Mark Tyler

That definitely looks like a doll to me, and could be interpreted as a small lapdog. Whether it was white flowers or a white doll it matches perfectly with her testimony: Mrs. Hill. Between the President and Mrs. Kennedy, and they kept asking me what kind of a dog and I said, "I don't know, I wasn't interested in what was in the seat," but I said, "It was white and fuzzy," fuzzy and I said, "It was something white and kind of fuzzy and it was in the seat between them," and I said, "I just got to thinking---it must be a small dog," because I had remarked to my girl friend as they were taking us in the police station, I said, "Why?" I said, "I could see Liz Taylor or the Gabors traveling with a bunch of dogs, but I can't see the Kennedys traveling with dogs. Why would they have a dog with them on tour?" And, when we remarked about that she and I both--and I said, "Did you see it? What kind of a dog was it? Why were they taking a dog?" I found out later that it was those roses in the seat, but I knew they were looking at something and I just barely glanced and I saw this.

Yes, I agree with that analysis. When the Warren Commission were preparing the case against Oswald they only had 3 shots to allocate in their theory, so any witness reporting four or more had to be ignored or made to look unreliable (especially a high profile witness like Jean Hill who broadcast her views to a worldwide audience on the day of the assassination).

Indeed, Jean Hill seems awfully unpopular with researchers but I'm not sure what all of the fuss is about. Her early statements seem fine to me, and her TV interviews are crystal clear about what she saw and heard. If we had to ignore each witness whose statements contained errors or omissions we wouldn't listen to any of the witnesses at all! Yes, the lurid rubbish she came out with in the 1980's and later was pretty embarrassing, but why pick on Jean Hill? Many other witnesses seemed to radically change their stories over time such as Pierce Allman: It's rather interesting how some witnesses changed their stories to be more conspiracy or lone nut oriented. I think it's best to ignore all of the late statements and focus on the early comments from 1963/4. This looks good to me Richard. A photo visualisation always helps explain things more clearly! The "red stuff" comment is interesting and probably relates to some drinks bottles that were smashed as two young people ran away just after the shots were fired. It is suspected that the dark patch in the bottom left of the Darnell frame is what Hill and others saw: Here is Jean Hill's quote: "When I looked down on the ground, I mean, as I was running up the hill to catch that man, I looked down and saw some red stuff and I thought, "Oh, they got him, he's bleeding," and this is embarrassing, but it turned out to be Koolade or some sort of red drink." Once again a seemingly strange comment has a basis in fact.

Thanks Tony, this is an important detail I must have overlooked before. I found Jean Hill to be very straightfoward and honest in her 1963/4 statements and interviews. If she thought something, she would happily say it, however embarrassing that might be to her or anyone else. If she said somebody mentioned to her that a bullet hit the ground near her, I'm sure that's exactly what happened. I re-read the testimony but sadly no full name was mentioned regarding who told her this, although she did mention "Decker" who may be Bill Decker who did indeed see some dust fly up off the road, as quoted by the Dallas Times-Herald on the day of the assassination: "The Sheriff said he heard two shots and 'may have seen one of the bullets hit the concrete and bounce.'" Jean Hill's Warren Commission testimony is a treasure trove of detail, so for those who haven't read it, have a look here (see page 221 for the part about the shot and "Decker"): https://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh6/html/WC_Vol6_0108a.htm I have noticed some researchers dismiss Jean Hill's early statements based on her unreliable statements 25-30 years after the event. I think this is a mistake. Later statements 20+ years after 1963 from *ALL* witnesses should be treated with caution, and should never trump the early and comprehensive statements which can probably be trusted (especially if they are corroborated independently, as with Jean Hill's statements about the shots). I would also add the testimony from Royce Skelton to your list: "Mr Skelton noticed that as an open limousine turned on Elm Street, it had moved approximately one hundred feet at which time he noticed dust spray up from the street in front of the car on the driver's side." FBI interview December 1963 CD205 - https://www.history-matters.com/analysis/witness/witnessMap/documents/wcd/wcd_0087a.gif Notice how the drivers side would indeed be on the side of the road towards Jean Hill, and also matches the location mentioned by Virgie Baker/Rackley (she even marked it on a map). Crucially he said this was the first pair of shots so he must be referring to the same event as Baker/Rackley: 6H237 - https://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh6/pdf/WH6_Skelton.pdf Mr. SKELTON. Just about the same time the car straightened up---got around the corner---I heard two shots, but I didn’t know at that time they were shots. Mr. BALL. Where did they seem to come from? Mr. SKELTON. Well. I couldn’t tell then, they were still so far from where I was. Mr. BALL. Did the shots sound like they came from where you were standing? Mr. SKELTON. No, sir; definitely not. It sounded like they were right there more or less like motorcycle backfire, but I thought that they were these dumbballs that they throw at the cement because I could see the smoke coming up off the cement. Mr. BALL. You saw some smoke come off of the cement? Mr. SKELTON. Yes. Notice how he refers to two shots at the beginning (just like Jean Hill did). The shot that hit the road couldn't possibly be the shot that hit JFK & Connally so this proves that two shots were fired at the beginning in the first burst of gunfire. If two shots were fired in the first burst, then we have the head shot being the third shot, with at least one other shot fired after the head shot, which totals four shots fired in Dealey Plaza as a minimum. That's enough to prove a second gunman was firing shots, and also vindicates Jean Hill who said 4-6 shots were fired in total.

I agree with this logic Tony. The way to resolve most of the witness contradictions is to understand that some witnesses missed the first burst of gunfire, and other witnesses missed the last burst. Once that confusion gets cleared up it makes the witness statements much easier to understand. The Zapruder film helpfully shows us when two of the bursts were fired as we see the victim reactions, but the final burst that Brehm and others mentioned was hidden by the chaotic nature of the Z-film after Z318. The only remaining area of uncertainty is whether one or two shots were fired in each burst, and to get some objective proof of both shots (if that's what happened). The closest I have managed so far is the jiggle at Z190-Z210 (possibly a missed shot), and then the victim reactions 2 seconds later at Z225 which must presumably have been a different gunman firing another shot.

Hickey's statements on Nov 22 & Nov 30 are interesting and well worth studying: 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 Brehm's TV interview on the day he only mentioned two shots (6 mins into video), but he mentioned a third via a telephone interview (7 mins into video): Two days later he gave a full statement where he mentioned a third shot after the head shot, and said that the shots were spaced out enough for a bolt action gun to have fired them all: https://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh22/html/WH_Vol22_0434a.htm The clearest explanation came later in 1986 when he expanded on his 1963 statement (about a minute into the video): As you say, if there were two shots near Z313 he probably merged the pair together. Of course other researchers say there was only one shot, so those witnesses who heard two in rapid succession merely heard echoes or reverberations. My interpretation is that the hair moving statements relate to what we see in the Zapruder film at Z313 (I don't see hair moving before this), and the head impact relates to the back and to the left movement we see Z317-Z323 which is a short gap of just 0.25-0.5 of a second which the human eye should be able to detect as two different events. Alternatively Josiah Thompson's theory is that JFK's head was struct around Z328-Z330 which is another candidate for JFK being struck by a bullet as he seems to slump forward at that time. Both of these two shot theories indicate a gap of less than a second which is consistent with the witnesses referring to shots fired almost simultaneously. It's very tricky to know for certain about whether each burst of noise had a single shot or double shots. As I mentioned earlier the thread the massive Z-film jiggle at Z190-Z210 indicates one shot about two seconds before the victims react at Z225, and I don't think such grievous injuries would have a two second delay before the victims reacted. Naturally some researchers tell me that the Z190-Z210 jiggle is a false alarm and not a shot, but the Phil Willis photo taken at Z202 proves it was a shot (he said the first shot was fired just before he took the photo). If this if correct then two shots in two seconds must have been fired, indicating Oswald couldn't have fired both.

This is a rather complicated way to look at things! Think about it more simply in terms of overlapping films and where McLain and Baker are: the Hughes film shows Baker on his bike having just turned onto Houston Street near camera car #3 and just ahead of the cream Congressman #1 car (McLain has just passed to the left of the frame and is about in line with Congressman #1): The Hughes film overlaps the Z-film so we know it finishes at about Z190 at the above frame. Then we have the Dorman film which we can align to the Z-film at various points thanks to various sync points such as the Wiegman film and the Mayors car. At about Z410 we see McLain in the Dorman film exactly where we would expect him to be, near the Congressman cars: We can't see Baker here of course as he is far out of frame to the left, so lets assume he stays in formation near camera car #3 as it turned onto Elm Street. And this is where my animated reconstruction comes in helpful as it joins together the known vehicle positions, and smoothly interpolates them through the unknown positions and times: https://www.marktyler.org/mc63.html If Baker and McLain stayed in formation at the same speed as the cars around them, they were both in exactly the right position in the Couch/Darnell clips. It's a clean and simple explanation that fits the photographic record perfectly. No complex calculations are needed when viewing the animation as you can see the vehicles move on the map, and I have even put the vehicle speeds on the right hand side to help understand how vehicles slowed down at the corners, and then gently accelerated away and out of Dealey Plaza. Anyone can pause the video and study in detail what they see, and how it relates to the photographic record. As I've said throughout the last two years, if I have made any mistakes I'm happy to adjust things, but thankfully I've now reached the point where mistakes tend to be rather minor affairs with no major errors or omissions remaining. Voila! The resolution of this image is too low to see the people on the bridge, so have a look at this Dillard photo taken soon after: If you look closely you can even see James Tague on the left, and Sam Holland on top of the bridge, both exactly where they should be at this point in the sequence according to the other films and witness statements.

My calculation of the gap between the head shot and the restart of the camera cars is about 25 seconds. We know this fairly accurately thanks to the Wiegman film which runs continuously for about 23-27 seconds, depending on whether it was running at 24 or 29 FPS (I favour 29 FPS, and a 23 second gap). In the Couch film, which was taken at the same time as the Darnell clip, we see Wiegman running down the grass towards the Newman family so it must be just after this 23-27 second sequence ended as he was filming the Hester's as he crouched on the steps in front of the pergola, as shown in the Bell film (bottom left image): Here is a Wiegman frame near the end of the sequence: Based on Baker entering the building about 45 seconds after the head shot, it would probably take a minute to: speak to Truly; get up the stairs; etc; which is about 1 minute 45 seconds. That sounds about long enough for Oswald to scuttle down the stairs (assuming it was him on the sixth floor), but thats a whole other thread! I think it is probably Baker in the Darnell/Couch clips, as the other bikes had either left Dealey Plaza or were one of the four bikers visible in the Couch film: I think Haygood is in the foreground zig-zagging around the cars, Courson in the middle distance with McLain approaching Hargis's parked bike. Hargis then scuttles across from the lamppost to his bike: Hargis is next seen in the Bond 4 photo having just nipped across in front of Courson: Smart and Dale were meanwhile sat on their bikes waiting on Main/Houston street for the motorcade to restart as shown in the Paschall film: It's a bit blurry but you can see Dale restart and zoom away at 1:10-1:15, going round the corner as he tries to catch up the bus. At 1:05 Smart is partly obscured just to the left of the bus as they both move off together along Houston Street. A clearer version of the film would be better but I'm not sure one exists in the public domain? The full motorcade vehicle and personnel listing is here: http://jfk.hood.edu/Collection/Weisberg Subject Index Files/M Disk/Motorcade Route/Item 15.pdf

Cheers! I don't always have time to write longer posts, but sometimes they are helpful to explain my thinking in more detail. It also gives readers an opportunity to disagree, and maybe correct any mistakes I have made such as misinterpreting a photo or witness statement. I doubt this happened as the number of frames between shots was mentioned very early on, such as here by Paul Mandel in early December 1963: http://jfk.hood.edu/Collection/White Materials/White Assassination Clippings Folders/Oswald Family Folders/Oswald/Osw-03.pdf Mandel mentioned the early lone nut theory which was that JFK was hit in the back first, then Connally, and finally JFK in the head. He said the frame number gaps between shots were 74 and 48. Working back from the Z313 head shot, he thinks Connally was hit at Z265 (as he turned to look back at JFK), and then JFK was hit in the back at Z191. There is a kind of logic to this, and it does match what the FBI thought at that time, but most people now think this analysis is wrong. It is also seemingly what Dan Rather describes as early as 25th November: I don't think there was any need to remove or alter frames as Life magazine effectively censored the use of the Z-film due to it's rather gruesome nature (researchers are somewhat desensitised now, but the Z-film is very unpleasant to watch if you've not seen it before). As we know, when it was finally publicly shown in 1975 it created a wave of interest in the case, especially in terms of a conspiracy (note the gasps from the shocked audience after Z313): When you revisit history like this it's a helpful reminder of how perceptions of the evidence have changed. Early on only cherry-picked frames were revealed, which gave a very partial view of the event, but eventually it all came out and it shocked everyone who saw it. This is a nice way of understanding why the HSCA investigation was required in the late 1970's, and how so many conspiracy theories were developed over the next 15 years or so into the 1990's (when the lone nut side of the debate started to fight back, e.g. Posner & Myers). The lack of a hole at the back of JFK's head in the Z-film after Z315 is very strange considering the Dallas medical staff all mention it very explicitly. I think this is one of those important anomalies that is difficult to explain. One possibility might be that the skull broke into several large pieces at Z313, but for a few seconds the scalp just about held the back of the skull into place. Then as JFK fell down into the seat the scalp fell away and revealed the hole which was discovered soon after at the hospital. The X-Rays do indicate a large detached bone at the back of the head, so this could explain things: Probably not in terms of both hitting at Z313 as that looks like a single impact to me, although that's hard to prove either way. I can't rule out a shot soon after Z313 as the film is so blurred in parts it may well hide an impact that occurred after Z318, such as near Z330 as Josiah Thompson mentioned recently in his new book. In other words I'm fairly open minded about two head shots, but it seems very difficult to prove or disprove with certainty.

If Z313 and Z314 are part of a startle reaction then Zapruder must have heard the shot 3-4 frames before because that is the human reaction time of 150-200 ms. You also have to add the time for the sound wave to reach Zapruder (a shot from the TSBD hitting JFK just after Z312, visible in Z313, would have been fired at Z310, but not heard by Zapruder until after Z314 as the bullet travels twice as fast as the speed of sound). This means that the Z318 jiggles are consistent with a shot from the TSBD at Z310 as those 8 frames include both the time the sound takes to go from the TSBD to Zapruder and also the 3-4 frames of human reaction time. Using this 8 frame gap on the earlier jiggles reveals possible shots at Z182 and Z219 (if another gunman was closer to Zapruder than the TSBD gunman it might be 6-7 frames gap between the shot and the jiggle, and if another gunman was further away from the TSBD it might be a 9-10 frame gap). Bearing in mind the victims react to being injured at Z225, a shot at Z219 is the most obvious point for the so called single bullet theory, and the shot at Z182 is the one John Connally said he heard about 2 seconds before he was injured (Z182-Z219 = 2.0 secs). The other thing to do with the jiggle analysis of the Z-film is to couple it with Zapruder's earliest interview: Zapruder said he only heard one shot just before JFK reacted with his arms, and then heard one or two shots around the head shot. Firstly, this seems to eliminate the very earliest jiggle at Z155-Z160 as being a shot because Zapruder clearly only heard one shot at the beginning, and if Z155-Z160 wasn't a shot then the jiggle is a false alarm. As Zapruder only mentioned one early shot, this also challenges the statement that Connally made, but was the shot that Zapruder heard at the Z190-Z210 jiggle or the Z227-Z235 jiggle? Maybe he heard a shot at Z190-Z210 but he simply didn't register the second noise? Or maybe the Z190-Z210 jiggle is a false alarm and the real shot was the one at the Z227-Z235 jiggle? The possible double bang at the head shot was widely reported by the witnesses, and Zapruder is a good example. On the other hand, the witnesses could have been confused by echoes and other noises, such as the bullet hitting things (e.g. the shrapnel hitting other parts of the limo). This is a fair point and is probably the dividing line regarding how people interpret the witnesses reports: General Lone Nut Theory Three bursts of gunfire noise = three shots with echoes and other associated noise. General Conspiracy Theory Three bursts of gunfire noise = three pairs of synchronized shots from two gunmen. Both theories closely approximate the witness statements, so the truth is buried inside one of these general patterns. Any theory involving just two bursts, or four, is contradicted by a large body of witness reports and is almost certainly wrong. Aside from the issues of authenticity, I think the Zapruder film is flawed in the sense that it promises more than it delivers. When we watch the film we have a sense of seeing everything, but this is of course a delusion as we miss crucial information regarding what really happened. This is why I think the witness evidence is so important as it gives us a perspective on the sounds of shots, which helps establish other things like whether a jiggle in the film is a shot or a mere panning error.

I don't think anyone has proven it to be fake, and the content of the Z-film looks consistent with the other photos and films. Given that certain frames were published within days of the assassination by Life magazine, I can't see how there was time for any sophisticated faking. Some other photos and films were broadcast within hours of the assassination so they cannot have been tampered with at all (such as the Wiegman film, and the Altgens photos). The only faking or touching up I have seen proven relates to the shoe photo in the limo as it sped to the hospital, or the faked image of Oswald in the sixth floor window: Is Dino Brugioni is the guy you may be thinking of?: I don't see anything too troubling about his recollections from nearly 50 years before, especially considering memories will inevitably get hazy over that period of time. I'm a great believer in using corroborated witness statements and interviews from 1963/4, but after 50 years I doubt a witness can help when memories are so unreliable. The explosion in the limo was huge and distributed debris in various directions (including upwards), and I suspect Hargis simply rode into a large part of that debris whereas the bikes on the other side didn't. The wind must have had an effect as it was gusting at that point as per the coats of Mary Moorman and Jean Hill: An event such as this is a complete one off and the results are dependent on so many variables like wind direction, exact bullet entry point, head orientation, JFK's physiology, etc it's probably impossible to analyse or model accurately what exactly happened. The sudden rearward motion of JFK's head is very hard to explain with certainty. Sadly Z313 and Z314 are too blurry to measure exactly where the head is, but the rearward motion doesn't seem to start until Z315-Z316. This timing is important because it suggests that the rearward motion has nothing to do with a "jet effect" or the bullet itself, otherwise it should have happened at Z313-Z314. This delay of 2-3 frames could be consistent with a neuromuscular reaction as mentioned by the HSCA (volume 7, page 174): https://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/hsca/reportvols/vol7/html/HSCA_Vol7_0092b.htm Sure, I think you are asking reasonable questions. Verifying evidence and understanding each stage in an investigation is rather important in this case. In the first week of the investigation back in 1963 the FBI had a very different view of the shot sequence in Dealey Plaza as this telephone call between J Edgar Hoover and Lyndon Johnson shows (8:10 in the video): Very few researchers think that this shot sequence is now correct, and crucially the Z-film doesn't support what Hoover is saying so clearly it makes no sense to say the Z-film had been faked by that point a week after the shooting.

The back door was apparently open throughout the motorcade. In this Stoughton photo from Main Street you can see it open again:

Indeed Robin, I came to the same conclusion when I finished my animated reconstruction. There are many odd aspects to this case that I can't explain or understand, but the visual record is one of the few areas of consistency.

Another name for this list would be Josiah Thompson who explored the possibility of two head shots in his recent book "Last Second In Dallas", and concluded that the shape of JFK's head seems to change around Z330 in the Zapruder which suggests a second shot hitting near that point. Sadly the autopsy was so flawed it's hard to be 100% certain of anything regarding the head shot. This cuts both ways of course, so not only is it impossible to prove multiple shots, it's equally impossible to prove just a single shot hit the victim. Judging from the damage to the windshield and chrome topping, at least one shot came from the rear, with the bullet breaking up after hitting the victim and parts of it ending up on the limo floor.

Indeed, which is interesting considering how in the Zapruder and Muchmore films the hair was disturbed during the explosion at Z313 and not before. Hickey said the last shot caused JFK to move forward and to his left, which seems to be what we see in the Z-film after Z330. David Powers mentioned that JFK was hit by the first shot and he moved to his left (as we see in the Z-film after Z225). After the second shot he said shot Connally seemed to disappear, which could be near Z300 when he collapsed onto his wife. Finally Powers said the third shot hit JFK in the head which is presumably Z313. These two witnesses are typical of the disagreement about the head shot, and indicate that some think the first shot of the pair was Z313, with the final shot circa Z330. Others heard something around Z300, with the final shot being Z313. There is some room for interpretation with all of these statements, but the rapidity of these two shots is the most crucial point as it requires a second gunman (and is consistent with dozens of other witness statements). Several of the guys in the SS follow up car described the total duration of the shots to be 5-6 seconds which is about Z200-Z310 and matches the Z-film events fairly well (or possibly Z230-Z340).

Indeed Denny, the only unified aspect of the lone nut side of the debate is that they reflexively reject all evidence that doesn't support their theory! I have heard it suggested that the Tague wounding was related to a fragment from the head shot bullet. With a fragment having hit the chrome topping, it's certainly possible that another fragment flew slightly higher and passed over the windshield. The early missed shot makes no sense to me whatsoever. If the target was missed slightly then fair enough, but to completely miss the limo seems to suggest either incompetence or a deliberate miss (such as a decoy).

Thanks for the info Andrej. When I look at the Z-film, JFK and Connally seem to first start reacting to being hit at frame Z225, so working backwards they must have started to physically react immediate after Z224 was exposed. 200 ms is about 3-4 frames so I would estimate the latest a bullet impact could occur to be Z220-Z221. The demeanor of JFK and Connally in the few frames before Z225 seems roughly what it was when they went behind the sign so I doubt there was an earlier bullet impact on the victims. The massive blurs during Z190-Z210 of the Z-film are also matched by Phil Willis who said he heard the first shot and immediately snapped his photo, which we know to be exactly Z202. While witness evidence is of course somewhat unreliable on it's own, taken together with the Willis photo and Z-film I think this is the best crime scene evidence of conspiracy I have so far studied. This curious two second delay was also mentioned by John Connally as the time gap between the shot he heard and when he was first hit: While this isn't a cast iron proof by any means, I do struggle to see any other obvious explanation other than the first audible shot was fired circa Z185 and missed the victims, with the second shot being fired circa Z220 and hit both JFK and Connally. Two shots fired in two seconds means two gunmen (as conspiracy believers say), with the single bullet theory happening just before Z225 (as lone nut believers say). It's a hybrid theory with elements from both sides of the debate!

There were a large number of witnesses who described two shots around the head shot. If two shots were fired within a second of each other I suspect it would be difficult for a witness to know whether the Z313 shot was the first or the second in the sequence (what with the bullet travelling faster than the speed of sound over several hundred feet).

I agree, the audio aspects of the gunshots is somewhat confusing for the witnesses to know exactly what really happened. With so many witnesses in different positions in a fair sized area with tall buildings nearby, it's not surprising we get so many different witness reports. It's not that the witnesses were wrong as such, but that they were simply reporting what the sound waves were doing in different regions of Dealey Plaza.

I agree Joe, based on the firing tests Oswald couldn't have fired twice in less than two seconds (or even 3 seconds if he aimed the gun), so any witness reporting that kind of rapid fire must be referring to at least two gunmen.

Thanks Robin. The outtakes video looks to have the most complete version of the Atkins film scenes from Dealey Plaza (only about 5 seconds worth of footage in total).

I agree Eddy, that pattern is so common in the witness statements it must feature somewhere in the shot sequence. If just three audible shots were fired then the final gap needs to be shorter than the first gap due to the large number of witnesses mentioning it. A few witnesses mentioned that the shots were equidistant, but I think they are a minority. Using my burst theory earlier, audible shots at Z185, Z310, Z372 would qualify as the gaps would be 6.8 and 3.4 seconds. As I recall several witnesses mentioned the first gap was roughly twice as long as the second, so this matches that pattern. For example Arnold Rowland mentioned gaps of 5-8 seconds and 2-3 seconds. He slightly changed his views on the timings between 1963 and 1964 (between his early statements and Warren Commission testimony), but the time ratio was close enough to 2:1 in both cases: https://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh19/html/WH_Vol19_0256b.htm https://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh2/html/WC_Vol2_0094a.htm The other possibility with the Bang .....Bang-Bang pattern is that the witnesses who mentioned it only heard some of the shots. For example Mary Moorman mentioned this pattern, but to her ears the head shot was the first shot which exactly matched the time she took here photo: At about 9:25 in the video she says the three shots she heard went: POW....POW-POW, with the first POW being when she took her photo at Z315. Interestingly she then said that the second shot caused JFK's hair to jump, so presumably this supports the double head shot theories. A weapon that is silenced could well explain some of the witness contradictions, as some witnesses would be positioned in a way that they could hear something whereas others would miss it entirely. The other form of silencing would be if two audible shots were fired in quick succession (e.g. within a second). Some witnesses may have heard both shots distinctly, but others maybe thought that the second noise was merely an echo of the first. Alternatively, lone nut believers have told me that the witnesses reporting multiple rapid shots were confused by echoes. Discussions of film alterations are very popular on the forum lately! In my work I've not discovered any obvious sign of tampering of the Z-film or any of the other films/photos, but then again I'm only using the lower quality versions available on the web so I'm not in a position to certify things either way.

Coincidentally, one of the witnesses (AJ Millican), did refer to 8 shots being fired: "Just after the President's car passed, I heard three shots come from up toward Houston and Elm right by the Book Depository Building, and then immediately I heard two more shots come from the Arcade between the Book Store and the Underpass, and then three more shots came from the same direction only sounded further back." 19H486 - https://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh19/html/WH_Vol19_0252b.htm Millican was standing just to the west of a lamppost visible in the Z-film (wearing his shiny helmet, between the sprocket holes, just to the right of the lamppost): By Z186 the limo has just about passed this lamppost as shown by the Betzner photo and the synchronous Z-film frame: Therefore his testimony means that the first shot he heard must have come around here or later. Other witnesses standing near him, such as Gloria Calvery and Karen Westbrook corroborate the limo position when the first shot was fired. As I mentioned in the opening post, this eliminates the possibility of an early missed shot before Z170. Another interesting feature of what Millican said was that he seems to bunch the shots into three separate parts. Sadly he gave no timing information, but it's safe to assume the first burst of shots he heard resulted in JFK & Connally being hit, with JFK receiving the head shot in the second or third burst. What sort of modifications do you think occurred to the film, and what parts can be used as reliable evidence? Or maybe it's so tainted you think it's useless as evidence?

I was recently reading a forum post where a lone nut believer was teasing conspiracy believers that there was no grand unified conspiracy theory about what happened in Dealey Plaza. It occurred to me that the lone nut side of the debate is just as split, but regarding when the so-called missed shot was fired. Although most believe it was fired a few seconds (or more) before the single bullet theory shot circa Z220, they can't agree on exactly when. Was it Z150, Z166, or even before Zapruder started his camera? There is no consensus. Even the Warren Commission back in 1964 didn't know when the missed shot was fired, and they correctly mentioned that various witnesses identified a shot being fired in more than one place other than the Z210 & Z313 shots: Before Z210. Between Z210 and Z313. After Z313. Overall I think most lone nut theories are wrong because I can find no persuasive evidence that there was a shot fired before Z170, and clear witness evidence of a late shot or shots after Z313 is disregarded without reason (cherry-picking!). I also think most conspiracy theories about Dealey Plaza are wrong because they are far too complicated to be plausible. Sadly, I cannot explain what really happened in Dealey Plaza so I conclude that the crime is unsolved and unexplained. The best I have been able to do is reduce things down to a gunshot pattern that is consistent with the photos, films, and the majority of early witness statements: There were 3 bursts of noisy gunfire (no witnesses heard a fourth burst, although some only heard two). Burst 1 was fired Z180-Z230 and contained one or two audible shots. Burst 2 was fired Z280-Z330 and contained one or two audible shots. Burst 3 was fired Z360-Z400 and contained one or two audible shots. My current thinking is that Z180-Z230 contained two shots because of the massive disturbance Z190-Z210 which blurs the Z-film (the first gunshot must have really startled Zapruder), but the victims don't react until Z225 and I don't think such serious wounds would have a 2 second delay before a reaction (unless they first reacted behind the sign?). I'm quite interested to hear what forum members think in terms of the shot sequence they think happened in 1963, and what evidence they use to support their ideas (including how they debunk competing theories). Lone nut believers - exactly when was the missed shot fired? What really happened Z180-Z220 before the victims started reacting, and what red herring led me astray in my above scenario? Conspiracy believers - how many shots were fired, and approximately when relative to the Z-film frame numbers?

Thanks Ron. Although the bigger picture of this case can never be resolved with this kind of narrow technical analysis, I do think it has value in understanding some of the witness reports. For example we can use the Zapruder and the Nix films to demonstrate that the Presidential limo went from travelling over 12 MPH down to 8 MPH in just a second or two, which is rather rapid. This explains why the nearby bikes suddenly gained on the limo and why some witnesses referenced the limo stopping (maybe an optical illusion heightened by the brake lights showing for a second or two). These events can then be connected with William Greer the driver spinning his head around to his rear in the seconds before Z313, and you can see the reason why the car slowed. The previously contradictory witness reports start to make a bit more sense: the car didn't really stop completely, but to some looking from the rear it looked like it did.