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.

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!

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?

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."

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).

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.

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.

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/

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.

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.

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.

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.

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?

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)

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

11 hours ago, Ron Bulman said:

Mark, where is this picture from/do you know who took it?  It's obviously a bit after the assassination, while a few people are gathered at the top of the steps and a couple by the fence no one is still running up the knoll.  Seeing the people gathered out in the street, including kids, is what caught my eye.  It seems traffic is still restricted.  

This is one of the many Allen photos which have been collected here:

https://www.jfkassassinationgallery.com/thumbnails.php?album=37

Helpfully there are several contact sheets which give the sequence in which they were taken (although no time span of course).  The time of day could possibly be judged by the shadows?  The kids looking at something on the road is interesting, as is the policeman behind the fence.

He also caught some other useful photos.  Here is the so called Babushka lady holding what looks like a box camera:

This camera seems to emit a flash in the Zapruder film:

Allen was also responsible for the tramp photos.

11 hours ago, Ron Bulman said:

Regarding the thread topic, at the top of the picture that space between the end of the fence and the top of the stairs where the people are standing represents the only window of opportunity for Bowers to see the Limo at the time shots were being fired.  As alluded to previously I've been there and stood immediately below where he worked.  Even with the increased vegetation of a few years ago as opposed to 1963 he would have had only a brief 2-3 second view.  

Thanks for the tip.  It does indeed look like a very narrow view down the channel between the pergola shelter and the picket fence so if that was his only view this nails down the timing of his sighting to a very brief moment.  You can't beat on the ground evidence, cheers!

11 hours ago, Ron Bulman said:

He did have a clear view of the parking lot with the three questionable vehicles just cruising through, two with out of state plates (?), one talking on a microphone, and Goldwater bumper sticker.  It was a reserved/paid parking lot, not open to the public. 

A clear enough view to notice a man in a white shirt and a man in a plaid shirt hanging around behind the fence on the grassy knoll before the assassination.

A clear enough view to notice a flash or commotion behind the fence.  Maybe the sound of a shot attracted his attention.  He turned and saw the flash of another.  

A commotion of throwing guns in a trunk and running?

The flash and commotion may have been the bottle smashing incident immediately after the shots that Marilyn Sitzman reported to Josiah Thompson in 1966:

http://the-puzzle-palace.com/files/sitzman.htm

"And they were eating their lunch, 'cause they had little lunch sacks, and they were drinking coke. The main reason I remember 'em is, after the last shot I recall hearing and the car went down under the triple underpass there, I heard a crash of glass, and I looked over there, and the kids had thrown down their coke bottles, just threw them down and just started running towards the back and I ... Of course, I don't see anything unusual in that because everybody else was running that way, 'cause when I look over on my left side, the people on the hill were all running back the same way too."

The smashing happened as the couple ran to the rear so if they ran behind the shelter Bowers must have seen them which may explain his comments?

11 hours ago, Ron Bulman said:

Cigarette butts and footprints in the mud make me wonder, and speculate, among other things.

I think the reports of butts and footprints make it certain that one (or maybe more) people were loitering in that area that morning.  Connecting that to the assassination is harder as they may just have been innocent spectators waiting for the parade.

12 hours ago, Joe Bauer said:

Mark, yes, Newman and Lovelady are wearing plaid shirts that day. Good find. I was wrong about no other plaid shirts being worn in Dealey Plaza that day.

However, if the younger man standing next to the picket fence was wearing a colored plaid shirt like Newman and Lovelady, I doubt Bowers could see the plaidness clearly.

The color kind of makes the plaid strips blend in imo.

Indeed, from a distance plaid does seem to blend to a single colour so it's hard to be certain.  Bowers mentioning plaid strongly suggests he has either got extraordinary vision or he was using some kind of visual aid like binoculars.  Judging from his use of spectacles I suspect the latter!

12 hours ago, Joe Bauer said:

Same with Julia Ann Mercer. Now she "was" close enough to have seen a colored plaid shirt on the gun case carrying young man and still see it as a "plaid" shirt.

But she never mentioned a "color" of the shirt in her affidavit with the Sheriff's department.

It would have been a significant double witness testimony point if both Lee Bower's and Julia Ann Mercer described the same plaid shirt. As in straight Black and White.

I agree, that little bit more detail would narrow things down much more.  The same shirt, in the same area, at roughly the same time would indicate the same person.

16 hours ago, John Butler said:

If you can't see the tower its a good chance the tower can't see you.  Bower said the height of the tower was the same height as the Triple Underpass.  I didn't get that, but I would guess he knows more than me.

I agree John, from this specific camera position the tower is not visible.  Judging from the angle of the shelter at the top of the steps I think the camera is a little too far to the east to see the tower (which is probably obscured by the shelter).

4 hours ago, Joe Bauer said:

Mark, I can't even tell if the man standing below the other two men on the Elm street side of the grassy knoll in the picture you posted is wearing a "plaid" red shirt versus a plain red shirt. The photo is so blurred.

Interesting question though:

When Lee Bowers said he saw a younger, thinner build man wearing a "plaid" shirt standing near the fence on the upper parking lot/ train track side, was this plaid shirt a "black and white" one?

Bowers used a color description with the other man's "white" shirt.

Why would he not describe the plaid shirt with a color description if it was a distinct color as well?

Same with Julian Ann Mercer. Was the "plaid shirt" she saw her younger man wearing a "black and white" one as well?

You would think that the Warren Commission would have asked Bowers if the plaid shirt was a red, green or yellow one versus a black and white one?

And the same with the Dallas County Sheriff's asking Julia Ann Mercer the same question?

I would think both Bowers and Mercer would have mentioned their plaid shirt observations as being a colored shirt versus a black and white one.

Without mentioning a color I think everyone would imagine a "plaid shirt" as being a black and white one, unless described in color first. Wouldn't you?

Sadly the Muchmore frames I have studied aren't too detailed, so I can't tell for certain if it's plaid or not.

I agree, it's a pity that more detail couldn't be prompted by the Warren Commission, FBI, police, etc.  Plaid shirts come in many different colours so that small detail could have really narrowed things down a bit.

On the subject of plaid shirts there was another person on the knoll in a plaid shirt: William Newman:

Then there was Billy Lovelady in his plaid shirt too:

The Julia Ann Mercer observation is interesting and rather troubling.  Whether this person was Mudd, Newman, Lovelady, or someone else I'm not sure.

4 hours ago, Joe Bauer said:

Also, did Lee Bowers keep a pair of binoculars in his tower?

You would think in his highly responsible train traffic control responsibility position he would. The tower is far enough away from some of the farther track areas and he might need them to see certain train numbers if the need ever arrived. He might have used them to get a closer look at the strange surveillance vehicles circling the lot in front of him.

That's a good question.  If he did use binoculars it would explain how he could see all of this detail from such a distance away.

4 hours ago, John Butler said:

If you look at various films and photos you will see that 2 people are shown here and in others, as in this one, show 3 people.  The Zapruder film does not show these people at all.  Some say this is because of the camera angle of the Zapruder film.  IMO, the Zap camera passes right over this area and should show at least the heads of these people. 

The Willis photo only shows 2 people:

I can't see Emmett Hudson here, but he may be obscured by the lamppost.  The other complication is that the photo is slightly blurred, which makes small details difficult to see properly.

In my view the head of Hudson is visible in frame Z413 near the bottom of the frame amongst the bush foliage (the position is a perfect match for the steps judging from the map):

4 hours ago, John Butler said:

Thanks Mark,

I want to commend you again on your exhaustive, detailed work on your motorcade presentation.  Unfortunately, I disagree on a few things.  People do that by interpreting things differently.  This is the way I interpret what Lee Bowers said. 

Like most Dealey Plaza witnesses, I believe he said different things at different times.  This is most likely from pressure from the FBI and other authorities.  I think he wanted to tell the truth, but was not allowed to.  His wife thought this desire to talk got him killed after being told he was talking to much. 

That's a fair point John, it's very easy to interpret text differently so it's good to share a different perspective.  Bowers has to be one of the best witnesses I have studied as he gives so much detail, and seems very consistent in the different statements I have read.  It's tragic he didn't live long enough to go into even more detail.

4 hours ago, John Butler said:

As far as I am concerned I think all the railroad workers interviewed by Mark Lane had a script from their bosses.  Did they lie?  Yes, and I can prove it.  This was to point away from any involvement of the railroad companies being involved in the assassination.  As far as possible their story would affirm the official story except for the Triple Underpass.  Mark Lane was as happy as a tick on a fat dog.  He had witnesses that were saying the shooting was coming from the Grassy Knoll, in other words a conspiracy.  And, others were happy that the shooting was directed to another place than the Triple Underpass.  Sadly, he didn't check his witnesses stories as carefully as one might.

The biggest indicator of conspiracy among the witnesses was the majority who said that two of the shots were bunched (i.e. two shots fired in 2 secs or less).  Regardless of the origin of the shots, that pattern is not consistent with a single bolt action gun which would take about 4+ secs to cycle, aim, and fire.  Taken at face value, most witnesses seem to support a conspiracy on that basis.

4 hours ago, John Butler said:

I point to this photo from the tower.  You can't see Elm Street except for that small window pointed to by the red arrow.  Ray Mitcham surmised this just from the lay of the land.  This photo is fairly modern and vegetation may have grown since 1963.  I think this would be pretty much the same as '63.

Yes, the trees and bushes seem to have grown a lot since 1963.  Here is a good photo showing how little blocked Bowers view:

35 minutes ago, John Butler said:

I agree with your first graphic, but not so much with the second.  If you read his WC testimony he mentions not being able to see the p. limo behind a decorative, masonary wall directly after mentioning being able to see the p. limo after the turn onto Houston Street from Main. 

There are several pieces of decorative masonry around Dealey Plaza so you are right to dig for more info.  Helpfully Bowers goes into more detail in the original transcript I quoted in my previous post where he mentions:

2 minutes ago, Mark Tyler said:

"Directly in line - uh - there - of course is - uh - there leading toward the Triple Underpass there is a curved decorative wall - I guess you'd call it - it's not a solid wall but it is part of the - uh - park....And to the west of that there were - uh - at the time of the shooting in my vision only two men.

This places the men he is describing just to the west of the curved wall (also called a pergola, arcade, or colonnade by others), and also means that the limo emerged at this point.  This is a bit tricky to be certain from a verbal account but I think this is what he means (let me know if you disagree).

31 minutes ago, Joe Bauer said:

Coincidence?  Scanning all the Dealey Plaza crowd photo's and film before and up to JFK's motorcade arrival, I'll guess not "one" of the hundreds of people in all the pictures was wearing a distinct checkered or plaid shirt or jacket.

A plaid top would stand out because it's a quite uncommon clothing item.

One possible red plaid shirt could be the chap standing by Emmett Hudson, visible in the Muchmore film:

Maybe he was wearing something like this:

@Pat Speer did some good work on this a while back and suggests that this was F Lee Mudd:

It is written up in detail here:

http://www.patspeer.com/chapter7:morepiecesofthepuzzle

Pat helpfully quotes the original interview from Rush to Judgment where Bowers gives some more details:

1966 interview with Mark Lane, from a transcript of the interview found in the papers of Rush to Judgment director Emilo de Antonio at the Wisconsin Historical Archives, and published online by Dale Myers, 2004)) (When asked if there were any pedestrians between his location and Elm Street) "Directly in line - uh - there - of course is - uh - there leading toward the Triple Underpass there is a curved decorative wall - I guess you'd call it - it's not a solid wall but it is part of the - uh - park....And to the west of that there were - uh - at the time of the shooting in my vision only two men. Uh - these two men were - uh - standing back from the street somewhat at the top of the incline and were very near - er - two trees which were in the area...And one of them, from time to time as he walked back and forth, uh - disappeared behind a wooden fence which is also slightly to the west of that. Uh - these two men to the best of my knowledge were standing there - uh - at the time - of the shooting...Ah - one of them, as I recall, was a middle-aged man, fairly heavy-set with - what looked like a white shirt. Uh - he remained in sight practically all of the time. The other individual was uh - slighter build and had either a plaid jacket or a plaid shirt on and he - uh -is walking back and forth was in and out of sight, so that I could not state for sure whether he was standing there at the time of the shots or not..."

16 hours ago, John Butler said:

Working on reexamining witness testimony in Dealey Plaza I came across Lee Bower.  Earlier I had looked at his statements and did not see anything I considered important about the presidential motorcade.  Roughly, he said he did not see the p. limo during the assassination.

I agree John, during the shooting he did not see the Presidential limo, but he did give some very interesting information in his Warren Commission testimony as you quoted and also in the film "Rush to Judgment":

The "decorative masonry" he is describing seems to block his view of the limo for about 8 seconds.  If you draw a line from his position in the tower onto Elm Street we see that the limo disappeared from his view circa Z254, and then reappeared at around Z400.  The first shot Bowers heard was after it had disappeared so this point in time must have been after Z254 (i.e. he missed any shots fired earlier).  As a visual aid here is where I place this in my animation using a purple area:

Finally he mentioned that the last two shots occurred on top of each other when the limo re-appeared, which is about Z400 judging from the animation:

By missing the first shot(s), he might be indicating that the first shot was either quieter or was obscured by crowd noise or some other distraction from his slightly distant position?  A few other witnesses also missed the earlier shot(s), including Robert Hughes and Mary Moorman.  Understanding that many witnesses missed the first or last shot is crucial to properly understanding the disagreements between witnesses regarding the shots and their timing.  Crack that, and the witness accounts start to become much clearer and have fewer discrepancies.

15 hours ago, Eddy Bainbridge said:

Hi Mark. Thankyou for your extensive reply. I was trying to make a point about the Dictabelt that is more general than the shot location on the knoll. I haven't read about the following information for a long time so please correct errors.

 

1. Shots from a rifle were test fired from the snipers nest.

2. The wave form created by the shots was recorded by microphones along DP.

3. The wave form created by these test shots matched with a high level of significance the wave forms recorded on the dictabelt . A complex form caused by the acoustics of DP.

4. The microphones to which the shots matched were in a sequence that matched the direction of movement of the motorcade ( suggesting the assassination microphone was in the motorcade) and the timing of these matchings significantly indicated the assassination microphone was travelling at the speed of the motorcade.

There is an astonishing correlation between the Dictabelt recording and the assassination. It has received many rubbishings since the HSCA but so far none convincing in my estimation.

This is a fair summary of what I have read regarding the dictabelt analysis.  I agree that there is a similar correlation between the timings of the shots on the dictabelt and the events during the assassination, and this is part of why people find it persuasive.

However, the correlation isn't quite perfect relative to the Zapruder film such as:

• The impulse pattern at around Z157-Z175 (depending on whether you use the shot sequence from the HSCA or Don Thomas) doesn't seem to stimulate a response from the secret service agents or the police on the bikes which is somewhat suspicious.  I would expect them to react in a similar fashion to how they are depicted in the Altgens 6 photo circa Z253-Z255 where they all start looking to the rear to see what is going on after the shot:

• The HSCA place the knoll impulse pattern at Z295-Z296.  As I have found, many witnesses did indeed report a shot just before the head shot.  However, William Greer reported that he turned his head immediately after this shot and his initial head turn towards the rear is visible around Z280-Z286 in the Zapruder film which suggests a shot was fired around Z270-Z280 which is 1-1.5 seconds out of sync with the impulse pattern.  The Don Thomas sequence has this impulse event a bit later as he matches it to the Z312 gunshot, so there is no match with this possible event.
• Don Thomas has an impulse at Z224 which is a closer match to the reactions in the victims Z225-Z230 than the HSCA version at Z188-Z191.  The delay from Z190 to the reaction at Z225-Z230 seems abnormally long considering the seriousness of the victims wounds.  On this basis the Thomas interpretation is more plausible.

Based on these points I would say that the correlation is close, but not quite right.  Coupled with the other problems I've mentioned I feel it means that the microphone wasn't located in Dealey Plaza.

Overall, rather like with the witness evidence, we must either embrace or discard the information from the dictabelt studies (separating the wheat from the chaff you could say).  Nobody wants to throw away useful information, but also nobody wants to be led astray by a seductively plausible red herring.