by a third shot. First shot hit 190. Last shot after the head shot.

This letter awakens my paranoia.  And, truthfully it doesn't take much for that to happen.  Is this letter for real or fabricated?  It is accord with the official story and not with what other witnesses (77) are saying.  The FBI interviewed everyone in the TSBD sometime during the period Nov., 1963 to March, 1964.  Where is June Dishong's  DPD statement, Sheriff's Office statement, and FBI statement?  Where is her Warren Commission testimony?  Why since she "sums up what would seem to be the majority view quite nicely" wasn't she interviewed and testimony used?  She would be a star witness for the FBI or Warrren Commission.  The nonsense she was not recognized or missed by the authorities is just that, nonsense.  Something smells here. 

Based on the provenance and what is being said one is compelled to say this is real evidence.  But, due to paranoia and other conflicting evidence I have to reserve major doubts that seriously challenge this letter's authenticity.

I suspect that Dishong was simply overlooked by the authorities in 1963, as they already had their star witnesses in people like Howard Brennan.  She's a very obscure witness who only hardcore researchers seem to know about.

Just for reference here is the thread from 2004 where Don Roberdeau mentioned the new info:

Don also gave more details here:

https://alt.conspiracy.jfk.narkive.com/FQCF1h4Y/june-dishong-s-attack-observations-released

He delivers a great commentary on why there could not have been an early missed shot in the Zapruder film, and how Dishong's note and the Z-film corroborate each other.  A shot from the TSBD in that time frame could not be missed by someone standing so close to the TSBD.

Does any reader know who started the talk of a shot earlier than Z170?  Luis Alvarez and Charles Wyckoff spoke about Z177-Z186 being the possible first shot in 1967 based on the big Z-film jiggle Z190-Z210, but who first made it earlier than Z170?  I know Posner spoke about ~Z162 and hitting a branch in his 1993 book, but did anybody suggest the early missed shot some time 1967-1993?  Dr. John Lattimer maybe?

[John Butler]

2 hours ago, Mark Tyler said:

I suspect that Dishong was simply overlooked by the authorities in 1963, as they already had their star witnesses in people like Howard Brennan.

Mark,

I don't think Dishong was overlooked or missed.  Everybody at the TSBD was interviewed except Steve Wilson and that was done later.  There are a number of TSBD employees who do not have a 11 22-23 63 interview.  I am always suspicious when I don't see a DPD, Sheriff's Office, or FBI interview during that time for a witness.  Often times all you find is a March, 1964 statement basically saying nothing.  In Dishong's case we don't even have that.

There were lists of TSBD employees available to the authorities that day.

[Mark Tyler]

22 hours ago, Mark Tyler said:

Does any reader know who started the talk of a shot earlier than Z170?  Luis Alvarez and Charles Wyckoff spoke about Z177-Z186 being the possible first shot in 1967 based on the big Z-film jiggle Z190-Z210, but who first made it earlier than Z170?  I know Posner spoke about ~Z162 and hitting a branch in his 1993 book, but did anybody suggest the early missed shot some time 1967-1993?  Dr. John Lattimer maybe?

I see Lattimer's book didn't surface until 1980, so I guess the HSCA from 1979 must take the credit for the first widely publicised early missed shot theory thanks to its Z160 timing of the first shot via the dictabelt impulses.

While on my time travels, I found an article from 1999 by Doug DeSalles which mentioned Dishong and shot timings:

http://jfk.hood.edu/Collection/Weisberg Subject Index Files/D Disk/DeSalles Douglas MD/Item 01.pdf

As so often, a previous generation of researchers have already done the hard work!

[Mark Tyler]

19 hours ago, John Butler said:

Mark,

I don't think Dishong was overlooked or missed.  Everybody at the TSBD was interviewed except Steve Wilson and that was done later.  There are a number of TSBD employees who do not have a 11 22-23 63 interview.  I am always suspicious when I don't see a DPD, Sheriff's Office, or FBI interview during that time for a witness.  Often times all you find is a March, 1964 statement basically saying nothing.  In Dishong's case we don't even have that.

There were lists of TSBD employees available to the authorities that day.

It is somewhat curious why Dishong was never properly interviewed by the authorities as she was employed at the TSBD.  Another witness the authorities didn't seem to bother with was Peggy Burney who Pat Speer details here:

http://www.patspeer.com/more-pieces-in-the-plaza

Although she wasn't from the TSBD, her description of the limo matches what Dishong said, which implies they were standing in the same group:

"The car had passed about 15 feet beyond me when I heard the first shot."

This appeared in the Dallas Times-Herald the day after the assassination so there is no issue of fabrication.  So we have some more corroboration on the relative location of the limo at the first shot by somebody very close.  To make this easier to understand lets have a look at an animation frame from about Z228 depicting where I think Dishong and Burney were standing relative to the Zapruder film angle of view just after we see the victims reacting to being hit in the Z-film:

Helpfully at about this time Bronson took his photo from the opposite angle and captured a cluster of people directly behind the limo (which must have included Burney and Dishong):

The speed of the limo at Z228 was about 12 MPH (17-18 ft/sec), so it was 15-20 feet past Dishong and Burney in less than a second after Z228 so it seems a very good match for the first shot being fired at Z220.  Apparently Dishong identified herself in the Zapruder film as fourth on the left from the sign:

Here is the quote from Don Roberdeau:

"DISHONG is seen in the ZAPRUDER film standing along the Elm Street north curbline, just east (Z-frame leftward) of the "Stemmons" freeway sign. She is the fourth person to the frame-apparent left of the sign, with darker, somewhat short hair, wearing a blouse with red and blue plaid stripes, and a dark colored skirt. (in her diary she estimated that she was 30’ from the corner --which I took to be the Elm Street curving abutment corner between Elm Street and the Elm Street Extension road-- but DISHONG’s family has confirmed to me that she pointed herself out to the family in a "Life" magazine they still have that she said she was the 4th person seen to the left of the SFS in Z-film)"

Perhaps the authorities didn't bother with her due to what she said about the origins of the shots to her family:

DISHONG’s living daughter has told me….
"She said that the shots came from behind her, on the knoll."

https://alt.conspiracy.jfk.narkive.com/FQCF1h4Y/june-dishong-s-attack-observations-released

In other words John, your suspicions of a cover up could be correct, but not in terms of evidence fabrication, but rather evidence suppression by not putting her comments on the record as they conflicted with the official source of the shots.

[John Butler]

1 hour ago, Mark Tyler said:

t is somewhat curious why Dishong was never properly interviewed by the authorities as she was employed at the TSBD.  Another witness the authorities didn't seem to bother with was Peggy Burney who Pat Speer details here:

Mark,

These two people would be in the area I call Mannikin Row.  That is people between the lamppost just off the R L Thornton sign and the Stemmons sign.  This area, Mannikin Row is about 10 feet off the SW corner of the TSBD.  There are 19 people there in about a 40 foot space.  Most claim that people like Dishong and Burney were in that group.  Others name this person or that person as being there.  Some witnesses claim to be in that area.  Here's what I think.  The group is totally fictitous.  Here's my reasoning.  This crowd cannot be seen in Mary Moorman's Polaroid of Glen McBride.  They cannot be seen in the Bronson frame you show.  That's the Stemmons sign by the Umbrella Man.

It's like Howard Brennan sitting spot.  If two or three films ok it then someone might say it could have some truth.  The Umbrella Man is seen in several media presentations, so one can tentatively conclude he was there by the Stemmons sign. 

Edited August 13, 2020 by John Butler

[John Butler]

1 hour ago, Mark Tyler said:

In other words John, your suspicions of a cover up could be correct, but not in terms of evidence fabrication, but rather evidence suppression by not putting her comments on the record as they conflicted with the official source of the shots.

Where she has the first shot is also wrong with the official story.  David Joseph, using Chris Davidson's Swan Song math, puts Z 190 at the corner of the TSBD.  Anything prior to that is in front of the TSBD.  OBTW, just looking at that thread makes my head hurt. 

But, still there are 77 witnesses I have found that say something different then the official story. 

On ‎8‎/‎12‎/‎2020 at 5:40 PM, Mark Tyler said:

He delivers a great commentary on why there could not have been an early missed shot in the Zapruder film, and how Dishong's note and the Z-film corroborate each other.  A shot from the TSBD in that time frame could not be missed by someone standing so close to the TSBD.

There are 13 very close witnesses to the 6th floor within 40 feet of the Sniper's Nest.  They are on the 3rd, 4th and 5th floor.  Two of the witnesses maintain what they said concerning shots from directly above on the t6th floor.  These were Bonnie Williams and Harold Norman.  The other witnesses said something else.  Junior Jarman said low and to the left (the Dal-Tex).  Elsie Dorman said they came from the Court Records building.  The others said the shots came from the west, mainly the Grassy Knoll.

2 hours ago, Mark Tyler said:

As so often, a previous generation of researchers have already done the hard work!

I run in to this a lot with many of my "original" thoughts.  There is so much out there it is difficult to know and remember.

 

[John Butler]

On ‎8‎/‎12‎/‎2020 at 5:40 PM, Mark Tyler said:

Does any reader know who started the talk of a shot earlier than Z170?  Luis Alvarez and Charles Wyckoff spoke about Z177-Z186 being the possible first shot in 1967 based on the big Z-film jiggle Z190-Z210, but who first made it earlier than Z170?  I know Posner spoke about ~Z162 and hitting a branch in his 1993 book, but did anybody suggest the early missed shot some time 1967-1993?  Dr. John Lattimer maybe?

I don't know or recall this one.  I do believe there was someone early on who said shooting in front of the TSBD. 

The HSCA thought the missed shot, the first one, was at Z 158.  I stirred up a pretty good sized argument when I posted about Z 157 being an edited frame and fraudulent.  There were a number of things in that argument that carried on to about z 161-ish.  This is from an article from Max Holland and Johann Rush:

"Any theory involving a first shot even as early as Z 150 faces an insurmountable problem. It directly contradicts the earwitness testimony of dozens of Dealey Plaza observers".  That's true.  But, there are other witnesses who say differently.  At this point in time they are a lesser number and not the majority.

IMO, using Holland is risky.  I disagree with a number of points he makes in the article that quote comes from.

So, I guess the earliest is the HSCA unless someone like Harold Weisman said something. 

 

[John Butler]

1 hour ago, Mark Tyler said:

In other words John, your suspicions of a cover up could be correct, but not in terms of evidence fabrication, but rather evidence suppression by not putting her comments on the record as they conflicted with the official source of the shots.

I agree.  Suppression could very well be the case.  It might be interesting to list these missed witnesses or the ones that have only a March, 1964 FBI report.  I have a feeling that something is here, but like so many things in this research one ends up going nowhere.