The Shot Sequence: Evidence of a Second Gunman

[Gil Jesus]

Witnesses describe the sounds of the shots, the timing of which, makes a single gunman impossible.

 

 

Edited December 29, 2022 by Gil Jesus

[Michael Griffith]

I think the Zapruder film, altered or not, provides powerful evidence of multiple gunmen even before the head shot frames, i.e., the Z200-207 reactions and the Z226-232 reactions.

At around frame 200, JFK's hand not only stops suddenly in the middle of a wave, but it also drops to the chin or throat level in a fraction of a second and stays at that level until he disappears behind the freeway sign at Z207. By frames 202-204, Mrs. Kennedy has made a sudden sharp turn to the right, toward her husband. When she reemerges into view at Z223, she is looking intently at JFK; obviously, her attention was drawn to him because the reaction that he had begun at around Z200 had become more noticeable while the
car was behind the freeway sign.

Beginning at Z226, Kennedy's body is visibly jolted sharply forward, and the position of his hands and elbows--particularly his elbows--changes dramatically, as they are flung upward and forward. The force and speed of these movements of his arms and elbows are quite startling when one compares frame 226, where they are first discernible, to frame 232 just 1/3-second later.

Although the WC and the HSCA ignored these movements (they alluded to them but did not describe them), they are among the most dramatic and visible reactions in the entire Zapruder film.

The Z200-207 reactions indicate a shot at Z186-188, and this appears to be the throat shot. The Z226-232 reactions indicate a shot at Z224-225.

Edited December 29, 2022 by Michael Griffith

[Tommy Tomlinson]

I was trying recently to find a newspaper report I remember reading some time ago. If anyone knows what this is and can point me at it I would be most grateful.

It was one of the earliest print reports of the shooting as related by one of the reporters in the motorcade. (Whether it had gone through the PA or other agencies I don't recall...)

The report spoke of "several bursts of automatic gunfire" and this has always been to me, the key to the "How many shots were fired?". And how come some people heard three and others heard four, five or even six?

If the shooters were coordinated over the radio, the first three shots, fired as a volley, would naturally not be equidistant to everyone in the plaza. So depending on where you were you may have heard one, two or three shots in rapid succession. Or perhaps... "echoes"

Likewise with the 4th and 5th (and potentially 6th) which would have been less "simultaneously" (but pretty damned close) fired but depending on where you were standing might have sounded right on top of each other or almost a second apart. But there would likely have been a distinct gap on the second volley.

The sheer volume of witnesses who, despite the disparity in the location and number of shots, declared to a degree of almost unanimity that the last two shots were "right on top of one another."

Edited December 29, 2022 by Tommy Tomlinson
Fix typos.

[Marjan Rynkiewicz]

1 hour ago, Tommy Tomlinson said:

I was trying recently to find a newspaper report I remember reading some time ago. If anyone knows what this is and can point me at it I would be most grateful.

It was one of the earliest print reports of the shooting as related by one of the reporters in the motorcade. (Whether it had gone through the PA or other agencies I don't recall...)

The report spoke of "several bursts of automatic gunfire" and this has always been to me, the key to the "How many shots were fired?". And how come some people heard three and others heard four, five or even six?

If the shooters were coordinated over the radio, the first three shots, fired as a volley, would naturally not be equidistant to everyone in the plaza. So depending on where you were you may have heard one, two or three shots in rapid succession. Or perhaps... "echoes"

Likewise with the 4th and 5th (and potentially 6th) which would have been less "simultaneously" (but pretty damned close) fired but depending on where you were standing might have sounded right on top of each other or almost a second apart. But there would likely have been a distinct gap on the second volley.

The sheer volume of witnesses who, despite the disparity in the location and number of shots, declared to a degree of almost unanimity that the last two shots were "right on top of one another."

I am interested in any report of an auto burst. The WC mentions a flurry of shots 20 times – mainly the testimony of Kellerman & Greer. Oswald fired 2 shots at about pseudo Z113 & Z219, & Hickey fired an accidental auto burst of at least 4 shots of his AR15 as he fell forward at say Z299 to Z313.

Edited December 29, 2022 by Marjan Rynkiewicz

[Bob Ness]

6 hours ago, Gil Jesus said:

Witnesses describe the sounds of the shots, the timing of which, makes a single gunman impossible.

 

 

Gil - You uploaded a video of I believe a speechwriter who held off on leaving town and was in the motorcade - something like that. He seemed to be a supporter of the WC but as he was recounting his story, he explained how he heard a pow-pow,pow report but it didn't seem to occur to him that Oswald couldn't have done that. I was going to post it but for the life of me can't find it it's driving me nuts (short drive around the corner). Who was that? I was going to post it here.

[Gil Jesus]

3 hours ago, Tommy Tomlinson said:

The sheer volume of witnesses who, despite the disparity in the location and number of shots, declared to a degree of almost unanimity that the last two shots were "right on top of one another."

People will always argue that witnesses are so unreliable. That may be true when you have different witnesses saying different things. But when you have witnesses who corroborate each other, their combined reliability becomes stronger.

The same people who believe one witness who claimed to see Oswald in the sixth floor window firing a rifle, Howard Brennan, will argue that the 59 witnesses who saw the limousine slow down or stop on Elm St. as being mistaken or lying. ( even though the Z-film shows the limo slowing down almost to a stop )

When I ask them how many witnesses saying the same thing will it take before they believe them, all I get is crickets.

Because, to them, it's not about the number of witnesses, but rather what the witnesses said that determines the truth.

God help the accused on whose jury panel those people sit.

[Tommy Tomlinson]

17 hours ago, Gil Jesus said:

People will always argue that witnesses are so unreliable. That may be true when you have different witnesses saying different things. But when you have witnesses who corroborate each other, their combined reliability becomes stronger.

The same people who believe one witness who claimed to see Oswald in the sixth floor window firing a rifle, Howard Brennan, will argue that the 59 witnesses who saw the limousine slow down or stop on Elm St. as being mistaken or lying. ( even though the Z-film shows the limo slowing down almost to a stop )

When I ask them how many witnesses saying the same thing will it take before they believe them, all I get is crickets.

Because, to them, it's not about the number of witnesses, but rather what the witnesses said that determines the truth.

God help the accused on whose jury panel those people sit.

I was talking about exactly this the other day on, (I Think) it was Youtube video comments. I had pointed out to someone the physical limitations presented by the shape, size, and dimensions of the gap in the window through which Mr Brennan saw this "standing" person and gleaned all his descriptive information...

I was lovely and polite, and without calling them an idiot or any of that stuff said that he couldn't have seen what he said he saw because real world physics prevents it from having ever happened. That it wasn't, or rather shouldn't be, a matter of opinion. It should be as simple as accepting reality of the physical size and shape of a building and its architecture, and moving on.

To which the reply was, "Well, I tend to believe Brennan" And of course I had to ask, so what was it about what I just explained do you disagree with, so I can point you at the data showing how wide the window opened, or whatever it is you challenge... to which the reply was again... "I just believe him..."

And I'm simply not equipped to deal  with THAT level of disengagement from reality, while remaining civil...

[Mark Ulrik]

22 hours ago, Gil Jesus said:

People will always argue that witnesses are so unreliable. That may be true when you have different witnesses saying different things. But when you have witnesses who corroborate each other, their combined reliability becomes stronger.

NB! Especially when corroborated by other types of evidence.

22 hours ago, Gil Jesus said:

The same people who believe one witness who claimed to see Oswald in the sixth floor window firing a rifle, Howard Brennan, will argue that the 59 witnesses who saw the limousine slow down or stop on Elm St. as being mistaken or lying. ( even though the Z-film shows the limo slowing down almost to a stop )

Can you point to anyone foolish enough to have claimed the limo didn't slow down? You wouldn't simply make that up, would you?

Sure, witnesses who said the limo slowed down (although "almost to a stop" may be overstating it) are corroborated by the Z-film, but witnesses who said it stopped are not. It's common, however, to see "slowdown" witnesses (many of whom were adamant the limo didn't stop) being lumped together with "stop" witnesses, as if the difference didn't matter. You're not in Z-film alterationist camp, at least, just trying to prop up a puny strawman.

Everyone knows this, of course, but Brennan's observations are, btw, not without corroboration. Other witnesses saw what looked like a rifle barrel in the same window, cartridge cases were found below that window, and Oswald's rifle was found on the same floor. Also speaking to credibility, Brennan was quick to go to the police, and his story remained fairly consistent over time.

22 hours ago, Gil Jesus said:

When I ask them how many witnesses saying the same thing will it take before they believe them, all I get is crickets.

Maybe "they" assumed it was some kind of rhetorical question that didn't require an answer. So, what is the right answer? How many limo stop witnesses "saying the same thing" does it take to trump one Brennan?

22 hours ago, Gil Jesus said:

Because, to them, it's not about the number of witnesses, but rather what the witnesses said that determines the truth.

God help the accused on whose jury panel those people sit.

You've been posting stuff like this in the newsgroups for years, and people keep pointing out why it's weak sauce.

[Pat Speer]

2 hours ago, Mark Ulrik said:

NB! Especially when corroborated by other types of evidence.

Can you point to anyone foolish enough to have claimed the limo didn't slow down? You wouldn't simply make that up, would you?

Sure, witnesses who said the limo slowed down (although "almost to a stop" may be overstating it) are corroborated by the Z-film, but witnesses who said it stopped are not. It's common, however, to see "slowdown" witnesses (many of whom were adamant the limo didn't stop) being lumped together with "stop" witnesses, as if the difference didn't matter. You're not in Z-film alterationist camp, at least, just trying to prop up a puny strawman.

Everyone knows this, of course, but Brennan's observations are, btw, not without corroboration. Other witnesses saw what looked like a rifle barrel in the same window, cartridge cases were found below that window, and Oswald's rifle was found on the same floor. Also speaking to credibility, Brennan was quick to go to the police, and his story remained fairly consistent over time.

Maybe "they" assumed it was some kind of rhetorical question that didn't require an answer. So, what is the right answer? How many limo stop witnesses "saying the same thing" does it take to trump one Brennan?

You've been posting stuff like this in the newsgroups for years, and people keep pointing out why it's weak sauce.

Not that Gil needs help defending himself, but I'm confused as to your point. Very few researchers of whom I am aware doubt Brennan saw someone in the window. But his belated ID of Oswald, at the urging of the FBI, after Oswald was dead and gone, is not credible. The WC as a whole, in its report, made clear they didn't exactly trust him. But Gerry Ford, in Life Magazine, made out that Brennan was the key witness. And this was garbage. 

The fact is, and shall remain, that the WC in particular and LNs in general, chose and continue to choose to believe certain witnesses (such as Brennan, Givens and Bledsoe) while disbelieving others (such as Adams, Piper, Rowland, Dougherty, et al) not based on their credibility, but on whether they liked what the witnesses had told them. This bias is common on both sides to this issue. 

Is this really in dispute? 

Edited December 30, 2022 by Pat Speer

[Joseph McBride]

Brennan is not credible. His identification of a gunman

is worthless. It would have been thrown out in court.

Edited December 31, 2022 by Joseph McBride

[Guest]

On 12/30/2022 at 3:37 PM, Pat Speer said:

The fact is, and shall remain, that the WC in particular and LNs in general, chose and continue to choose to believe certain witnesses (such as Brennan, Givens and Bledsoe) while disbelieving others (such as Adams, Piper, Rowland, Dougherty, et al) not based on their credibility, but on whether they liked what the witnesses had told them. This bias is common on both sides to this issue. 

Hi

Edited February 15, 2023 by Lance Payette

[Micah Mileto]

4 minutes ago, Lance Payette said:

Yes, but: The physical evidence has to receive priority. Oswald's rifle was on the sixth floor. Fragments from other guns were never found. And so on and so forth. Logic and reasonable inferences likewise have to receuve priority, Oswald's actions the night before the assassination and immediately after it demand explanation. One or more gunmen at the front, when the patsy's rifle was on the sixth floor of the TSBD, is difficult to square with logic. And so on and so forth. Eyewitness and earwitness testimony, which is notoriously unreliable, has to be evaluated in this context. If the physical evidence, reasonable inferences and logic tell me Oswald was the lone assassin, then naturally I'm going to place greater reliance on the testimony that meshes with this. This is particularly true with eyewitness and earwitness testimony in the context of a sudden, traumatic event - direction of shots, sequence of shots, etc. If six eyewitnesses unequivocally testified they were standing on the steps of the TSBD chatting with Oswald when the shots were fired, that would be a different story.

It seems to me the conspiracy community in general relies on weak explanations of the physical evidence, implausible inferences and skewed logic. Nothing is what seems, everything is faked, everyone is lying. As I do, they then tend to accept the testimony of eyewitnesses and earwitnesses who fit into the framework they've constructed. You and others will obviously disagree, but I simply don't find the conspiracy framework to be anywhere near as solid as the lone assassin framework.

Fragments from other guns were never found????? There are about as many stories and theories of extra bullets/fragments/shell casings found as the RFK assassination case.

[Micah Mileto]

17 minutes ago, Lance Payette said:

 

Here is the square logic behind multiple shooters: Maybe Plan A was to have Kennedy be killed by a single shot from behind, but that didn't work, so Plan B was to use overkill to make sure Kennedy was dead and then worry about a cover-up later.

[Guest]

If a rifle was seen pointing out of a window, it was because someone wanted it to be seen. 

If you’re wanting to get away with it, you position yourself at the furthest point back from the window that still allows you the shot. 

[Micah Mileto]

1 minute ago, Chris Barnard said:

If a rifle was seen pointing out of a window, it was because someone wanted it to be seen. 

If you’re wanting to get away with it, you position yourself at the furthest point back from the window that still allows you the shot. 

But how would the gunman know which one of the entourage was JFK? Unless some kind of live communication was involved, a gunman might need to use a scope to spot which exact person was John.

Edited December 31, 2022 by Micah Mileto