Dealey Plaza Witness Survey

[Mark Tyler]

On 8/13/2020 at 11:03 PM, John Butler said:

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 all about lines of sight from where the photographs were taken.  If you look at the Bronson photo the 5 people are behind the limo.  If you look at the Zapruder frame the 5 are just to the left of the Stemmons sign, which is all exactly what the animation frame shows here (black line for Zapruder, yellow transparency for Bronson):

It's a perfect example of triangulation which verifies both the Zapruder film and the Bronson photo as authentic at that specific moment in time.  The blue scarf lady is just visible in both at one end, and then the lady in the yellow dress on the other side.  Here is a blow up of the Bronson photo compared to the Zapruder frame:

Also, notice how the red haired lady is clapping and has her hands slightly raised in both photos.

Here is the Moorman Polaroid you mentioned:

Sadly it's rather grainy, but I think you can just make out the two teenage boys on the left who appear in the Bronson photo just to the right of the umbrella man.  Alas with grainy or blurred photos it's not ideal for analysis.  It's rather irritating that it didn't come out as clearly as the other Moorman photos:

[Mark Tyler]

On 8/13/2020 at 11:33 PM, John Butler said:

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. 

 

I think that's right, the HSCA is probably the first mainstream early shot theory, but I'm always happy to be corrected if I have missed something in the 15 years before 1979.

Max Holland's early shot theory is very original, and does avoid a number of the problems regarding a shot fired Z133-Z160.  However, unless the noise was suppressed for some reason it seems unlikely that those dozens of people close by would miss it (especially the Secret Service guys who clearly reacted within 2 seconds of the known shot at Z220 in the Altgens 6 photo at Z253-Z255).

[Mark Tyler]

Continuing my study of interesting witnesses, about a hundred feet or so to the south west of the Willis family was Charles Brehm who gave some very useful evidence about the shots.  Two days after the assassination he was interviewed by the FBI:

"According to Brehm, the President seemed to stiffen and come to a pause when another shot sounded and the President appeared to be badly hit in the head. Brehm said when the President was hit by the second shot, he could notice the President's hair fly up, and then roll over to his side, as Mrs. Kennedy was apparently pulling him in that direction. Brehm said that a third shot followed and that all three shots were relatively close together.  Brehm stated that he was in military service and he has had experience with bolt-action rifles, and he expressed his opinion that the three shots were fired just about as quickly as an individual can manouver a bolt-action rifle, take aim, and fire three shots."

22H837 : https://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh22/pages/WH_Vol22_0434a.gif

With the help of Brehm's timings, observations, and the Zapruder film, he believes the shots were fired circa:

• Shot 1 - Z220
• Shot 2 - Z310
• Shot 3 - Z400

This looks to be a candidate for the lone gunman scenario, but not the early missed shot variety as the first two shots hit their target.  This is what many witnesses seem to say in the survey, with far more people hearing a shot after the head shot at Z313 than a shot before Z180 as the post 1979 lone gunman theorists suggest.

Here is a Zapruder frame depicting Brehm on the left with his son Joe:

To his left was Jean Hill in her red coat.  Here is an interesting interview she gave on the day:

She also gave a statement to the Sheriff's department on the same day:

"Just as the president looked up toward us two shots rang out and I saw the President grab his chest and fall forward across Jackies lap and she fell across his back and said 'My God he has been shot'. Three was an instant pause between the first two shots and the motorcade seemingly halted for an instant and three or four more shots rang out and the motorcade sped away. I thought I saw some men in plain clothes shooting back but everything was such a blur and Mary was pulling on my leg saying 'Get down they are shooting'".

24H212 : https://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh24/html/WH_Vol24_0115b.htm

Both Brehm and Hill neatly summarise the conflict between witnesses who heard three shots consistent with a single bolt action gun and those who heard more rapid shots which are inconsistent with a single gunman.  Both witnesses give a lot of lucid detail and were giving information to the media and the authorities within hours of the event so it's hard to question their authenticity.  However, they can't both be right, so who was wrong?  Or perhaps they were both right in some areas, but wrong in other areas?

[John Butler]

3 hours ago, Mark Tyler said:

Also, notice how the red haired lady is clapping and has her hands slightly raised in both photos.

I've heard this argument before made by others.  Rejected it then and now again.  There are 19 people in the Zapruder film between the lamppost of the TSBD and the Stemmons sign.  Triangulation or not they don't show up in Bronson.  A small group perhaps, but not the 19.  Bronson has the Umbrella Man and partner on the east side of the Stemmons sign at the same time that Zapruder has them on the west side of Stemmons.  That is if it is the same moment as the woman clapping her hands, etc. 

In Mannikin Row people are standing shoulder to shoulder covering a distance of approximately 40 feet from the lamppost at the SW corner of the TSBD to the Stemmons sign.  You do not see that in Bronson.  Elements of films like Zapruder and Bronson, IMO, were used to make the Zapruder film or from films from the rear and very much like Zapruder.  At the ARRB hearings a fellow testified that he had been told there were a large group perhaps 50 military camera men there taking film.  There are many unknown camera people in Dealey Plaza that didn't make the public view.    

 

There's the lamppost directly behind and to the right of McBride.  Where are the people shown in Zapruder?  The Zapruder Gap was about 20-21 seconds in length.  There is not enough time for that group of 19 people to assemble between the lamppost and the sign.  You can see the Croft group across the street from the SW corner of Houston and Elm, but not the Mannikin Row group. 

3 hours ago, Mark Tyler said:

With the help of Brehm's timings, observations, and the Zapruder film, he believes the shots were fired circa:

• Shot 1 - Z220
• Shot 2 - Z310
• Shot 3 - Z400

There are now 82 witnesses who say something different.  This is not what they saw or heard.

As far as Mary Moorman and Jean Hill, I have reservations on what they said and saw.  This gets me in big trouble with certain other members of the forum.  You have to give Mary Moorman credit.  She was consistent in her testimony over the years and varied very little in what she said.  I once saw a film and have not been able to remember or find again the film that Mary said she was not wearing white slacks.  This is consistent with one photo of Mary in Dealey Plaza.  One of the troubling things about Mary's testimony, if I am remembering correctly, is she said the head shot was the first shot.  All other shots came afterward.  She said there was four shots.  She stuck to this story in later times.  A cousin of hers, Warren Burroughs, was shot in the head after he said the man at the Tippit shooting was not Oswald.  He changed his mind after the shooting.  Mary was a police groupie or at least motorbike groupie.  She had friends in the police departments she went to school with.  They probably warned her up front what to say and agree to in her statements.  She was probably warned of the consequences.  It has been said that the Dallas Police and the County Police were the most murderous corrupt city/county police in the country.      

Jean Hill did not wear slacks either.  There is film of her bare legs.  You can not find a Dallas Sheriff's Office film or photo that shows the pair from the waist down.  That's very suspicious and probably not due to morality at that time.

Jean Hill, on the other hand, changed her testimony several times.  She can't be counted as a reliable witness.  So, the one piece of, what I consider very valuable, evidence I have can't be counted as that valuable.  This is Hill Exhibit No. 5.  On this map Hill described Moorman's and her location is on the SW corner of Houston and Elm.  Arlen Specter classified that map he drew as Top Secret and it vanished from the public and remained hidden I believe until the 90s and the ARRB. 

3 hours ago, Mark Tyler said:

"Just as the president looked up toward us two shots rang out and I saw the President grab his chest and fall forward across Jackies lap and she fell across his back and said 'My God he has been shot'. Three was an instant pause between the first two shots and the motorcade seemingly halted for an instant and three or four more shots rang out and the motorcade sped away. I thought I saw some men in plain clothes shooting back but everything was such a blur and Mary was pulling on my leg saying 'Get down they are shooting'

Jean Hill's first statement to the Sheriff's Office was the same as Mary Moorman's statement.  She said she just signed it without reading it.  She later repudiated that statement.  Then she later changed what she said in her Warren Commission hearing with Arlen Specter.  She fought with Specter to get the knowledge out that she was on the SW corner.  But, after death threats she said she was with Mary directly across from the Grassy Knoll.

Almost everyone thinks she was an unreliable witness.  Even the guy who ghost wrote her book.  He didn't write what she had said earlier about location.

[Mark Tyler]

19 hours ago, John Butler said:

On 8/15/2020 at 11:04 AM, Mark Tyler said:

With the help of Brehm's timings, observations, and the Zapruder film, he believes the shots were fired circa:

• Shot 1 - Z220
• Shot 2 - Z310
• Shot 3 - Z400

There are now 82 witnesses who say something different.  This is not what they saw or heard.

You are right John, the witnesses do vary tremendously with regards to the shot patterns that they report.  However, this is the value of a spreadsheet because you can use a pivot table to quantify the permutations and see if any patterns emerge.  Here is the pivot table for the current data:

Note that the 95 number is the number of high quality witnesses who gave information in 1963-1964 and who gave enough information to deduce when the shots were fired (e.g. the witness referred to a measurable event such as JFK raising his arms).  Most of the 400 odd witnesses did not give enough information to be certain, but 95 is a large enough sample to get a good feel for what the witnesses think happened in Dealey Plaza.

As we can see the most common shot patterns are:

• 1-1-1
• 1-1-0
• 1-2-0

The three sections represent times in the Zapruder film chronology:

• Z240 or before
• Z280-Z330
• Z370 or later

Where there is a .5 in the table the witness statement can be interpreted as 0 or 1 shots, or 1 or 2, so it depicts a certain leeway in the interpretation (e.g. Zapruder and Sitzman saying there may have been a third shot after the head shot, but they were not certain).  A surprisingly high number of people only heard two shots (28 people from 241 who gave a shot total is 12%).  My theory here is that they missed the final shot due to the loud siren and the other chaos after the head shot (e.g. people running away and screaming).

The other interesting pivot table is the one that measures "bursts" of shots, which is where the witnesses reports shots in quick succession which implies a second gunman is at work:

If you were to accept this at face value a majority (58%) of witnesses reported shots that must have involved a second gunman (mostly around the head shot, hence the 1-2-0 pattern above).  Alternatively the witnesses may have been confused by echoes and reverberations, so I shall leave that value judgement to the reader!

[Mark Tyler]

20 hours ago, John Butler said:

Jean Hill's first statement to the Sheriff's Office was the same as Mary Moorman's statement.  She said she just signed it without reading it.  She later repudiated that statement.  Then she later changed what she said in her Warren Commission hearing with Arlen Specter.  She fought with Specter to get the knowledge out that she was on the SW corner.  But, after death threats she said she was with Mary directly across from the Grassy Knoll.

Almost everyone thinks she was an unreliable witness.  Even the guy who ghost wrote her book.  He didn't write what she had said earlier about location.

My view of Jean Hill is that her statements became less reliable as the years went by, and by 1990 or so she was directly contradicting her own early clear statements such as not seeing the assassin:

Her statements on the day and for the 1964 Warren Commission interview regarding the shots are consistent and corroborated by others in the Plaza so I am inclined to accept them.  I don't judge her too harshly about her change of views as other witnesses changed over time also.  I think the best thing to do is to use the earliest statements and simply ignore the later ones.  Many researchers disregard Hill's testimony completely, which I think is a mistake as her early statements are entirely consistent with dozens of other witnesses.  It pays to discriminate, and separate the wheat from the chaff.  Disregarding Hill's testimony entirely would be like throwing the baby out with the bathwater.

Ultimately a lot of these things boil down to trust, so if a researcher doesn't trust the photos, films, or individual witnesses then judgements based on them will always be questionable in their mind.  For me, trust in Dealey Plaza evidence can be found by corroborating between different and independent sources such as the photos, films, and witnesses.  This method can't resolve all issues (e.g. how many shots were fired), but cross referencing and corroborating evidence can still help debunk weak witness statements or weak theories based on them.  Although I don't see any evidence of wholesale fabrication of photos and films, it's good to be skeptical and alert to possible tampering.  For example one photo that I am convinced has been tampered with is the shoe hanging over the side of the limo:

Different versions of this photo exist, and is proof of some kind of retouching.  A full discussion of this photo is here for those interested:

 

[John Butler]

4 hours ago, Mark Tyler said:

Her statements on the day and for the 1964 Warren Commission interview regarding the shots are consistent and corroborated by others in the Plaza so I am inclined to accept them.  I don't judge her too harshly about her change of views as other witnesses changed over time also

Yes.  But, where was she?  I been kicked around pretty good for saying that Hill Exhibit No. 5 needs to be looked at and taken as valid.  Otherwise, why would Arlen Specter mark it up as Top Secret and it vanishes from the public for years until I believe the ARRB.  I found this in a Walt Brown book.  He didn't know what to make of it.  I do. 

Combined with Mary Moorman's statements, it contradicts everything about Zapruder.

I'm not going to get into another debate about Jean Hill and Mary Moorman.  Been there done that.  I wasn't able to convince anyone on my views of this.  Or, maybe just a few.   

Edited August 16, 2020 by John Butler

[John Butler]

This photo shows the area that Zapruder would have filmed from the other side of the street as recorded by Wilma Bond.

Notice that any tree or shrub does not conceal something from Zapruder’s camera.  He is in front of the small tree or shrub and it is behind the retaining wall and would not block his camera view.  I have drawn a red line that indicates this is an area that Zapruder could film.  It covers the steps. In order to view the p. limo and Mary Moorman and the Babuska Lady (which he doesn’t) we should see the people on the steps.

OBTW, this photo is a fraud from the Zapruder view point.  So, generally people make points from fraudulent material.  It’s wise to check out every detail and measure those against other films and photos.

Mannikin Row:

Bronson shows a small group of people from Mannikin Row separated from the others by a wide measure.  Some claim this is due to camera angles.  If so, then the evidence from Betzner and Willis is also due to camera angles.  Nonsense.  Compare the following:

Brownson:

Betzner:

This is not the same as Bronson:

Willis:

This group of Mannikin Row is not the same as Bronson.  I believe no one had any quibbles about the red lines showing Zapruder’s filming area. 

Zapruder 151 for comparison of Mannikin Row:

I found this as I was looking for a good shot of Manniken Row.  I can't recall whether I did this or someone else.  Must have been me when I was exploring how the Zapruder film was made.  John Costello said the film was technically perfect for almost all of it.  I was trying to figure out how the film could be altered and still be technically perfect.  My notion was that the contents of the passenger compartment of the p. limo was blacked out and contents from the Zapruder Gap imagery was placed in the passenger compart of the p. limo in frames after the gap.  What did the Hawkeye works fellow Dino say.  Just about anything can be done in photo editing.

It's not a novel idea.  This can be seen (figures in the passenger car on Houston are blacked out) in the Elsie Dorman film for most of the ride down Houston Street. 

 

 

Edited August 17, 2020 by John Butler

[Mark Tyler]

On 8/17/2020 at 5:40 PM, John Butler said:

Mannikin Row:

Bronson shows a small group of people from Mannikin Row separated from the others by a wide measure.  Some claim this is due to camera angles.  If so, then the evidence from Betzner and Willis is also due to camera angles.  Nonsense.  Compare the following:

The photos in Dealey Plaza contain many optical illusions, and as a result can easily mislead us regarding the spectators on the so called mannikin row.  For example when looking down Elm Street from the corner such as via the Willis or Betzner photo we get the illusion of people lining up shoulder to shoulder down towards the Stemmons freeway sign:

However the Bronson photo is taken at a perpendicular angle and we see the true spacing between people which is much more patchy and nowhere near as dense as we would think from the other angle:

The most graphic and common illusion that tricks people is the Altgens 6 photo:

Viewing Altgens 6 in isolation you might think that Jim Chaney on the police bike on the left hand side was beside the limo and looking directly at JFK.  However, the Bronson photo above shows us that the bikes are way behind the limo.  The Bronson photo was taken circa Z225-Z230, and the Altgens photo was taken circa Z253-Z255 so there is only just over a second between the two photos so there is not enough time for the bike to catch up the limo so we can deduce that its just a trick as per this line of sight here from both camera angles at Z253:

As we see, the diagram matches Altgens 6 as the bike is in line with the corner of the limo and also the lamppost behind (and the concrete pillar is to the right of both).  However the Altgens photo does not tell use where the bike is depth wise, which is where the Bronson photo comes in and tells us that the bike is behind the limo and not beside it.

When a 3D scene is condensed into a 2D photo a great deal of information is lost and the human imagination tries to fill in the gaps.  Sometimes this results in optical illusions as shown above, but helpfully the large number of photos and films taken from different angles allows us to see beyond the illusion.

[Mark Tyler]

On 8/16/2020 at 3:56 PM, John Butler said:

Yes.  But, where was she?  I been kicked around pretty good for saying that Hill Exhibit No. 5 needs to be looked at and taken as valid.  Otherwise, why would Arlen Specter mark it up as Top Secret and it vanishes from the public for years until I believe the ARRB.  I found this in a Walt Brown book.  He didn't know what to make of it.  I do. 

Combined with Mary Moorman's statements, it contradicts everything about Zapruder.

I'm not going to get into another debate about Jean Hill and Mary Moorman.  Been there done that.  I wasn't able to convince anyone on my views of this.  Or, maybe just a few.   

I've not seen this exhibit before, so thanks for sharing it.  I see this is in the Warren Commission volumes 20H158:

https://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh20/html/WH_Vol20_0089b.htm

It was referenced in the rather long testimony Jean Hill gave to the Warren Commission:

https://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh6/pdf/WH6_Hill.pdf

If anyone hasn't read this testimony, it's well worth looking at.  Hill has received a very bad press over the years, but I feel she gives a very good account of her view of the assassination.  Some of the more controversial statements she has made do actually have rather simple explanations in the above document:

• She found blood on the ground on the knoll.

As explained on page 212:

"this is embarrassing, but it turned out to be Koolade or some sort of red drink."

• She saw the Secret Service men fire shots at the man running away on the knoll.

As explained on page 212:

Mr. SPECTER. You thought that perhaps the second burst of shots you heard were being directed toward him by the Secret Service?
Mrs. HILL. I just thought, “Oh, goodness, the Secret Service is shooting back.”

Later on page 213:

Mr. SPECTER. And you had the general impression that the Secret Service was firing the second group of shots at the man who fired the first group of shots?
Mrs. HILL. That’s right.
Mr. SPECTER. But you had no specific impression as to the source of those shots?
Mrs. HILL. No.

Just to recap, after the fatal head shot a man on the knoll starts running up the steps, as can be seen in the final frames of the Muchmore film, which is who Hill is presumably talking about:

To the right of the frame is the follow up Secret Service car where the agents are all reacting by pulling out guns which Hill would have seen very clearly.  With bullets being fired and then the sight of a man running away and agents brandishing guns was enough to give her the impression that the man on the knoll was the assassin and the agents were firing back.  It's an honest and understandable impression, but as she said she didn't know the specific source of the shots.  She was certain that more than one gun was firing though as she explained on page 213:

Mr. SPECTER. Any conscious impression of where this third shot came from?
Mrs. HILL. Not any different from any of them. I thought it was just people shooting from the knoll--I did think there was more than one person shooting.
Mr. SPECTER. You did think there was more than one person shooting?
Mrs. HILL. Yes, sir.
Mr. SPECTER. What made you think that?
Mrs. HILL. The way the gun report sounded and the difference in the way they were fired--the timing.

• She saw a dog in the limo.

As explained on page 214:

"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," 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."

She said "barely glanced" so it's not surprising that she interpreted the white and fuzzy object as a dog in that split second.

• She saw Jack Ruby on the knoll.

As explained on page 215:

Mr. SPECTER: Do you think he was, in fact. Jack Ruby?
Mrs. HIIL: That, I don’t know.

In other words, the man she briefly saw simply looked like Jack Ruby.

In summary, Hill was merely passing on the impressions of what she saw, and while not always perfectly accurate, everything did indeed have some basis in fact.  As so often in this case a phrase or two is taken out of the original context and people misunderstand what the witness is really trying to say.  Considering that bullets were being fired in her direction, and how quickly it all happened, we are lucky to have any information.  Lest we forget many witnesses were so terrified they never came forward, so I'm very grateful that Hill had the gumption to say her piece.

[Mark Stevens]

32 minutes ago, Mark Tyler said:

• She saw a dog in the limo.

As explained on page 214:

"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," 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."

She said "barely glanced" so it's not surprising that she interpreted the white and fuzzy object as a dog in that split second.

I believe this would be the lamb chop doll she had. I'm not near my files but the pictures and information is easy to find. 

[Mark Tyler]

21 hours ago, Mark Stevens said:

I believe this would be the lamb chop doll she had. I'm not near my files but the pictures and information is easy to find. 

Thanks for the tip Mark.  I had a look around and found some forum threads that mentioned the lamb chop doll:

It seems to be a rather hot topic about whether it was a fluffy toy or a bunch of white flowers.  I guess if we still don't really know nearly 60 years on, maybe thats why Jean Hill didn't really know in those few brief seconds.

The moral of the tale is that witnesses can be both right and wrong at the same time.  Hill was wrong in saying it was a dog, however when pushed to explain in more detail she said it was something white and fuzzy that she saw (which is consistent with either flowers or a toy doll).  I feel this probably explains many of the discrepancies between witness statements, such as shot timings.  Humans aren't recording devices and so when a witness recalls something it is more their general impression rather than specific measurable detail.

[Mark Tyler]

I've just updated the survey spreadsheet with info from JC White who was on the triple underpass bridge:

https://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh6/pdf/WH6_JCWhite.pdf

He's not a useful witness as he said he didn't hear anything and his view of Elm Street was blocked due to a long freight train travelling across the bridge.  However, I have added him to the list for the sake of completeness.

[Mark Tyler]

Moving west down Elm street from Jean Hill and Mary Moorman we then see James Altgens who took some iconic photos in the Dealey Plaza crime scene.  He was also a very useful witness who deserves to be studied in detail.  He was quoted in an AP broadcast within 10 minutes of the shooting:

"Altgens said he heard two shots but thought someone was shooting fireworks until he saw blood on the President. Altgens said he saw no one with a gun."

Altgens is one of about 14-20% of witnesses who heard fewer than three shots.  If the vast majority of witnesses who heard more than two shots are correct, this raises the issue of when the other shot was fired (or possibly shots plural if he missed more than one).  His Warren Commission testimony provides some useful information about the timing of the first and last shots he heard:

"I made one picture at the time I heard a noise that sounded like a firecracker-I did not know it was a shot, but evidently my picture, as I recall, and it was almost simultaneously with the shot-the shot was just a fraction ahead of my picture, but that much-of course-at that time I figured it was nothing more than a firecracker, because from my position down here the sound was not of such volume that it would indicate to me it was a high-velocity rifle."

"I wasn’t keeping track of the number of pops that took place, but I could vouch for No. 1, and I can vouch for the last shot, but I cannot tell you how many shots were in between. There was not another shot fired after the President was struck in the head. That was the last shot-that much I will say with a great degree of certainty."

7H517 : https://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh7/pdf/WH7_Altgens.pdf

The photo he is referring to is the Altgens 6 photo which was taken at about Z253-Z255 relative to the Zapruder film.  The first shot he heard was just before this, so I would deduce that he is referring to the shot which hit the victims who are reacting at Z225-Z230 in the Zapruder film (which is just over a second before he took his photo).  With the head shot being the last shot he heard he is saying all of the shots were fired within about 5 seconds of time.  He vaguely says "I cannot tell you how many shots were in between", so another shot could have been fired between the first and last.

With many other witnesses so adamant that at least one shot was fired after the head shot, why did Altgens miss this shot?  I think that the clue is what was happening to Altgens in the time frame immediately after the head shot at Z313:

• He took a photo (Altgens 7) at about Z400:

• There was a siren blaring at just after the head shot, which was emanating from the Secret Service follow up car and was about 20-25 feet away from Altgens around Z370-Z410.
• There was a lot of noise from nearby traffic, e.g. a noisy bike passed him during Z350-Z390.  Here is an animation frame depicting Altgens (53) and his immediate surroundings at Z390 with all of this noise at its peak just before he took his photo:

In other words he was busy taking his photo and his senses were probably being overloaded by the noise of bikes, sirens, and screaming witnesses so he was simply distracted.  The people who did hear the final shot(s) were further away from the noisy bike and siren, and they weren't busy trying to take a photo so they would have been able to hear the shot more clearly with fewer distractions.

This is just my theory of course and others may well have an alternative explanation of which shot he didn't hear and why, so feel free to comment if you think I'm wrong!

[Mark Tyler]

One of the nice things about exhaustively going through the hundreds of witness statements is that you find some rather obscure witnesses who are helpful in establishing some of the basic facts about the shooting.  For example the witnesses on Houston Street were largely oblivious to the events on Elm Street because they couldn't see what was going on in the Presidential limo.  However, they could still hear the shots and they weren't emotionally affected in quite the same way as the people on Elm Street (which is helpful as it wouldn't have affected their judgement).  With the help of these witnesses I shall now challenge one of the most longstanding and pernicious myths of the crime scene.

Here is a frame from the Hughes film which was exposed at about Z150 relative to the Zapruder film:

About two seconds later the Hughes film stops circa Z190:

If you look closely you can see the silver Camera Car #3 just ahead of the Congressman Car #1.  Here is the equivalent animation frame:

So this sets the scene.  I can now go through the witness statements from the occupants of Camera Car #3 to understand their impressions of the shooting as they trundled along Houston Street.