JFK Assassination: Low Quality of Disinformation

Hear no evil

The quality of disinformation on the Kennedy assassination has never been very high. Much of it is pseudoscience, slick enough to fool the general public, but nothing that ever holds up under scrutiny.

Earlier this week, I saw what I think is a specimen of it in an obituary in the Dallas Morning News of a woman who witnessed the assassination. At the time, she was one of their reporters: Mary Woodward Pillsworth. She died last Tuesday, April 11.

The disinformation was designed to neutralize what she had reported — something that contradicted the official story. As you will see below, the disinformation concerns a medical issue — but no medical personnel appear to have been involved in its design.

In her story, she said she thought the shots came from the grassy knoll. She had been standing on the curb, west of the Texas Book Depository Building, in front of Abraham Zapruder, the man whose film captured the closest view of the assassination.

To her right was the grassy knoll. She reported hearing an ”ear-shattering noise coming from behind us and a little to the right.”  (She was one of scores of people who say shots came from that area.)

But her obituary contains this bit: “A lifelong hearing problem prevented her from determining the direction from which sounds originated.” Then I learned that she herself had tried to walk back what she initially reported. It was at a conference in 1993, Reporters Remember: November 22, 1963. After admitting what she had reported earlier, she said

“I have very great difficulty discerning the direction of sounds anyway — I’m the kind of person on the thruway, when I hear a siren, I panic ’cause I don’t know where it’s coming from.”

To me, this is not credible. For years, she had been quite definite about the location of the sound. And she didn’t just say the sound came from her right — she even fine-tuned it!  Specifically,  “a little to the right.”

Then she began to come up with different reasons for why she must have been wrong, none of them especially convincing. They sounded contrived, like scripts she was forced to recite.

And what kind of hearing problem would prevent a person from localizing sound? Not being able to hear in one ear. Because it takes two ears to locate a sound.

According to scientists in auditory research, locating sound is fairly simple. For example, a noise on the right is louder to the right ear than to the left. And the sound waves would reach the right ear before they reach the left.

But if a noise is made from a location in front, or from behind — that is, no closer to one ear than the other — then we cannot tell where it came from. This is why we turn our heads; we are informed by asymmetry.

The witness was never specific about her hearing problem. She never claimed to be deaf or hard-of-hearing in one ear — and this is why I think her new claims are low quality disinformation. She should have been given a better script, one in which she claims to have poor hearing in her left ear.

Why did she change her story? Many witnesses have done so, often in response to intimidation. But in the case of this witness, she may have been made to feel it was irresponsible of her to continue to challenge the official story. From an interview with Nigel Turner: which took place before she began making claims of a “lifelong hearing problem.”

“Civic leaders, responsible people, whether it be the mayor, or the managing editor of the paper, almost felt it a responsibility, to kind of not rock the boat, perhaps. The neat answer was the version that came to be the most widely accepted — that there were three shots and they had all come from the School Book Depository.”

So she didn’t want to rock the boat. Too bad she didn’t realize it was the Titanic.

Where else do you see journalism of this quality and value?

Please help us do more. Make a tax-deductible contribution now.

Our Comment Policy

Keep it civilized, keep it relevant, keep it clear, keep it short. Please do not post links or promotional material. We reserve the right to edit and to delete comments where necessary.

print

30 responses to “JFK Assassination: Low Quality of Disinformation”

  1. Krissy Ravenwest says:

    Four things:
    1) Our lovely CIA/NSA does not regularly keep notes ,when they covertly assassinate- world leaders including Kennedy. Theres nothing in these notes.

    2) Anyone who has ever shot a long range bolt action rifle, knows the “magic bullet shot “was an impossible shot by just one shooter.
    IMPOSSIBLE.Any hunter knows what happened here when they watch the Zapruder film!!!

    3) The ugly yet revealing Zapruder-film ,clearly shows Kennedy’s head blown off “back and to the left”. A shot that clearly came from the side(grassy knoll)Proof positive of multiple shooters!! Basic physics!!

    4) No matter what bulls~~~~t the media spins, THERE WERE OVER 22 DOCUMENTED WITNESSES WHO SAW THE SHOT COME FROM THE GRASSY KNOLL and heard radio chatter of the assassins talking.(about half are dead now. Hmmmm)

  2. Domenico says:

    I would agree with Milicent Cranor that MWP’s later denial or ambiguity was to not rock the boat, particularly since “conspiracy theorists” has become a pejorative term (“thanks” to the early efforts of the CIA). May Mary W. Pillsworth RIP.

  3. Mark O'Blazney says:

    DP is smaller than most perceive, and was/is like an echo chamber, confusing the ear. Three shots can sound like six or more.

    • Kyle Rekcirts says:

      Whether Dealey Plaza is smaller or larger than “perceived” is irrelevant – as is whether it is/was “like” an echo chamber. That it “confuses” the ear is your opinion, as is that “three shots can sound like six or more”. Do you have any science, any data that supports any of these opinions of yours?

    • Milicent Cranor says:

      It’s also true that two shots can sound like one, depending on how close together they are fired, and depending on the position of the listener. The closer the listener is to the shooter, the harder it is to distinguish a second shot.

  4. Pat Speer says:

    Mary Woodward is but one among dozens of witnesses whose stories changed over the years after the shooting. The story of some of these witnesses got more wild, or suggestive of a conspiracy. Woodward’s story, however, made a sharp turn to the right in her latter years. It seems obvious, then, she was trying to make her story fit what had become the accepted story among her fellow journalists: it was Oswald alone. The problem is that Woodward, along with her fellow journalist/witnesses Pierce Allman and Hugh Aynesworth ALL claimed they saw Kennedy react to the first shot, which is totally at odds with the single-bullet theory pushed by their fellow journalists.

    Despite her best efforts, then, she was a witness whose recollections supported there had been more than one shooter.

  5. Arjan Hut says:

    But it’s nice to read that despite her hearing problem she knew who to listen to.

  6. Lucius says:

    James E. Files claims to have been the grassy knoll shooter. Believe his jail house confession or not, it is a compelling story.

  7. Josh Stern says:

    Most of the people at the scene ran towards the grassy knoll. Some websites list 40+ witnesses to “grassy knoll direction shots” by name. The “umbrella man” and “radio man” were suspicious, in part, because they sat down where they were, in the “kill zone” (freshly marked on the street pavement), and then casually sauntered off after a bit, while most people were running up the grassy knoll in the pictures.

    • Kyle Rekcirts says:

      I have always found the actions of both “umbrella man” and “radio man” to be suspicious before and after the assassination. I had not heard, however, about the “fresh marks’ on the street pavement in the “kill zone”. Can you elaborate on that or send me to a source? Thank you.

    • Josh Stern says:

      The claim about the painted yellow marks in the kill zone comes from Jim Marrs and Beverly Oliver. Marrs has photos showing the yellow marks on the curb in the “kill zone” and Oliver is a witness who says she got fresh yellow paint on her shoes from the marks on the assassination day.

    • Kyle Rekcirts says:

      Thanks for that info, Josh. There are so many odd bits and pieces surrounding and clinging to the assassination, it’s hard sometimes to identify which are significant and which coincident. Because of your remarks, i’ve searched a bit on-line for the yellow marks, finding those convinced they mark the kill zone and those offering more innocent explanations. Either way, it seems like they would be conveniently placed if someone(s) wanted to use them to designate a kill zone.

    • Josh Stern says:

      The broad idea of significance is like this:

      1) Prior to Dallas, there were plots in Chicago, & Tampas along similar lines, a rifle fire crossfire and a a single patsy to take the blame as a lone nut. A guy in Miami was interviewed talking about that too.
      2) Some pro snipers looked at the scene and said the picket fence on grassy knoll was ideal spot for a sniper attack
      3) Umbrella man waived his umbrella on a sunny day at exact spot/timing of attack
      4) Spectators were not originally allowed at the spot where the shots took place, but drifted down because of crowds
      5) Woman got paint on her shoes from marks freshly painted at that spot
      6) Besides spectators not being supposed to be there – so they all run towards grassy knoll where they heard fire, it seems like a big mistake in the plot was the wounding but not death of Connally, because this caused the limo & JFK body to go to Parkland for examination rather than straight to Bethesda, & allowed Zapruder and other photographers to be close to the spot filming.
      There is a ton of other evidence related to the scene, but the summary above gives a sense that point 5) is a tiny piece that fits in a context.

    • Kyle Rekcirts says:

      I agree with you Josh, and believe strongly that a conspiracy murdered JFK, not Oswald. We might, however, quibble over some details. My responses to your points follows.

      1) I am quite familiar with both those scenarios. Believe the “guy in Miami” you refer to was J (Joseph?) Milteer. Some claim to identify him among the crowd from photos taken in the plaza that day.
      2) Yes, in a plot that location would appear to be optimal.
      3) That and the strange association of Umbrella Man and Dark Complected Man immediately after the shooting strike me as highly suspicious. And I’ve always found the interrogation and explanation from the supposed Umbrella Man during the House Select Investigations in ’78 to be absurd and completely unconvincing.
      4) THAT I have not come across. Do you know who prohibited spectators from that area? Dallas Police? Secret Service? Can that be verified?
      5) So I understand. I suppose, though, that if there is a coincident explanation for the painting of the curbs that holds water, there would be an innocent explanation for her shoes being marked by fresh paint. Still, the timing is odd.
      6) Don’t you think Connally was wounded accidentally? You don’t think he was marked for death that day, too, do you? My understanding is there was a terrific, heated argument between JFK & LBJ that morning in Ft. Worth with Johnson insisting that Connally ride with him and Sen. Yarborough in the President’s limo. Kennedy wanted Connally in the limo since he was the Gov. and more to the right politically, which association Kennedy felt would help him in the upcoming election. Yarborough, meanwhile, was considerably more left-leaning, which JFK felt would undermine support for him in Texas. Furthermore, had Connally also been mortally wounded, wouldn’t they still have to take both men to Parkland in order to attempt resuscitation in the immediate aftermath? Who would have had the authority to pronounce the President dead and trundled off to Air Force One without some sort of examination on site?

    • Josh Stern says:

      “4)”The claim about police keeping people away from the grassy knoll area some time before the motorcade is also one that Jim Marrs made based on interviewing witnesses who were there. He mentions in his Youtube video on Crossfire. His reporting of this is based on witnesses accounts. I’d have to dig into his book “Crossfire” to see which witnesses were the origin of that point.

      “1)” Milteer made the claim about rifles in Miami. IMO, Milteer himself could be plant, but the fact that his claim jibes with the other info about Chicago, Tampa, and what actually happened in Dallas suggests that even if he is a plant, the story originated with some inside psyop that was causally linked to the actual plotting. I have also seen a report of an Alpha 66 plot to fly a small plane into Air Force One during JFK’s visit to Miami and that Secret Service knowledge of that plot caused them to use different transportation when JFK visited Miami in Fall of ’63.
      “3)” They brought in somebody to the HSCA to debunk the idea that the Umbrella was used to shoot JFK in the throat, because someone had determined that the CIA actually had developed such a weapon. The testimony was suspicious because the guy claimed he had never heard about it all those years, that he actually possessed the very same umbrella from over a decade earlier, and that he had been making some bizarre reference to JFK’s father and Neville Chamberlain. The idea that he was a signal for “Go ahead and shoot now” is consistent with the idea that there were multiple shooters in different areas who were meant to shoot at the same time. Robert Harris has a YT video called “Attack in Dealey Plaza” that is interesting for its discussion of where the shooters might have been and how many there were.
      “6)” Following remark above, Harris explains where TBD was not one of the locations and advanced the theory that a shooter in the DalTex building was using a rifle with a silencer and missed badly on his initial shot attempt. If that guy kept shooting, but was still not very accurate, it could explain the wounding of Connally. It was technially illegal to remove JFK from Dallas without coroner report first. Someone connected to that process actually tried to stop them at Parkland Hospital and the Secret Service drew guns and shoved him out of the way. Based on that and other things I read, I believe that with a non-wounded or dead Connally, they would have taken JFK straight to Bethesda and not into Parkland at all. The wounded Connally needing treatment and the not yet completely dead JFK meant they had to present at a hospital, and couldn’t delay. Perhaps they would have gone to the hospital anyway, but it is crazy how so many medical personnel in Parkland explicitly contradict the Bethesda story about the wounds. People have done a lot of research into the theory that JFK’s body was surgically altered and the brain removed prior to the Bethesda autopsy, also noting that the X-rays were not consistent, etc. The suspicious death/murder of William Pitzer is another part of the story poiting to bad dealings at Bethesda. Daniel Marvin has written a book famous for claiming that he had been asked as a special ops guy to kill Pitzer and turned down the assignment.

    • Kyle Rekcirts says:

      Very interesting, informed, and informative, Josh. Thanks.

      1) I’m aware of the Milteer material you mentioned, but had not heard about an Alpha 66 plot to fly a plane into AF-1. Shades of Operation Northwoods.
      3) You have cited the reasons for my suspicions about Umbrella Man. Don’t recall where just now, but recently I read someone’s speculation that both Umbrella Man and Dark Complected (or Radio) Man were positioned in order to signal the shooters to either stop or continue depending on whether JFK was dead or not. That, too, seems plausible to me, even both.
      6) I’m also familiar with the events at Parkland as you describe them. Surely they would have preferred to get the dead President to Bethesda as soon as possible and without doctors viewing the wounds. Still, I should think that transporting JFK from Dallas directly to D.C. without taking him to a hospital, without making some attempts to save him, would have further raised suspicions. It is rather stunning that all medical personnel who witnessed events in Trauma Room 1 on that day describe a blow out wound to the back of the head. Then, after being shown the autopsy photos, most if not all decide that their eyes must have been mistaken. No question that not only was the autopsy botched but just as many suspicious aspects were generated there as well.

    • Josh Stern says:

      “1)” c.f. Philip H. Melanson. “Dallas Mosaic: The Cops, The Cubans, and the Company.” The Third Decade 1, no. 3 (1985): 8–16. (on MaryFerrell WWW, doesn’t like URL links) – Alpha 66 was covert black ops – Northwoods was proposed by the entire Joint Chiefs of Staff in ’62 – they left detailed docs, which were accidentally discovered by James Bamford while doing NSA research. It’s shocking in a different way. Note that Lemnitzer was in charge, went on to head NATO, and was on the Rockefeller Commission to investigate whether the CIA would actually do such mean things…so it’s not as if the DOD establishment that was ready to shoot down civilian aircraft and blame it on Castro in ’62 actually repudiated that idea or agreed with JFK’s decision to veto the plan…

      6) One of the Parkland doctors, Charles Crenshaw eventually wrote a bitter book about that and why the doctors got pressured to clam up. There was a lot of anti-JFK noise in Dallas, Nov. 63 – some probably astroturf, and some real, so that could have been used as a pretext to take off directly, citing Jackie or LBJ’s fear, or something. The CIA/FBI really had complete control of the media – no book questioning the official account was allowed to be published in the US in 1964…a lot of witnesses, journalists, or people questioning the story died suspiciously in 1964 or shortly thereafter. The Luces, Henry and Claire were the most powerful publishers and also bigtime CIA conspirators…NYT and WaPo were also CIA collaborators. The story that there are a few loose ends that nuts dig into is also a lie. Every part of the official story is fabrication – gun, shooter, location, motive, wounds, etc – stamped down by sheer power.

    • Kyle Rekcirts says:

      Thanks again, Josh, for sharing your thoughts and information. I have not read “Crossfire”, and obviously need to put that on the reading list.

      I do have, and have read, Dr. Crenshaw’s book and recall finding it compelling. No doubt his bitterness was due to the ostracism which greeted his attempt to shine light on the truth of the assassination. Sadly, that ostracism was delivered by his colleagues, among others. That appears to be the unfortunate fate for whistle blowers and assorted other truth tellers.

      One small point: you wrote that “Every part of the official story is fabrication – gun, shooter, location, motive, wounds, etc. . . “. That sounds about right to me; though I’ve always thought that at least one shooter would have been placed in the TSBD. If the plan is to frame LHO, wouldn’t it be necessary to try to complete the deed from there, or at very least attempt to land a hit from that location?

    • Josh Stern says:

      The Harris video I mention above explains why other locations were tactically better for shooting and fit better with the observed wounds. A video of TBD at the time of the shooting was confiscated by the FBI, and later some crucial frames were damaged. But there is no footage in what remains of any shooter from there. There is a jail across the street and inmates described seeing multiple people walking around holding guns, which made sense if they were going to be placed there. One witness claims he saw a gun in the window at the time of the shooting, but his account fits with no others. Nobody claimed that the “Oswald rifle”, planted or really used, had a silencer…yet witnesses all over Dealey claimed the noise they heard came from grassy knoll. The overwhelming tendency of witnesses from all over Dealey plaza to say the sound came from grassy knoll makes me believe that no unsilenced rifle was fired from the TBD…there were only people up there placing some gun or guns, which may or may not have been the weapon eventually entered into evidence. But those guns were not fired, and it was not Oswald placing them there, and the evidence claiming he owned the “mail order rifle” was shown to be bad fakery.

    • Josh Stern says:

      I’ve never seen a list of 25 witnesses say TBD. Testimony of witnesses who only came forward after the govt. announced their claims should be discounted. Author Jeremy Bojczuk summarizes at least 40 witnesses who said grassy knoll.

      To me it’s significant that witnesses in front of TBD also said grassy knoll and that everyone was running towards grassy knoll in the photos taken immediately after the shooting. There are no videos with lots of people running up/into the TBD. As I noted before, there were witnesses who saw multiple men with guns inside the TBD, which is consistent with 1 or more guns being placed and discovered there.

      Oswald himself was definitely a spook – US Intel of some sort, formal or informal. His entire background and associations scream Spook, and there are other pieces of fragmentary evidence. So I believe he was part of the group that killed JFK. I also believe he was set up as a patsy. He had no idea he was going to blamed for the shooting. Whether or not he had an inkling that JFK would be shot is a question I’m agnostic about. I haven’t come across strong evidence one way or the other. One piece of evidence that suggests to me Oswald was planned as a setup is the story of the “Raleigh Call” that the Spooks blocked when he was in jail. The guy he was trying to reach was basically an FBI targeted individual who would have been of no true use.

    • Kyle Rekcirts says:

      I agree with all the information and conclusions you supplied in your #2 & #3 paragraphs above. I’m not familiar with author Jeremy Bojczuk but will look for his work. The list of 25 I referred to is found on page 25 of Thompson’s “Six Seconds In Dallas”. He shows 4 graphs of witness statements, one for “Number of Shots”, one for “Spacing of Shots”, one for “Time Span of Shots”, and one for “Sound Direction”. In an appendix beginning on pg. 252, Thompson shows a map of Dealey Plaza and the positions of the witnesses known at that time. Following that map is a list of those witnesses providing the name, location, number of shots heard, bunching of shots, direction of sound/shots, and when the witness gave the statement. I haven’t gone through it all to see who heard what and where they were located. For James Altgens, Thompson has him saying that shots came from the TSBD.

      My speculation is that so many ran to the knoll since that’s where the final and critical shot came from. That may have inspired more of a rush to that location than to one where only a sound was heard and it was still uncertain what was occurring. But, Josh, don’t you think it would be a glaring oversight on the part of the planners of the assassination not to have some sort of gunfire from the location where they’d planned to “locate” the patsy?

    • Josh Stern says:

      Like I said, there are movies of the aftermath, and nobody is running towards TBD to investigate, while many, many people are running up the grassy knoll. In the actual coverup, the FBI provided/supported 100% phony evidence of the entire crime scene forensics. It’s fair to assume the planners were counting on that. In that case, it is much more important not to have any people in the know apprehended alive. Everything being equal, they would have made a sound from the TBD, but not having one of their own caught up there was more critical than the sound. I agree with the view that there were a few plans to take out Oswald before he could talk at all, and those plans misfired; so Ruby was a kind of desperate backup, probably on the hook for some other mistake. The theory that Ruby hired a guy who was in the Daltex building, used a silencer, didn’t kill JFK, and wounded Connally, is very speculative, but could be one reason why Ruby was hung out to dry.

    • Kyle Rekcirts says:

      I’m enjoying the stimulating discussion, Josh, but I have to say that I remain unconvinced. If shots came from both locations, I can see why many witnesses would run to the knoll. Aside from the other reasons I cited, many must have seen JFK’s head move “back and to the left”, and naturally assumed then that the head shot came from in front and to the right. I seem to recall footage of some people running toward the TSBD but can’t say just now where or when I saw that. Nevertheless, shortly after the shooting, a crowd did converge on the depository and lingered there for some while. Several claim to have seen more than one man with a rifle on the upper floors of the TSBD prior to the arrival of the motorcade. If the planners could exfiltrate the other shooters, why not also from the TSBD? I agree that LHO was most likely not supposed to have been apprehended alive.

    • Josh Stern says:

      My position is that the evidence for the FBI faking the investigation and the evidence they presented to Warren Commission and covering up the truth is the STRONGEST evidence. There is the largest amount of solid, independent, factual evidence for that position. That claim and the claim that high level elements of the CIA were behind the assassination are mutually supporting – it provides one motivation for the FBI to cover it up and falsify evidence. In a big debate, I argue for that framework first, and as part of that, I point to evidence that the rifle found in TBD was not the murder weapon, was not a competent choice for a sniper at that spot, was not purchased by Oswald, and may well not have been fired at all. Take away those things and what remains to make TBD special? You say you read a book I haven’t read (out of print) that says numerous witnesses claimed shots from TBD. I caution that there was a lot of pressure on witnesses after the fact to go along with the FBI coverup story, so we should really restrict attention to witnesses who gave immediate accounts and didn’t change their story. I’m not sure whether they are numerous for TBD or not, but I note, once again, that nobody in the videos was running into TBD to investigate. As I said above, I am also influenced by accounts such as Harris saying that TBD is not a good/best fit to either JFK’s wounds or where a sniper would position for a shot after the turn, and maybe Daltex building is more plausible. This doesn’t seem like a major point of contention – maybe someone did take a shot from TBD and then got away – maybe they didn’t even try to hit JFK. Maybe they shot the bullet that hit the pavement and wounded James Teague. There was a bullet hole in the front windshield of the limo that was covered up and I’m not sure anyone has really advanced a specific claim about where that bullet came from. That means that nobody heard a sound from wherever it originated.

    • Kyle Rekcirts says:

      Near as I can tell, what makes the TSBD “special” (in answer to your question) is that it was on the motorcade route, the person the WC “convicted” as the assassin worked there, and the rifle the WC claimed killed JFK was found there along with 3 spent shells. In addition, several witnesses claim to have heard shots fired from there. The particular frame you put around that is strong and logical, and will most likely convince an open-minded person, if you can get them to listen to you.

      I didn’t realize that “Six Seconds In Dallas” was out of print. I found mine at an estate sale, paid around $3 for it as I recall. I guess I have a “collector’s item”. In one of the sections of the book I referenced earlier, I believe Thompson lists who of those claiming to hear shots from that location were, and perhaps when they gave their statements and if they changed. I’ve been too busy to track that information down, but if we continue exchanging thoughts, I’ll do that for us. One name I do recall was Earle Cabell and his wife. For reasons I’m sure need no explanation for you, I don’t place a lot of credibility in their testimony.

      I have another rather slim, but useful, volume by Carl Oglesby called “Who Killed JFK?” On page 34 of his book, under a section called “The Witnesses”, Oglesby writes: “Of the 178 witnesses in Dealey Plaza who gave statements to the Warren Commission and who had an opinion on the direction of the shots, 49 believed they came from the Texas School Book Depository behind the presidential limousine and 61 believed that at least one of the shots was fired from in front. The Warren Commission chose to believe the smaller group.” As a footnote to that page, Oglesby has: “Witnesses opinions on shots – Summers, 22-24.”

      I think that video of people in the plaza rushing to the knoll is compelling evidence for a shot coming from that location. But it does not preclude shots coming from another location(s). There is a brief video which shows Marion Baker running toward the TSBD.

      I completely agree with you that “This doesn’t seem like a major point of contention”. And I agree with all the “maybe’s” you list following that statement. Given the many, many details surrounding this event, I suppose that I am always looking for the sharpest, clearest, most incontestable points to emphasize when arguing for a conspiracy and cover-up. I find that, when trying to explain the reality of the assassination to those who haven’t put in some time and study, if I make difficult to prove assertions, or those which go too much against the grain of the “official” position, I’m too likely to lose the audience or argument. People, I find, can only take so much. For example, I feel rather confident that there was an Oswald double actively setting up the Oswald who worked in the TSBD. Proving that is quite complicated and I find that if I offer that information generally people’s eyes glaze over or they become dismissive of my position as “tin foil hat” views. I don’t think that helps. I think I feel similarly regarding claims that no shots were fired from the depository. Another example, the Zapruder film. Why argue that it was altered (even if it were) when watching it carefully and noting the reactions of especially JFK and Connally (and also the other passengers) makes it quite clear that JFK and Connally were not struck by the same bullet?

    • Josh Stern says:

      The first statement of witnesses in the case of shot direction is a lot more credible than Warren Commission, when so many had been coerced to change their mind about so many things and conflicting testimony was often ignored. Surprisingly, not always thought. For instance, WC includes testimony of a motocycle cop riding 20 ft. to left rear of the limo who was hit with a lot of brain and blood splatter. How on Earth could a hard shell bullet coming from above rear right cause blood and brain splatter to go 20 ft. to the rear left??? It doesn’t even make any physical sense, but it is there in WC. Since you are interested in this witness counting, it might be cool to take the union of witnesses mentioned on JFK Facts, Bojczuk, and “Six Seconds in Dalls”, see what the 1st statement from each witness was, and then count the tally.

    • Kyle Rekcirts says:

      I agree that granting a witness’s initial statement more credibility than subsequent “change of heart” testimony is sensible. It might provide some statistically useful information to correlate information from witnesses’s statements from JFK Facts, Bojczuk, and “Six Seconds” (among others). However, that is not a special “interest” of mine, as you suggest. My interest extends only so far to respond to a statement that “no shots were fired from the TSBD”, when there are numerous witness statements that conflict with that statement.

    • Josh Stern says:

      The entire Bojczuk book is online, so one can search for the page about the witnesses. I would post a link, but it is against policy. There is also a related link at JFKFacts that talks about the SSA and even more witnesses.

    • Domenico says:

      I thought it was a phony SSA that shooed spectators away from the area behind the picket fence?

    • Josh Stern says:

      There were reports of men claiming to be Secret Service Agents behind the fence and disavowals from the Secret Service that any of their people had been stationed there.
      However, there was not a natural reason for a lot of spectators to go to the parking lot behind the fence or the part of the hill close to where the sniper would have been. Normal spectators trying to see JFK wouldn’t have gone there to get a better view. The cops did try to keep people off of the highway and railroad overpass. One controversial, ASL only witness, claims that he wound up on an overpass at the last minute, and saw shooters escaping after the shooting, going from the picket fence area into railway cars. However, he was not timely or completely consistent with his story.

    • Josh Stern says:

      In addition to my other comment, “pending” because of a link, there was also the testimony of Earl Bowers who said he saw two men standing near the picket fence and some kind of smoke or flash.