Nix Film

[Bob Prudhomme]

Drew, have you or any of the others read James Altgens' testimony to the WC? There are things in there which would go a long ways to support Mary Ann Moorman's recollection of the shot sequence and timing.

Just because a witness's recollection of events contradicts the official story does not mean they are automatically:

a) Mistaken
b) Confused
c) Lying
d) Seeking fifteen minutes of fame
e) Seeking to get rich quick
f) "Mis-remembering" (my personal favourite)
g) Not professionally qualified to make an observation or understand what was observed
h) All of the above

Another possibility is the use of silencers and other means to influence the perception of the shots fired.

Bob, would you mind terribly putting up a link to your favored enhanced version of the Z film so we're on the same page?

I will see if I can find it this afternoon, Lauren. However, a Google search will quickly turn up many good versions. It is not that difficult to see, in the Z film, Greer's and Kellerman's "duck" and yo-yo like rebound.

Getting back to Mary Ann Moorman's claim of hearing two more shots, following the one she heard as she snapped her Polaroid, it would do well to remember that she and photographer James Altgens were two of the closest witnesses to the fatal headshot. James Altgens testified to the WC that JFK was no more than 15 feet from him at the time of the headshot; basically, right in front of him.

Altgens' testimony clearly contradicts what is seen in both the Nix and Zapruder films. Was he "mistaken", too?

Here is Zapruder film frame z350. Considering there is a lane of pavement between JFK and Altgens, this frame likely shows a distance of 15 feet between them. If Zapruder's camera was running at 18.3 frames per second, this means that just over 2 seconds has elapsed between z313 and z350. If the limo was travelling at 12 mph, or 17.6 feet per second, this should place the limo 35.2 feet further up Elm St. than what is claimed by Altgens. Altgens was a professional photographer, and had pre-focused his camera lens to a distance of 15 feet, ostensibly to get a shot of JFK directly in front of him.

P.S. Lauren, here is a link to a frame by frame pictorial record of the Zapruder film.

http://www.assassinationresearch.com/zfilm/

[Lauren Johnson]

by Gerda Dunkel

[Albert Doyle]

If you see someone's brains blown out in front of you sometimes your memory can shrink the whole thing into the moment of closest pass where Altgens is seen. By the time Altgens absorbed he had just seen the president's brains blown out the limo was right next to him.

[Tracy Riddle]

Remember that eyewitnesses are generally considered the least reliable form of evidence. As Harold Weisberg said, "My book is the one that does not draw upon eyewitnesses. They are the least dependable source of information..."

The human mind is a tricky thing, and everyone processes (and remembers) events differently, especially during a traumatic event. There have been many good experiments done on this subject.

Sadly, in this case, we have to rely more on eyewitnesses than we should because the ballistic/forensic/document/photographic evidence is not kosher.

[Bob Prudhomme]

I could easily go along with the "mistaken" witness theory if it were not for the above. This was the official story, three shots/ three hits, until James Tague made it apparent one shot missed, and it became necessary for two bullets to have done all of the damage. Note the position of the limo, down by the steps, when the last shot was fired. Where was Altgens standing again?

[Chris Davidson]

http://www.mejuba.com/albums/jfkass/1129...w/original

chris

[Bob Prudhomme]

http://www.mejuba.com/albums/jfkass/1129...w/original

chris

Thanks, Chris. I know this is a subject you have looked at very closely. Could you share some more of this survey with us?

[Keith Millea]

Remember that eyewitnesses are generally considered the least reliable form of evidence. As Harold Weisberg said, "My book is the one that does not draw upon eyewitnesses. They are the least dependable source of information..."

The human mind is a tricky thing, and everyone processes (and remembers) events differently, especially during a traumatic event. There have been many good experiments done on this subject.

Sadly, in this case, we have to rely more on eyewitnesses than we should because the ballistic/forensic/document/photographic evidence is not kosher.

LOL...I just watched "Rashomon" last night!

[Bob Prudhomme]

Remember that eyewitnesses are generally considered the least reliable form of evidence. As Harold Weisberg said, "My book is the one that does not draw upon eyewitnesses. They are the least dependable source of information..."

The human mind is a tricky thing, and everyone processes (and remembers) events differently, especially during a traumatic event. There have been many good experiments done on this subject.

Sadly, in this case, we have to rely more on eyewitnesses than we should because the ballistic/forensic/document/photographic evidence is not kosher.

If I only had a nickel for every time I heard this from the Lone Nut crew at the JFK Assassination Forum.

[Drew Phipps]

You realize, of course, that the Lone Nut types would also be glad to get a nickel each time they hear it from conspiracy theorists.