Robin Unger's animation

[Robert Harris]

Earlier today, Robin Unger posted an extremely good Gif animation at
JFKHistory.com/forum which depicts the limo passengers reactions to both
the 285 and 312 shots.

It is by far, the best and clearest such animation I have ever seen, and
yes, I am eating my heart out:-)

But if there is anyone who still doubts that Kellerman's reactions are
exactly as I described them, this should put his doubts to rest:

http://i1135.photobucket.com/albums/m635/quaneeri/AnimationJFK.gif

Also notice the startle reactions to 312, which were actually more
dramatic and pronounced than those following 285. Obviously, the two shots
came from different weapons.

Then ask yourself, why we don't see reactions like that to any of the
early shots.





Robert Harris

[David Von Pein]

Does this Z285 nonsense ever end?

[mainframetech]

On Jan 1, 10:03 pm, David Von Pein <davevonp...@aol.com> wrote:
> Does this Z285 nonsense ever end?

David,
Remember that an animation is just that. It comes from the 'pen' of
a person familiar with creating animations. It will show anything
that person wants to envision. While it might follow your belief of
the happenings, it may not follow reality as well as we would like.
Animations are shown in courtrooms partly to convince jurors that what
happened is what a lawyer wants them to believe happened.

Chris

[Jean Davison]

On Jan 1, 4:51 pm, Robert Harris <bobharri...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> Earlier today, Robin Unger posted an extremely good Gif animation at
> JFKHistory.com/forum which depicts the limo passengers reactions to both
> the 285 and 312 shots.
>
> It is by far, the best and clearest such animation I have ever seen, and
> yes, I am eating my heart out:-)
>
> But if there is anyone who still doubts that Kellerman's reactions are
> exactly as I described them, this should put his doubts to rest:
>
> http://i1135.photobucket.com/albums/m635/quaneeri/AnimationJFK.gif

Has anyone pointed out that when this clip begins Kellerman
has already turned far to his left to look behind him? He started
turning well before Z285.

>
> Also notice the startle reactions to 312, which were actually more
> dramatic and pronounced than those following 285. Obviously, the two shots
> came from different weapons.

Not obvious at all. Brain matter fell on everyone in the
car.

Involuntary startle reactions have a definite pattern of
raised arms, bent elbows, etc. Please look it up.


Jean

[Robert Harris]

In article
<7036815a-f99f-44d3...@o14g2000vbo.googlegroups.com>,

This animation was "created" by Abraham Zapruder on 11/22/1963.

Unger just converted this segment into GIF format.





Robert Harris

[Robert Harris]

In article
<4078fe5e-a4fd-4dc3...@l19g2000yqc.googlegroups.com>,

David Von Pein <davev...@aol.com> wrote:

> Does this Z285 nonsense ever end?

Could you be specific about what part of this you think is "silly"?

If Oswald fired that shot, the limo passengers were exposed to sound
levels 16 times greater than the level at which involuntary startle
reactions will occur.

And why is it that those people didn't react that way to any of the
early shots?

Why is it that most witnesses only noticed one of those shots and at the
time, didn't even think it was a gunshot?

Why is it that the Secret Service did nothing more than look around,
prior to frame 285?


The witness reactions and nonreactions give us one very critical piece
of information, David. They tell us when loud, startling gunshots were
fired, and when they were not.

The consensus among most relevant witnesses was that they heard an
ambiguous "noise", a delay and then closely bunched shots.

Don't you find it an amazing coincidence that their recollections are a
perfect match with the reactions in the Zapruder film??




Robert Harris

[bigdog]

Prior to the development of sophistacted, 3-D graphics technologies,
lawyers would often present 2 dimensional diagrams to give jurors an idea
of the layout of a building or piece of property. 3-D graphics software is
just a better tool to allow lawyers to do the same thing. Courts do accept
these into evidence under strick guidelines, and of course, the opposing
side has the right to challenge such representations.

[Andrew Martone]

On Jan 2, 10:16 am, mainframetech <mainframet...@yahoo.com> wrote:

http://i1135.photobucket.com/albums/m635/quaneeri/AnimationJFK.gif

This is a little off topic but that is the clearest video of the head shot
I have ever seen and I must have watched it a few hundred times. If I knew
absolutely nothing about the assassination and had only this video to look
at, I would say that it seems to show the right-front- top of JFK's head
being blown out from a shot behind and to the left of the car, at or
slightly above street level.

[David Von Pein]

I have no idea why Bob Harris is referring to that gif clip as an
"animation". It's not an animation at all. It's merely a zoomed-in
clip from the Zapruder Film.

[mainframetech]

On Jan 2, 4:13 pm, Robert Harris <bobharri...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> In article
> <7036815a-f99f-44d3-a8cd-3d4aff420...@o14g2000vbo.googlegroups.com>,

>
>  mainframetech <mainframet...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > On Jan 1, 10:03 pm, David Von Pein <davevonp...@aol.com> wrote:
> > > Does this Z285 nonsense ever end?
>
> > David,
> >   Remember that an animation is just that.  It comes from the 'pen' of
> > a person familiar with creating animations.  It will show anything
> > that person wants to envision.  While it might follow your belief of
> > the happenings, it may not follow reality as well as we would like.
> > Animations are shown in courtrooms partly to convince jurors that what
> > happened is what a lawyer wants them to believe happened.
>
> > Chris
>
> This animation was "created" by Abraham Zapruder on 11/22/1963.
>
> Unger just converted this segment into GIF format.
>
> Robert Harris

Robert,

The animation is NEVER exactly what the original was, and there are
too many folks running around also saying there is some doubt that the Z
film was messed with. Abraham had no idea how to make an animation.
Difficult enough to pull out of the Z film what you need, but adding the
complexity of another level of view, nope. Not for me. You can hug to
yourself any image you want. Me. I need a bit more than just the word of
another person that the animation is exactly like the original.

Chris

[Robert Harris]

In article
<383f10ea-bb2b-4f72...@p13g2000yqd.googlegroups.com>,

Jean Davison <jean.d...@gmail.com> wrote:

> On Jan 1, 4:51 pm, Robert Harris <bobharri...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > Earlier today, Robin Unger posted an extremely good Gif animation at
> > JFKHistory.com/forum which depicts the limo passengers reactions to both
> > the 285 and 312 shots.
> >
> > It is by far, the best and clearest such animation I have ever seen, and
> > yes, I am eating my heart out:-)
> >
> > But if there is anyone who still doubts that Kellerman's reactions are
> > exactly as I described them, this should put his doubts to rest:
> >
> > http://i1135.photobucket.com/albums/m635/quaneeri/AnimationJFK.gif
>
> Has anyone pointed out that when this clip begins Kellerman
> has already turned far to his left to look behind him? He started
> turning well before Z285.

Of course he turned around. He heard one ambiguous noise prior to the
"flurry" at the end.

>
> >
> > Also notice the startle reactions to 312, which were actually more
> > dramatic and pronounced than those following 285. Obviously, the two shots
> > came from different weapons.
>
> Not obvious at all. Brain matter fell on everyone in the
> car.

I don't quite see the logic here, Jean. What does that have to do with
the shots coming from two different weapons?

>
> Involuntary startle reactions have a definite pattern of
> raised arms, bent elbows, etc. Please look it up.

They can take a wide assortment of forms.

Tell me something Jean, how did Greer react to the shot at 312?

This is what I see Kellerman doing

1. Dropping his head by more than 30 degrees.

2. Simultaneously twisting his head to his right.

3. Simultaneously raising his left hand to his ear.

Then:

4. Straightening back up.

5. Turning his head back to a forward position.

6. Dropping his hand.

I see these things happening within the range of frames 292 to 310, or
one single second.

Do you see the same Jean?



Robert Harris

[mainframetech]

bigdog,
Yep. And since it was created by a person hired by the lawyer for one
side, it will show whatever that lawyer wants. It may be within the
court's rules, but it can still mislead a jury to picture something in a
fashion that it may not have occurred in. It's nice that questions may be
asked about an animation shown in court, but the image is still in the
jury's minds, even if the event didn't happen that way.

Chris

[mainframetech]

Andrew,
An interesting clip. It's so clear that you can actually see the flap
of skin and hair at the back of his head fly out backwards and flop back
when the bulletr strikes. My experience on the shooting range suggests to
me that a bullet came from in front, and 2 experienced snipers have both
said it was a shot from the front. Amazingly, you and I saw two different
things in the very same clip. I saw NO part of the front of JFK's head
being blown out, but I saw some liquid fly somewhat upward and back from
the wind of movement of the body, along with the flap of skin and hair, of
course.

I avoided looking at this 'animation' before so as not to get a wrong
impression. Now that I have looked at it, I see it's not an 'animation'
at all, but a clip shown in GIF mode. To me, the term 'animation' means
something else and I let myself be misled by it. Now that I know it's a
clip from the original Z film, I hope it will show the believers in
government purity and perfection and altruism that their views are perhaps
not matched by the record.

Chris

[Anthony Marsh]

It's technically called an ANIMATED GIF. Most GIFs just still pictures
like a JPG. But you can combine several GIFs and make an animated GIF to
simulate a film.

[Anthony Marsh]

You might want to take a look at the animation done for the Trey Cooley
case.

[Anthony Marsh]

On 1/2/2012 8:44 PM, mainframetech wrote:

No digitization is ever exactly like the original. Even fine art. BFD.
Do you know what an archival digitization is?

[Anthony Marsh]

Because you know nothing about computers or video.
The format is called an ANIMATED GIF.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Graphics_Interchange_Format

GIF is designed to allow users to define new blocks. In the 1990s,
Netscape designed the Netscape Application Block,[10] which indicates
that a GIF file is an animation instead of a static image. Support for
these animations first appeared in Netscape Navigator version 2.0, then
spread to other browsers.[11]

An animated GIF file comprises a number of images or frames to be
displayed successively, each described by its own GCE (Graphic Control
Extension), preceded by a header whose content by default applies to all
the frames. After the header the data is stream-oriented instead of
being at fixed indices, so the location of the start of a GCE depends on
the length of preceding GCE(s). Within a GCE the LZE-coded image data is
arranged in blocks each of up to 255 bytes; the size of block is
declared by a byte that precedes it. As an example, below is the
structure of the animation Rotating earth (large).gif shown at the top
of the article:

I remember the old days on CompuServe when we Commodore users were very
excited about this new format being invented called GIF and we were
writing converters and editors and display programs for it.

[Bud]

On Jan 2, 8:42 pm, Robert Harris <bobharri...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> In article
> <383f10ea-bb2b-4f72-b00e-99d261a91...@p13g2000yqd.googlegroups.com>,

>  Jean Davison <jean.davis...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Jan 1, 4:51 pm, Robert Harris <bobharri...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > > Earlier today, Robin Unger posted an extremely good Gif animation at
> > > JFKHistory.com/forum which depicts the limo passengers reactions to both
> > > the 285 and 312 shots.
>
> > > It is by far, the best and clearest such animation I have ever seen, and
> > > yes, I am eating my heart out:-)
>
> > > But if there is anyone who still doubts that Kellerman's reactions are
> > > exactly as I described them, this should put his doubts to rest:
>
> > >http://i1135.photobucket.com/albums/m635/quaneeri/AnimationJFK.gif
>
> >           Has anyone pointed out that when this clip begins Kellerman
> > has already turned far to his left to look behind him?    He started
> > turning well before Z285.
>
> Of course he turned around. He heard one ambiguous noise prior to the
> "flurry" at the end.

So you are saying that sometimes when Kellerman turns and looks back
it means there was a shot and sometimes it doesn`t. Lucky we have you
here to tell us which is which.

> > > Also notice the startle reactions to 312, which were actually more
> > > dramatic and pronounced than those following 285. Obviously, the two shots
> > > came from different weapons.
>
> >           Not obvious at all.  Brain matter fell on everyone in the
> > car.
>
> I don't quite see the logic here, Jean. What does that have to do with
> the shots coming from two different weapons?

You really can`t grasp the point? You are using the reactions to
show that different weapons were used weapons when the circumstances
of being hit by bodily material could be the cause of the different
reactions. It amazing that in your desire to hammer information to fit
your ideas that you miss such obvious things.

> >           Involuntary startle reactions have a definite pattern of
> > raised arms, bent elbows, etc.  Please look it up.
>
> They can take a wide assortment of forms.

Wikipedia has this...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Startle_response

It`s lists two only. A startle reaction is when the shoulders are
raised to protect the neck (scrunching down), and the eyes shut to
protect the eyes. You`ll see this whenever you throw a m-80 behind
some unsuspecting people. Lets see you support this "wide assortment
of forms".

Here is a video of a surprise bomb attack. It would be interesting
to see this broke down to 18ths of a second, but it does clearly show
a startle reaction, shoulders go up, heads scrunch down. Also
interesting is how long it takes before the people react.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7LUHyXWwK0E

[Anthony Marsh]

That's exactly why you were never supposed to see it. Who ya gonna
believe, the lying experts or your lying eyes?
BTW, look at the last couple of frame, after the head shot.
What do you think those light flashes are? And can you see that the
windshield is not yet cracked?

[Anthony Marsh]

Wasn't his source the digitized frames from The Last Bullet?

[Robert Harris]

In article
<1379b95f-4b6b-4195...@p4g2000vbt.googlegroups.com>,

mainframetech <mainfr...@yahoo.com> wrote:

> On Jan 2, 4:13 pm, Robert Harris <bobharri...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > In article
> > <7036815a-f99f-44d3-a8cd-3d4aff420...@o14g2000vbo.googlegroups.com>,
> >
> >  mainframetech <mainframet...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > > On Jan 1, 10:03 pm, David Von Pein <davevonp...@aol.com> wrote:
> > > > Does this Z285 nonsense ever end?
> >
> > > David,
> > >   Remember that an animation is just that.  It comes from the 'pen' of
> > > a person familiar with creating animations.  It will show anything
> > > that person wants to envision.  While it might follow your belief of
> > > the happenings, it may not follow reality as well as we would like.
> > > Animations are shown in courtrooms partly to convince jurors that what
> > > happened is what a lawyer wants them to believe happened.
> >
> > > Chris
> >
> > This animation was "created" by Abraham Zapruder on 11/22/1963.
> >
> > Unger just converted this segment into GIF format.
> >
> > Robert Harris
>
> Robert,
>
> The animation is NEVER exactly what the original was, and there are
> too many folks running around also saying there is some doubt that the Z
> film was messed with.

Yes, and most of those same people think the moon landing was a hoax. In
either case, they are easily proven wrong.

> Abraham had no idea how to make an animation.

Yes he did. He had the owner's manual for his camera, which told him
which button to press to begin *animating* :-)

> Difficult enough to pull out of the Z film what you need, but adding the
> complexity of another level of view, nope. Not for me. You can hug to
> yourself any image you want. Me. I need a bit more than just the word of
> another person that the animation is exactly like the original.

Well then, I am "another person" and I'm telling you that the animation
is exactly like the original!

Glad we got that settled:-)





Robert Harris






>
> Chris

[Anthony Marsh]

On 1/2/2012 4:11 PM, Jean Davison wrote:
> On Jan 1, 4:51 pm, Robert Harris<bobharri...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>> Earlier today, Robin Unger posted an extremely good Gif animation at
>> JFKHistory.com/forum which depicts the limo passengers reactions to both
>> the 285 and 312 shots.
>>
>> It is by far, the best and clearest such animation I have ever seen, and
>> yes, I am eating my heart out:-)
>>
>> But if there is anyone who still doubts that Kellerman's reactions are
>> exactly as I described them, this should put his doubts to rest:
>>
>> http://i1135.photobucket.com/albums/m635/quaneeri/AnimationJFK.gif
>
> Has anyone pointed out that when this clip begins Kellerman
> has already turned far to his left to look behind him? He started
> turning well before Z285.
>

Shh! You're not supposed to notice that. Maybe he was psychic and heard
the shot before it was fired? Maybe he heard the bolt click shut. Yeah,
that's it.

>>
>> Also notice the startle reactions to 312, which were actually more
>> dramatic and pronounced than those following 285. Obviously, the two shots
>> came from different weapons.
>
> Not obvious at all. Brain matter fell on everyone in the
> car.
>
> Involuntary startle reactions have a definite pattern of
> raised arms, bent elbows, etc. Please look it up.
>

So do neuroreflex reactions. Someone can have physical reaction without
hearing anything.

>
> Jean

[Robert Harris]

In article
<bobharris77-8FE7...@70-3-168-216.pools.spcsdns.net>,

I will take that to be a silent "yes" :-)





Robert Harris

[Robert Harris]

In article
<3d10dac5-c742-44e4...@v24g2000yqk.googlegroups.com>,

David Von Pein <davev...@aol.com> wrote:

What a ridiculous statement.

The term "GIF animation" has been around for well over a decade. This is
from Wikipedia under the subject of "GIF".

"An example of a short GIF animation made with a digital camera. The
file is over 2MB in size."

The particular animation being referenced is of a guy polishing his shoe
with a rag. It was obviously converted from a movie format just like
Unger's animation.

You can read the article here:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gif_animation

Since I guess I am not permitted to point out that you have been evading
infinitely more important questions, I will ask other nutters to answer
for you.

But it is disappointing that you would call my analysis "nonsense" when
you are totally unable to support your accusation.

> Does this Z285 nonsense ever end?

[David Von Pein]

>>> "Because you know nothing about computers or video. The format is
called an ANIMATED GIF." <<<

You're silly, Tony. The video that was declared an "animation" by Harris
is merely a culled segment of the Z-Film. Nothing more.

Calling it an "animation" is totally misleading.

[Andrew Martone]

I believed for a long time that there was a shot from the front. While I
no longer believe that, I don't think the matter has been settled one way
or the other. That is why I continue to follow the work of Bob Harris and
others. This is a good tool for discussing the assassination:

http://www.jfkassassinationforum.com/Zapruderframesviewer.php#f315|lauto|tauto|w830|h820|mt0px|ml0px|v0

Again, it appears to me that if you were to hold your fist over your right
ear and then move it slightly forward, that would be the area of the
wound. The windshield does not appear to be cracked.

[Robert Harris]

In article
<6afe93d1-dff6-4b37...@m7g2000vbc.googlegroups.com>,
Bud <sirs...@fast.net> wrote:

> On Jan 2, 8:42?pm, Robert Harris <bobharri...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > In article
> > <383f10ea-bb2b-4f72-b00e-99d261a91...@p13g2000yqd.googlegroups.com>,

> > ?Jean Davison <jean.davis...@gmail.com> wrote:

> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > > On Jan 1, 4:51?pm, Robert Harris <bobharri...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > > > Earlier today, Robin Unger posted an extremely good Gif animation at
> > > > JFKHistory.com/forum which depicts the limo passengers reactions to
> > > > both
> > > > the 285 and 312 shots.
> >
> > > > It is by far, the best and clearest such animation I have ever seen,
> > > > and
> > > > yes, I am eating my heart out:-)
> >
> > > > But if there is anyone who still doubts that Kellerman's reactions are
> > > > exactly as I described them, this should put his doubts to rest:
> >
> > > >http://i1135.photobucket.com/albums/m635/quaneeri/AnimationJFK.gif
> >

> > > ? ? ? ? ? Has anyone pointed out that when this clip begins Kellerman
> > > has already turned far to his left to look behind him? ? ?He started

> > > turning well before Z285.
> >
> > Of course he turned around. He heard one ambiguous noise prior to the
> > "flurry" at the end.
>
> So you are saying that sometimes when Kellerman turns and looks back
> it means there was a shot and sometimes it doesn`t.

I never said anything even remotely like that.

I know Kellerman turned in reaction to that early shot, because he said
he did.

> Lucky we have you
> here to tell us which is which.
>
> > > > Also notice the startle reactions to 312, which were actually more
> > > > dramatic and pronounced than those following 285. Obviously, the two
> > > > shots
> > > > came from different weapons.
> >

> > > ? ? ? ? ? Not obvious at all. ?Brain matter fell on everyone in the

> > > car.
> >
> > I don't quite see the logic here, Jean. What does that have to do with
> > the shots coming from two different weapons?
>
> You really can`t grasp the point? You are using the reactions to
> show that different weapons were used weapons when the circumstances
> of being hit by bodily material could be the cause of the different
> reactions.

That would be pretty tough, since the reactions all took place prior to
the fatal headshot.

> It amazing that in your desire to hammer information to fit
> your ideas that you miss such obvious things.

What is truly amazing here, I really can't mention, especially since I
may not be moderator McAdams' favorite person:-)

>
> > > ? ? ? ? ? Involuntary startle reactions have a definite pattern of
> > > raised arms, bent elbows, etc. ?Please look it up.

> >
> > They can take a wide assortment of forms.
>
> Wikipedia has this...
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Startle_response

I think I would prefer Britannica,

"startle reaction, also called Startle Pattern, an extremely rapid
psychophysiological response of an organism to a sudden and unexpected
stimulus such as a loud sound or a blinding flash of light. In human
beings it is characterized by involuntary bending of the limbs and a
spasmodic avoidance movement of the head. Musculature returns to normal in
less than one second, although elevations in heart rate, respiration, and
skin conductance persist slightly longer. The startle pattern occurs in
all normal humans and all mammals when tested in a relatively uniform
manner. The pattern is resistant to extinction or modification by
learning, although its intensity may be reduced by repetition or
anticipation. The response seems to be an instinctive mechanism for
self-defense and, in humans, is probably the initiating element of more
general emotional reactions, both motor expressions and conscious
experiences. The startle reaction?known as the Moro, or Moro embrace,
reflex in children?is particularly conspicuous in infants up to three or
four months old."

Three of the limo passengers clearly ducked - Mrs. Kennedy, Mrs. Connally
and Roy Kellerman. Those and Greer's rapid spinning to the front and back
fall under "spasmodic avoidance movement".

True, there is nothing specific in that definition about slowing a
vehicle, but I would challenge anyone to provide a better explanation for
why Greer spun around at near inhuman speed simultaneous to lifting his
foot from the gas.

There are only two possibilities Bud. JUST TWO.

He either did that deliberately or those movements were involuntary.

If the former, then the guy should have been thrown in jail or into a
sanitarium. At the very least, he should have had his driver's license
revoked, since someone spinning around like that for no particular reason
while operating a motor vehicle would be a huge traffic hazard.

Of course, it doesn't take a Nobel prize in physics to realize that
Greer's reactions were totally involuntary, does it Bud?

>
> It`s lists two only. A startle reaction is when the shoulders are
> raised to protect the neck (scrunching down), and the eyes shut to
> protect the eyes. You`ll see this whenever you throw a m-80 behind
> some unsuspecting people. Lets see you support this "wide assortment
> of forms".
>
> Here is a video of a surprise bomb attack. It would be interesting
> to see this broke down to 18ths of a second, but it does clearly show
> a startle reaction, shoulders go up, heads scrunch down. Also
> interesting is how long it takes before the people react.
>
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7LUHyXWwK0E

Interesting. Did you notice the guy in front with the tambourine,
starting to spin around at about 0:39?

Greer did exactly the same thing, beginning within just two frames of
the shot at 312. His reaction was identical to his reaction to the 285
shot, except he only turned once.

>
> > Tell me something Jean, how did Greer react to the shot at 312?
> >
> > This is what I see Kellerman doing
> >
> > 1. Dropping his head by more than 30 degrees.
> >
> > 2. Simultaneously twisting his head to his right.
> >
> > 3. Simultaneously raising his left hand to his ear.
> >
> > Then:
> >
> > 4. Straightening back up.
> >
> > 5. Turning his head back to a forward position.
> >
> > 6. Dropping his hand.
> >
> > I see these things happening within the range of frames 292 to 310, or
> > one single second.
> >
> > Do you see the same Jean?

Bud, don't you want to take a crack at this question??

I think Kellerman's reactions are even more conclusive than Greer's.
Don't you want to talk about him?


Robert Harris

[Robert Harris]

David, I have never seen anyone as skilled as you are at changing
important subjects into ridiculously trivial ones. Of course you ONLY do
that when you are hopelessly cornered:-)

The item in question is by definition, a "GIF animation", which makes it a
subclass of the term, "animation". That is a spot-on accurate term which
defines this thing for exactly what it is.

Live with it.

Robert Harris



In article
<097d2fa6-da0c-4263...@q9g2000yqe.googlegroups.com>,

David Von Pein <davev...@aol.com> wrote:

[Anthony Marsh]

Again you display your ignorance. It is the correct term. It is the
technical term. Even Wikipedia knows it is technically called an
ANIMATED GIF.

[Anthony Marsh]

On 1/3/2012 11:43 AM, Robert Harris wrote:
> In article
> <3d10dac5-c742-44e4...@v24g2000yqk.googlegroups.com>,
> David Von Pein<davev...@aol.com> wrote:
>
>> I have no idea why Bob Harris is referring to that gif clip as an
>> "animation". It's not an animation at all. It's merely a zoomed-in
>> clip from the Zapruder Film.
>
> What a ridiculous statement.
>
> The term "GIF animation" has been around for well over a decade. This is
> from Wikipedia under the subject of "GIF".
>
> "An example of a short GIF animation made with a digital camera. The
> file is over 2MB in size."
>
> The particular animation being referenced is of a guy polishing his shoe
> with a rag. It was obviously converted from a movie format just like
> Unger's animation.

You can ask Robin for more details, but the process is a little more
complicated that putting a video file through a converter. You have to
capture each frame into a GIF. Then you use a special program to combine
many GIFs into one ANIMATED GIF.

>
> You can read the article here:
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gif_animation
>
> Since I guess I am not permitted to point out that you have been evading
> infinitely more important questions, I will ask other nutters to answer
> for you.
>
> But it is disappointing that you would call my analysis "nonsense" when
> you are totally unable to support your accusation.
>
>
>
>> Does this Z285 nonsense ever end?
>
> Could you be specific about what part of this you think is "silly"?
>
> If Oswald fired that shot, the limo passengers were exposed to sound
> levels 16 times greater than the level at which involuntary startle
> reactions will occur.
>
> And why is it that those people didn't react that way to any of the
> early shots?
>
> Why is it that most witnesses only noticed one of those shots and at the
> time, didn't even think it was a gunshot?
>
> Why is it that the Secret Service did nothing more than look around,
> prior to frame 285?
>

Are you forgetting Clint Hill? What is he, chopped liver?

If you mean the two SS agents in the limo, what would you have them do?
Step on the gas and get out of there? They did. But too late. Clint Hill
did the right thing. But too late.

Who did the right thing even before the shooting because he was
anticipating an assassination?

[Anthony Marsh]

On 1/3/2012 11:41 AM, Bud wrote:
> On Jan 2, 8:42 pm, Robert Harris<bobharri...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>> In article
>> <383f10ea-bb2b-4f72-b00e-99d261a91...@p13g2000yqd.googlegroups.com>,
>> Jean Davison<jean.davis...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>> On Jan 1, 4:51 pm, Robert Harris<bobharri...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>>> Earlier today, Robin Unger posted an extremely good Gif animation at
>>>> JFKHistory.com/forum which depicts the limo passengers reactions to both
>>>> the 285 and 312 shots.
>>
>>>> It is by far, the best and clearest such animation I have ever seen, and
>>>> yes, I am eating my heart out:-)
>>
>>>> But if there is anyone who still doubts that Kellerman's reactions are
>>>> exactly as I described them, this should put his doubts to rest:
>>
>>>> http://i1135.photobucket.com/albums/m635/quaneeri/AnimationJFK.gif
>>
>>> Has anyone pointed out that when this clip begins Kellerman
>>> has already turned far to his left to look behind him? He started
>>> turning well before Z285.
>>
>> Of course he turned around. He heard one ambiguous noise prior to the
>> "flurry" at the end.
>
> So you are saying that sometimes when Kellerman turns and looks back
> it means there was a shot and sometimes it doesn`t. Lucky we have you
> here to tell us which is which.
>

Are there any times before the shooting started when Kellerman turned to
look back? Which frame numbers? Which film? Out at Love Field? Did he want
to make sure that Kennedy was still in the car and ok?

>>>> Also notice the startle reactions to 312, which were actually more
>>>> dramatic and pronounced than those following 285. Obviously, the two shots
>>>> came from different weapons.
>>
>>> Not obvious at all. Brain matter fell on everyone in the
>>> car.
>>
>> I don't quite see the logic here, Jean. What does that have to do with
>> the shots coming from two different weapons?
>
> You really can`t grasp the point? You are using the reactions to
> show that different weapons were used weapons when the circumstances
> of being hit by bodily material could be the cause of the different
> reactions. It amazing that in your desire to hammer information to fit
> your ideas that you miss such obvious things.
>
>>> Involuntary startle reactions have a definite pattern of
>>> raised arms, bent elbows, etc. Please look it up.
>>
>> They can take a wide assortment of forms.
>
> Wikipedia has this...
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Startle_response
>
> It`s lists two only. A startle reaction is when the shoulders are
> raised to protect the neck (scrunching down), and the eyes shut to
> protect the eyes. You`ll see this whenever you throw a m-80 behind
> some unsuspecting people. Lets see you support this "wide assortment
> of forms".
>

Ever hear of a reflex reaction?
You know, like when the doctor hits your knee with that little rubber
hammer?

[Anthony Marsh]

Thank you. Because of the poor quality prints of the Zapruder film that we
were allowed to see I could not claim that the windshield was undamaged at
the time of the head shot. But my theory is that the windshield and chrome
topping were both undamaged at Z-313 and were not damaged until Z-330. As
I hinted in my paper Best Witness if this is true then it helps to prove
that the grassy knoll shot hit the head and the last shot from the TSBD
hit the limousine. Probably after hitting Connally's wrist.

[David Von Pein]

>>> "The item in question is by definition, a "GIF animation", which makes
it a subclass of the term, "animation". That is a spot-on accurate term
which defines this thing for exactly what it is." <<<

But a much better way to describe it is this --- It's a clip from the
Z-Film.

"Animation" makes you think of Walt Disney or Pixar or Dale Myers.

[mainframetech]

On Jan 3, 11:41 am, Robert Harris <bobharri...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> In article

> <1379b95f-4b6b-4195-8f48-629c7356b...@p4g2000vbt.googlegroups.com>,

> > Chris- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

Sorry Robert...:) IF it were an animation - I said I needed MORE than
one person making a statement that the clip ( which turns out NOT to be an
animation) is the same.

The GIF 'clip' shows the scalp and hair at the back of JFK's head fly
up as the bullet passes through and out the back of his head. As I noted
before, my experience on the shooting range in service and the word of two
professional snipers say the final bullet came from the front. That means
more to me than you telling us your interpretation of the clip. You need
to produce facts that contradict the points made by the clip showing the
final bullet was from the front. Also that the vast majority of cases
where a bullet hits an object or animal tissue, the object flies in the
direcdtion the bullet was traveling. Simple basic stuff. Occam's razor.

I also go with the statements of the Parkland doctors who dealt with
bullet wounds often, and said that the throat wound was an entry wound,
before they widened it for a tracheotomy.

I apologize for my confusing statement earlier. Once I realized the
'clip' was NOT an animation, I was able to look at it more objectively.

Chris

[Jean Davison]

On Jan 2, 7:42 pm, Robert Harris <bobharri...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> In article
> <383f10ea-bb2b-4f72-b00e-99d261a91...@p13g2000yqd.googlegroups.com>,

>  Jean Davison <jean.davis...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Jan 1, 4:51 pm, Robert Harris <bobharri...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > > Earlier today, Robin Unger posted an extremely good Gif animation at
> > > JFKHistory.com/forum which depicts the limo passengers reactions to both
> > > the 285 and 312 shots.
>
> > > It is by far, the best and clearest such animation I have ever seen, and
> > > yes, I am eating my heart out:-)
>
> > > But if there is anyone who still doubts that Kellerman's reactions are
> > > exactly as I described them, this should put his doubts to rest:
>
> > >http://i1135.photobucket.com/albums/m635/quaneeri/AnimationJFK.gif
>
> >           Has anyone pointed out that when this clip begins Kellerman
> > has already turned far to his left to look behind him?    He started
> > turning well before Z285.
>
> Of course he turned around. He heard one ambiguous noise prior to the
> "flurry" at the end.

What noise would that be? In your clip, Greer also turned
around for the first time before Z285, and then again almost immediately.
How do you explain that? IMO, Greer and Kellerman are reacting to noise
coming from the back seat, most likely from Connally. Jackie turned her
attention to Connally at about the same time.

>
>
>
> > > Also notice the startle reactions to 312, which were actually more
> > > dramatic and pronounced than those following 285. Obviously, the two shots
> > > came from different weapons.
>
> >           Not obvious at all.  Brain matter fell on everyone in the
> > car.
>
> I don't quite see the logic here, Jean. What does that have to do with
> the shots coming from two different weapons?

Speaking of logic, you're assuming that "two weapons" is the
only possible explanation. I'm saying that if you're showered with brain
matter you might react dramatically.

>
>
>
> >           Involuntary startle reactions have a definite pattern of
> > raised arms, bent elbows, etc.  Please look it up.
>
> They can take a wide assortment of forms.

Such as?

>
> Tell me something Jean, how did Greer react to the shot at 312?

312? He seems to hunker down, possibly raising his shoulders,
which might be an actual startle reaction -- unlike his head turns before
and after Z285, in which IMO he's simply trying to see what's going on
behind him.

>
> This is what I see Kellerman doing
>
> 1. Dropping his head by more than 30 degrees.
>
> 2. Simultaneously twisting his head to his right.
>
> 3. Simultaneously raising his left hand to his ear.
>
> Then:
>
> 4. Straightening back up.
>
> 5. Turning his head back to a forward position.
>
> 6. Dropping his hand.
>
> I see these things happening within the range of frames 292 to 310, or
> one single second.
>
> Do you see the same Jean?

I see a continuation of his turning around. He looks back,
returns to the front, dropping his head and raising his hand. Not an
involutary startle reaction.

Jean

[Ramon F. Herrera]

On Jan 2, 9:16 am, mainframetech <mainframet...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> On Jan 1, 10:03 pm, David Von Pein <davevonp...@aol.com> wrote:
>
> > Does this Z285 nonsense ever end?
>
> David,

>   Remember that an animation is just that.

A "movie" is just that. It doesn't even move! It is just a series of
static images, projected sequentially in such a way that the eye is
tricked into believing that there is movement.

A GIF animation is the same thing, except that the "projector" is the
software that displays the images one after the other. Feel free to
download the GIF file, extract every image and compare them with the
corresponding Zapruder frames.

> It will show anything that person wants to envision.

Let's say I want the Z-film to envision Mickey Mouse in a Spitfire,
fighting the Nazis. How would I go about that?

-Ramon

[Bud]

On Jan 3, 3:44 pm, Robert Harris <bobharri...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> In article

> <6afe93d1-dff6-4b37-8447-ec9ab992f...@m7g2000vbc.googlegroups.com>,

So now that "ambiguous noise" becomes a shot. Kellerman heard a shot
that was fired when? Kellerman said he heard 3 shots, an early shot before
z285 and then two more, one at z285 and one at z312. but you have another
loud shot in your theory, isn`t that right?

> > Lucky we have you
> > here to tell us which is which.
>
> > > > > Also notice the startle reactions to 312, which were actually more
> > > > > dramatic and pronounced than those following 285. Obviously, the two
> > > > > shots
> > > > > came from different weapons.
>
> > > > ? ? ? ? ? Not obvious at all. ?Brain matter fell on everyone in the
> > > > car.
>
> > > I don't quite see the logic here, Jean. What does that have to do with
> > > the shots coming from two different weapons?
>
> >   You really can`t grasp the point? You are using the reactions to
> > show that different weapons were used weapons when the circumstances
> > of being hit by bodily material could be the cause of the different
> > reactions.
>
> That would be pretty tough, since the reactions all took place prior to
> the fatal headshot.

You still really can`t grasp the point? You were making a comparison
between two things, the reactions at z285 and the reactions at z312. Your
conclusion as what was the cause of the two differing reaction was that
the occupants of the limo were reacting to the sound of different weapons.
Jean pointed out that in the second instance the occupants of the limo
were were being showered with skull and brain (of course she didn`t put it
this coarsely), which might account for their reactions better than
anything else.

And you wonder why LNer ignore you, it`s difficult to get you to
understand ideas outside of your own.

> > It amazing that in your desire to hammer information to fit
> > your ideas that you miss such obvious things.
>
> What is truly amazing here, I really can't mention, especially since I
> may not be moderator McAdams' favorite person:-)

We can make this exchange "nuthouse only", you can talk freely there.
Just so you understand what I just said you are so determined to have a
multiple gunmen you are scratching around for any justification for
multiple gunmen, even to the point of claiming you can discern different
weapons being used by the limo`s occupants reactions. This is how wrapped
up in your ideas you are.

> > > > ? ? ? ? ? Involuntary startle reactions have a definite pattern of
> > > > raised arms, bent elbows, etc. ?Please look it up.
>
> > > They can take a wide assortment of forms.
>
> >    Wikipedia has this...
>
> >    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Startle_response
>
> I think I would prefer Britannica,
>
> "startle reaction, also called Startle Pattern, an extremely rapid
> psychophysiological response of an organism to a sudden and unexpected
> stimulus such as a loud sound or a blinding flash of light. In human
> beings it is characterized by involuntary bending of the limbs and a
> spasmodic avoidance movement of the head.

This is fine. It`s "flinching". It`s automatic. It isn`t moving your
head left to right, or bowing it forward, it isn`t ducking, it isn`t any
movement of any limb. It`s flinching, immediate and involuntary.

> Musculature returns to normal in
> less than one second, although elevations in heart rate, respiration, and
> skin conductance persist slightly longer. The startle pattern occurs in
> all normal humans and all mammals when tested in a relatively uniform
> manner. The pattern is resistant to extinction or modification by
> learning, although its intensity may be reduced by repetition or
> anticipation. The response seems to be an instinctive mechanism for
> self-defense and, in humans, is probably the initiating element of more
> general emotional reactions, both motor expressions and conscious
> experiences. The startle reaction?known as the Moro, or Moro embrace,
> reflex in children?is particularly conspicuous in infants up to three or
> four months old."
>
> Three of the limo passengers clearly ducked - Mrs. Kennedy, Mrs. Connally
> and Roy Kellerman.

"ducking" is not a startle reaction.

>Those and Greer's rapid spinning to the front and back
> fall under "spasmodic avoidance movement".

No, they don`t. You don`t understand the nature of startle reactions.
It`s a single spasm, a jerk, thats it. Involuntary and immediate. Jackie
on the trunk isn`t a startle reaction, it`s just a reaction to the
situation, as are all the movements you are claiming to be startle
reactions.

> True, there is nothing specific in that definition about slowing a
> vehicle, but I would challenge anyone to provide a better explanation for
> why Greer spun around at near inhuman speed simultaneous to lifting his
> foot from the gas.
>
> There are only two possibilities Bud. JUST TWO.
>
> He either did that deliberately or those movements were involuntary.
>
> If the former, then the guy should have been thrown in jail or into a
> sanitarium. At the very least, he should have had his driver's license
> revoked, since someone spinning around like that for no particular reason
> while operating a motor vehicle would be a huge traffic hazard.

He was under attack, Harris. What the hell was all that drama about?
Misdirection? A claim to know how Greer reacts when under attack? An empty
claim that you would have done differently, responded better? I think I
have a pretty good idea what you would have done in Greer`s place, but
again this is subject to moderation.

> Of course, it doesn't take a Nobel prize in physics to realize that
> Greer's reactions were totally involuntary, does it Bud?

Baloney. Turn around to see what is going on behind you isn`t a
startle reaction, Harris. You keep flogging people with a term you
don`t even understand. It`s a single jerk, thats it.

> >   It`s lists two only. A startle reaction is when the shoulders are
> > raised to protect the neck (scrunching down), and the eyes shut to
> > protect the eyes. You`ll see this whenever you throw a m-80 behind
> > some unsuspecting people. Lets see you support this "wide assortment
> > of forms".
>
> >   Here is a video of a surprise bomb attack. It would be interesting
> > to see this broke down to 18ths of a second, but it does clearly show
> > a startle reaction, shoulders go up, heads scrunch down. Also
> > interesting is how long it takes before the people react.
>
> >    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7LUHyXWwK0E
>
> Interesting. Did you notice the guy in front with the tambourine,
> starting to spin around at about 0:39?

Yeah, I did. He pulled his head down and his shoulders up. The same as
the guy with the tie. *That* is a startle reaction. *Only* that. Any
actions outside of that are merely reactions, not startle reactions.
Naturally after the initial involuntary reaction you are going to have
reaction to the situation, but this is not an extension of the startle
reaction.

> Greer did exactly the same thing, beginning within just two frames of
> the shot at 312.

No, he didn`t do exactly that. None of the limo passengers are
exhibiting startle reactions. Watch the tape of the explosion again and
note what *real* startle reactions look like. It`s not just people moving,
it`s a spasmatic jerk.

> His reaction was identical to his reaction to the 285
> shot, except he only turned once.

Why did he start turning before z285?

[Sandy McCroskey]

It's not technically accurate to call it "a clip from the Z film" if
it's stills digitally enhanced and then animated as GIFs.

/sm

[Robert Harris]

In article
<6fced775-8a9f-47ea...@q9g2000yqe.googlegroups.com>,
Jean Davison <jean.d...@gmail.com> wrote:

> On Jan 2, 7:42?pm, Robert Harris <bobharri...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > In article
> > <383f10ea-bb2b-4f72-b00e-99d261a91...@p13g2000yqd.googlegroups.com>,

> > ?Jean Davison <jean.davis...@gmail.com> wrote:

> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > > On Jan 1, 4:51?pm, Robert Harris <bobharri...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > > > Earlier today, Robin Unger posted an extremely good Gif animation at
> > > > JFKHistory.com/forum which depicts the limo passengers reactions to
> > > > both
> > > > the 285 and 312 shots.
> >
> > > > It is by far, the best and clearest such animation I have ever seen,
> > > > and
> > > > yes, I am eating my heart out:-)
> >
> > > > But if there is anyone who still doubts that Kellerman's reactions are
> > > > exactly as I described them, this should put his doubts to rest:
> >
> > > >http://i1135.photobucket.com/albums/m635/quaneeri/AnimationJFK.gif
> >

> > > ? ? ? ? ? Has anyone pointed out that when this clip begins Kellerman
> > > has already turned far to his left to look behind him? ? ?He started

> > > turning well before Z285.
> >
> > Of course he turned around. He heard one ambiguous noise prior to the
> > "flurry" at the end.
>
> What noise would that be?

That was probably the shot at 160. That was the only one that most
witnesses noticed.

> In your clip, Greer also turned
> around for the first time before Z285, and then again almost immediately.
> How do you explain that?

He turned quite a bit earlier in reaction to the shot at 160, and again
in reaction to the shot at 285. I explain all this is in this
presentation. It's a bit long winded but it covers the attack from start
to finish.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cvqCtaBkyyE

> IMO, Greer and Kellerman are reacting to noise
> coming from the back seat, most likely from Connally.

Well, that's not what they said.

They each said they heard an ambiguous noise.

> Jackie turned her
> attention to Connally at about the same time.

She turned toward him because he had begun to shout. She would later
express regret that JBC had drawn her attention and she was not looking
at JFK when the first shot hit him, so she wasn't able to pull him down
before the next one killed him.

>
> >
> >
> >
> > > > Also notice the startle reactions to 312, which were actually more
> > > > dramatic and pronounced than those following 285. Obviously, the two
> > > > shots
> > > > came from different weapons.
> >

> > > ? ? ? ? ? Not obvious at all. ?Brain matter fell on everyone in the

> > > car.
> >
> > I don't quite see the logic here, Jean. What does that have to do with
> > the shots coming from two different weapons?
>
> Speaking of logic, you're assuming that "two weapons" is the
> only possible explanation. I'm saying that if you're showered with brain
> matter you might react dramatically.

Perhaps, but the 285 reactions began at 290. So it's not likely that
anything related to the 312 shot caused them:-)


>
> >
> >
> >
> > > ? ? ? ? ? Involuntary startle reactions have a definite pattern of
> > > raised arms, bent elbows, etc. ?Please look it up.

> >
> > They can take a wide assortment of forms.
>
> Such as?

Such as spinning around rapidly. Look at the video bud posted in this
same thread.

> >
> > Tell me something Jean, how did Greer react to the shot at 312?
>
> 312? He seems to hunker down,

Jean, are you at all familiar with a film by Abraham Zapruder?

If so, then why don't you look at it? Greer reacted within two frames
following that shot, by spinning rapidly from front to back - exactly as
he did following the 285 shot.

> possibly raising his shoulders,
> which might be an actual startle reaction -- unlike his head turns before
> and after Z285, in which IMO he's simply trying to see what's going on
> behind him.
>
> >
> > This is what I see Kellerman doing
> >
> > 1. Dropping his head by more than 30 degrees.
> >
> > 2. Simultaneously twisting his head to his right.
> >
> > 3. Simultaneously raising his left hand to his ear.
> >
> > Then:
> >
> > 4. Straightening back up.
> >
> > 5. Turning his head back to a forward position.
> >
> > 6. Dropping his hand.
> >
> > I see these things happening within the range of frames 292 to 310, or
> > one single second.
> >
> > Do you see the same Jean?
>
> I see a continuation of his turning around.

Jean, my question only requires a simple yes or no.

Do you see him doing the 6 things I have itemized or do you not?? If you
really do have doubts, look at Unger's animation.


> He looks back,

His reaction began at 291-292. He does not look back then. He does
exactly what I said he did.

Why don't you sit down and mimic him. Do every one of those things,
within a single second and then tell me it was not involuntary.





Robert Harris

[David Von Pein]

>>> "It's not technically accurate to call it "a clip from the Z film" if it's stills digitally enhanced and then animated as GIFs." <<<

Oh, is that what Robin Unger did in that Z-Film clip? He pieced
together separate still images?

Sorry, I didn't realize that is what was done in that clip (which does
look mighty good, btw).

So, therefore, I guess we can call MPI's 1998 digital version of the
Zapruder Film an "animation" too, huh? Because that version of the
film was pieced together by using individual still frames too. (But
it's still not an "animation" in my book. It's just the Zapruder Film
in motion. That's all.)

:-)

[Anthony Marsh]

Which witnesses said frame 160? Please list and quote them saying 160.
BTW, do you know that the HSCA said frame 160 based on the acoustical
evidence and jiggle analysis?

>
>> In your clip, Greer also turned
>> around for the first time before Z285, and then again almost immediately.
>> How do you explain that?
>
> He turned quite a bit earlier in reaction to the shot at 160, and again
> in reaction to the shot at 285. I explain all this is in this
> presentation. It's a bit long winded but it covers the attack from start
> to finish.
>

Maybe he also turned to look back while on Houston or even out at Love
Field. So what?

> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cvqCtaBkyyE
>
>
>> IMO, Greer and Kellerman are reacting to noise
>> coming from the back seat, most likely from Connally.
>
> Well, that's not what they said.
>
> They each said they heard an ambiguous noise.
>

Who exactly used the word ambiguous? Please list and quote for me anyone
who used the word "ambiguous." Some said "backfire" or "firecracker."

>
>
>> Jackie turned her
>> attention to Connally at about the same time.
>
>
> She turned toward him because he had begun to shout. She would later

Begun to shout? With a collapsed lung? Screamed out in pain maybe.

> express regret that JBC had drawn her attention and she was not looking
> at JFK when the first shot hit him, so she wasn't able to pull him down
> before the next one killed him.
>

There was not enough room to pull him out of harm's way.

[Anthony Marsh]

Overlays. Combine GIFs into one frame. Did you see how I combined the
lateral X-ray with the Dox diagram to show how the HSCA trajectory is
too low?

[Anthony Marsh]

So you are admitting that Dale Myers animation is just a cartoon?
BTW, there was one kook who claimed that the Zapruder film was handdrawn
personally by Walt Disney.

[Robert Harris]

In article
<e033a900-d64b-46e6...@m20g2000vbf.googlegroups.com>,
Bud <sirs...@fast.net> wrote:

> > > ? So you are saying that sometimes when Kellerman turns and looks back

> > > it means there was a shot and sometimes it doesn`t.
> >
> > I never said anything even remotely like that.
> >
> > I know Kellerman turned in reaction to that early shot, because he said
> > he did.
>
> So now that "ambiguous noise" becomes a shot.

Yes, I just made that up - oh, about 15 years ago.

> Kellerman heard a shot
> that was fired when?

Probably at 160.

> Kellerman said he heard 3 shots, an early shot before
> z285 and then two more, one at z285 and one at z312. but you have another
> loud shot in your theory, isn`t that right?

Nope. There were only two high powered rifle shots that day. They were
the only ones that provoked startle reactions.

Are you suggesting that she meant to explain the startle reactions to
the 312 shot as being caused by falling brain matter?? If so, she
certainly didn't say that.

And such an argument is preposterous, first because we already know that
the limo passengers were exposed to at least 130 decibels then and that
they had no choice but to be startled.

And the reactions began within exactly 2 frames following the shot, so
there is no way that a non-startling event could have caused them to
react that quickly.

>
> And you wonder why LNer ignore you,

No, I know exactly why they ignore me.

And I know exactly why you have to substitute personal insults for
reason.

> it`s difficult to get you to
> understand ideas outside of your own.
>
>
> > > It amazing that in your desire to hammer information to fit
> > > your ideas that you miss such obvious things.

Every paragraph or two, you need to post trashtalk Bud.

Do you realize that every time you do that, you only prove that you
can't deal with my arguments, legitimately?

> >
> > What is truly amazing here, I really can't mention, especially since I
> > may not be moderator McAdams' favorite person:-)
>
> We can make this exchange "nuthouse only", you can talk freely there.
> Just so you understand what I just said you are so determined to have a
> multiple gunmen you are scratching around for any justification for
> multiple gunmen, even to the point of claiming you can discern different
> weapons being used by the limo`s occupants reactions. This is how wrapped
> up in your ideas you are.

Bud, this gets tiresome. Aren't you just a tiny bit embarrassed that every
time you go into one of the long winded tirades, you turn out to be flatly
wrong.

The fact that the reactions following 312 were more dramatic and
pronounced than those following 285 does indeed, suggest that the latter
of those shots was louder than the former. The sound levels on either of
them were a zillion times more significant than pieces of blood and tissue
falling on those people, which while gruesome was not at all startling.

And Dr. Alvarez came to exactly the same conclusion when he studied the
blurring reactions by Zapruder. And in fact, he tried to justify his
denial that there was a shot at 285, by pointing out that Zapruder's
reactions were stronger following 312, than 285.

But he was operating on the "boundary condition" that Oswald fired all the
shots, so it made perfect sense that if both shots came from the same
rifle, they would have provoked similar responses.

But it likewise, makes perfect sense that the reactions could be quite
different if they came from two different rifles, which was obviously the
case.

>
> > > > > ? ? ? ? ? Involuntary startle reactions have a definite pattern of
> > > > > raised arms, bent elbows, etc. ?Please look it up.
> >
> > > > They can take a wide assortment of forms.
> >

> > > ? ?Wikipedia has this...
> >
> > > ? ?http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Startle_response

> >
> > I think I would prefer Britannica,
> >
> > "startle reaction, also called Startle Pattern, an extremely rapid
> > psychophysiological response of an organism to a sudden and unexpected
> > stimulus such as a loud sound or a blinding flash of light. In human
> > beings it is characterized by involuntary bending of the limbs and a
> > spasmodic avoidance movement of the head.
>
> This is fine. It`s "flinching". It`s automatic. It isn`t moving your
> head left to right, or bowing it forward, it isn`t ducking, it isn`t any
> movement of any limb. It`s flinching, immediate and involuntary.

Sigh.. sorry Bud but I have more important things to do. There's a
great commercial on TV right now and I don't want to miss it!





Robert Harris

[Robert Harris]

In article
<af21b248-f6b8-41e4...@v13g2000yqc.googlegroups.com>,

David Von Pein <davev...@aol.com> wrote:

> >>> "The item in question is by definition, a "GIF animation", which makes
> it a subclass of the term, "animation". That is a spot-on accurate term
> which defines this thing for exactly what it is." <<<
>
> But a much better way to describe it is this --- It's a clip from the
> Z-Film.

David, I really do think that people around here managed to figure that
out.

>
> "Animation" makes you think of Walt Disney or Pixar or Dale Myers.

All of those things are indeed, animations just like Unger's. The only
difference is the format they are in.

So what will your next attempt to change the subject be?

Why don't you shock everyone and talk about the assassination? I am
particularly interested in hearing you explain why you think it is
ridiculous to believe those limo passengers heard the same thing they said
they heard, when they reacted to the shot at 285.



Robert Harris

[Robert Harris]

In article <4f03...@mcadams.posc.mu.edu>,

Anthony Marsh <anthon...@comcast.net> wrote:

> On 1/3/2012 11:43 AM, Robert Harris wrote:
> > In article
> > <3d10dac5-c742-44e4...@v24g2000yqk.googlegroups.com>,
> > David Von Pein<davev...@aol.com> wrote:
> >
> >> I have no idea why Bob Harris is referring to that gif clip as an
> >> "animation". It's not an animation at all. It's merely a zoomed-in
> >> clip from the Zapruder Film.
> >
> > What a ridiculous statement.
> >
> > The term "GIF animation" has been around for well over a decade. This is
> > from Wikipedia under the subject of "GIF".
> >
> > "An example of a short GIF animation made with a digital camera. The
> > file is over 2MB in size."
> >
> > The particular animation being referenced is of a guy polishing his shoe
> > with a rag. It was obviously converted from a movie format just like
> > Unger's animation.
>
> You can ask Robin for more details, but the process is a little more
> complicated that putting a video file through a converter. You have to
> capture each frame into a GIF. Then you use a special program to combine
> many GIFs into one ANIMATED GIF.

LOL!! Why would I need to ask Unger? I've done that dozens of times.

You do indeed, run the video file through a "converter" program and the
animated GIF comes out the other end, ready to go.

Tony, have you considered that you don't have to pretend to be an expert
on things which you know nothing about?



Robert Harris

[Robert Harris]

In article <4f03...@mcadams.posc.mu.edu>,
Anthony Marsh <anthon...@comcast.net> wrote:

Clint Hill did not react prior to frame 285. I'm surprised you were
unaware of that.

He reacted TO the shot at 285, and jumped from the running board shortly
after. This video goes into detail about his reactions.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u08P2R2l5T8




Robert Harris

[Bud]

On Jan 4, 10:37 am, Robert Harris <bobharri...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> In article

> <e033a900-d64b-46e6-8836-35182b4b5...@m20g2000vbf.googlegroups.com>,

And yesterday tried to mask your meaning with ambiguous wording
(look, I`m using the word correctly). If you mean "shot" say "shot".

> > Kellerman heard a shot
> > that was fired when?
>
> Probably at 160.

Two people sitting behind him are shot and you need to posit it`s a shot
at 160 he is reacting to? There is no other commotion behind him that
could be catching his attention but a shot at z160. aren`t there a couple
of people shot behind him?

> > Kellerman said he heard 3 shots, an early shot before
> > z285 and then two more, one at z285 and one at z312. but you have another
> > loud shot in your theory, isn`t that right?
>
> Nope. There were only two high powered rifle shots that day. They were
> the only ones that provoked startle reactions.

Forget about startle reactions, you don`t understand them anyway. We are
talking noises. You say Kellerman heard a noise at around z160. You say he
heard a noise at z285. You say he heard one at z312. Is that the extent of
the noises that Kellerman heard and counted for shots?

And people are being hit when there are no shots heard, do you have
any witness that mentions this remarkable occurance?

She certainly did. Heres the exchange...

Robert Harris: "Also notice the startle reactions to 312, which were

actually more dramatic and pronounced than those following 285. Obviously,
the two shots came from different weapons."

Jean Davison: "Not obvious at all. Brain matter fell on everyone in
the car."

I can`t imagine what you thought she meant. And of course Jean is too
careful to claim she knows for a fact that is what they are reacting to,
she just offers that possibility (a much better one) to contest your
expressed certainty.

And it`s tiresome to have to take you by the hand and walk you through
these simple exchanges. The problem is that you are overly enamored with
your own ideas, so much so that counter ideas don`t show on your radar.
You badger people to answer and the answers you are given that don`t jive
with your own just don`t sink in with you.

> And such an argument is preposterous, first because we already know that
> the limo passengers were exposed to at least 130 decibels then and that
> they had no choice but to be startled.

Jackie said the noise was no different than normal motorcade
background noise.

And how do you know the sound was 130 decibels at the limo?

> And the reactions began within exactly 2 frames following the shot, so
> there is no way that a non-startling event could have caused them to
> react that quickly.

Getting hit with debris is a startling event.

> >   And you wonder why LNer ignore you,
>
> No, I know exactly why they ignore me.

Because it`s like talking to a wall. Except walls have a purpose.

> And I know exactly why you have to substitute personal insults for
> reason.

I haven`t insulted you in this post Harris. Not that wouldn`t like
to, but the moderation prevents me from doing so.

But you do insult LNers who try to ignore, don`t you?

> > it`s difficult to get you to
> > understand ideas outside of your own.
>
> > > > It amazing that in your desire to hammer information to fit
> > > > your ideas that you miss such obvious things.
>
> Every paragraph or two, you need to post trashtalk Bud.

I know it isn`t something you want to acknowledge but it`s best I make
you aware of these flaws so that you can work on them. And make no
mistake, you are trying to hammer a square peg into a round hole. Just
because you disregard the corners doesn`t make them go away. And make no
mistake also that your desire is great to conform this event to match your
ideas, and that this effort is driven by ego.

> Do you realize that every time you do that, you only prove that you
> can't deal with my arguments, legitimately?

You have no legitimate arguments.

> > > What is truly amazing here, I really can't mention, especially since I
> > > may not be moderator McAdams' favorite person:-)
>
> >   We can make this exchange "nuthouse only", you can talk freely there.
> > Just so you understand what I just said you are so determined to have a
> > multiple gunmen you are scratching around for any justification for
> > multiple gunmen, even to the point of claiming you can discern different
> > weapons being used by the limo`s occupants reactions. This is how wrapped
> > up in your ideas you are.
>
> Bud, this gets tiresome. Aren't you just a tiny bit embarrassed that every
> time you go into one of the long winded tirades, you turn out to be flatly
> wrong.
>
> The fact that the reactions following 312 were more dramatic and
> pronounced than those following 285 does indeed, suggest that the latter
> of those shots was louder than the former.

The difference can also be explained by only one of them being
shots.

Your thinking goes " *since* there was a shot at z285*, and *since*
these are startle reactions, then there must have been different weapons
used. " You treat your conclusions as fact, and these lead you further and
further down the rabbit hole. You invite everyone to follow you, but you
don`t get many takers.

> The sound levels on either of
> them were a zillion times more significant than pieces of blood and tissue
> falling on those people, which while gruesome was not at all startling.

<snicker>

> And Dr. Alvarez came to exactly the same conclusion when he studied the
> blurring reactions by Zapruder. And in fact, he tried to justify his
> denial that there was a shot at 285, by pointing out that Zapruder's
> reactions were stronger following 312, than 285.
>
> But he was operating on the "boundary condition" that Oswald fired all the
> shots, so it made perfect sense that if both shots came from the same
> rifle, they would have provoked similar responses.
>
> But it likewise, makes perfect sense that the reactions could be quite
> different if they came from two different rifles, which was obviously the
> case.

Because you ideas of multiple gunmen requires it. You do what you accuse
Alvarez of, setting a "boundary condition" that there was a shot at z285.
Alvarez wasn`t boxed into "blur equals shot" like you are.

> > > > > > ? ? ? ? ? Involuntary startle reactions have a definite pattern of
> > > > > > raised arms, bent elbows, etc. ?Please look it up.
>
> > > > > They can take a wide assortment of forms.
>
> > > > ? ?Wikipedia has this...
>
> > > > ? ?http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Startle_response
>
> > > I think I would prefer Britannica,
>
> > > "startle reaction, also called Startle Pattern, an extremely rapid
> > > psychophysiological response of an organism to a sudden and unexpected
> > > stimulus such as a loud sound or a blinding flash of light. In human
> > > beings it is characterized by involuntary bending of the limbs and a
> > > spasmodic avoidance movement of the head.
>
> >   This is fine. It`s "flinching". It`s automatic. It isn`t moving your
> > head left to right, or bowing it forward, it isn`t ducking, it isn`t any
> > movement of any limb. It`s flinching, immediate and involuntary.
>
> Sigh..  sorry Bud but I have more important things to do.

Then supporting the very foundation of your ideas? Thats your problem,
you think "Bob Harris says these are startle reactions" should be the last
word, and can`t be bothered to support that what is seen is actual startle
reactions. The movements you are describing are not startle reactions,
it`s a jerk, a flinch, one quick involuntary motion, not a series of
motions.

> There's a
> great commercial on TV right now and I don't want to miss it!

LA-LA-LA, I can`t hear you, let me turn up the volume of my TV and
drown out these heretics with their dissenting viewpoints.

> Robert Harris

[David Von Pein]

>>> "So you are admitting that Dale Myers animation is just a cartoon?"
<<<

It's an animated version of the Z-Film. If you want to call it a
"cartoon", so be it. But it's also an animation that has been synched to
the actual Z-Film itself. And that's the thing that makes it so important
and accurate (within a 3- to 6-degree margin of error, that is).

CTers love to simply dismiss Myers' work by saying "it's merely a cartoon
and, therefore, it's worthless". But that kind of casual dismissal of such
important and groundbreaking work is just flat-out foolish on the part of
CTers.

(Awaiting Marsh's ruthless attack of Dale Myers, which will undoubtedly
include the word "liar" at least once.)

[Anthony Marsh]

On 1/4/2012 2:26 PM, David Von Pein wrote:
>
>>>> "So you are admitting that Dale Myers animation is just a cartoon?"
> <<<
>
> It's an animated version of the Z-Film. If you want to call it a

It's not even close to the Zapruder film.

> "cartoon", so be it. But it's also an animation that has been synched to
> the actual Z-Film itself. And that's the thing that makes it so important
> and accurate (within a 3- to 6-degree margin of error, that is).
>

Not really.

> CTers love to simply dismiss Myers' work by saying "it's merely a cartoon
> and, therefore, it's worthless". But that kind of casual dismissal of such
> important and groundbreaking work is just flat-out foolish on the part of
> CTers.
>

I think we do that mainly to counter your attacks on conspiracy believers.

> (Awaiting Marsh's ruthless attack of Dale Myers, which will undoubtedly
> include the word "liar" at least once.)
>

I have a quota to fill.

[Anthony Marsh]

On 1/4/2012 2:22 PM, Robert Harris wrote:
> In article<4f03...@mcadams.posc.mu.edu>,

He reacted when he looked towards JFK and saw him shot in the back.
Unless you need to call him a liar.

[Anthony Marsh]

On 1/4/2012 2:21 PM, Robert Harris wrote:
> In article<4f03...@mcadams.posc.mu.edu>,

> Anthony Marsh<anthon...@comcast.net> wrote:
>
>> On 1/3/2012 11:43 AM, Robert Harris wrote:
>>> In article
>>> <3d10dac5-c742-44e4...@v24g2000yqk.googlegroups.com>,
>>> David Von Pein<davev...@aol.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> I have no idea why Bob Harris is referring to that gif clip as an
>>>> "animation". It's not an animation at all. It's merely a zoomed-in
>>>> clip from the Zapruder Film.
>>>
>>> What a ridiculous statement.
>>>
>>> The term "GIF animation" has been around for well over a decade. This is
>>> from Wikipedia under the subject of "GIF".
>>>
>>> "An example of a short GIF animation made with a digital camera. The
>>> file is over 2MB in size."
>>>
>>> The particular animation being referenced is of a guy polishing his shoe
>>> with a rag. It was obviously converted from a movie format just like
>>> Unger's animation.
>>
>> You can ask Robin for more details, but the process is a little more
>> complicated that putting a video file through a converter. You have to
>> capture each frame into a GIF. Then you use a special program to combine
>> many GIFs into one ANIMATED GIF.
>
> LOL!! Why would I need to ask Unger? I've done that dozens of times.
>

Because that is not how you were explaining it. You just said that he
ran the video file through a converter program and out popped an
animated GIF.

> You do indeed, run the video file through a "converter" program and the
> animated GIF comes out the other end, ready to go.
>

Again you insult Robin and ignore all the hard work he put into it. You
make it sound like something anyone could do in a couple of seconds. If
that were true then YOU would have done it 20 years ago.

> Tony, have you considered that you don't have to pretend to be an expert
> on things which you know nothing about?
>
>

At least I quote the references to prove my points. You, nothing.
You won't even answer simple questions.

>
> Robert Harris

[Ramon F. Herrera]

No. Where is it?

-Ramon

[Robert Harris]

In article
<29ba3a10-8066-464e...@t30g2000vbx.googlegroups.com>,
Bud <sirs...@fast.net> wrote:

> On Jan 4, 10:37?am, Robert Harris <bobharri...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > In article
> > <e033a900-d64b-46e6-8836-35182b4b5...@m20g2000vbf.googlegroups.com>,
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >

> > > ? So now that "ambiguous noise" becomes a shot.

> >
> > Yes, I just made that up - oh, about 15 years ago.
>
> And yesterday tried to mask your meaning with ambiguous wording
> (look, I`m using the word correctly). If you mean "shot" say "shot".

Sigh... it's so tiring having to debate with someone who is oblivious to
this stuff. I said "ambiguous noise", because that's exactly what
Kellerman said it was,

"there is a report like a firecracker, pop. And I turned my head to the
right because whatever this noise was I was sure that it came from the
right.."

Obviously, he had no idea that it was a gunshot. That's because it was not
nearly as loud as the shots at 285 and 312.

Mr. KELLERMAN. Well, having heard all types of guns fired, most of them,
rather, if I recall correctly these were two sharp reports, sir. Again, I
am going to refer to it as like a plane going through a sound barrier;
bang, bang.

Mr. SPECTER. Now, you are referring to the flurry?

Mr. KELLERMAN. That is right.

Mr. SPECTER. Did it sound differently from the first noise you have
described as being a firecracker?

Mr. KELLERMAN. Yes; definitely; very much so.


Of course Specter promptly changed the subject then but it is obvious that
that first noise was not nearly as loud as the shots at 285 and 312. We
simply have to look at the reactions to those two shots, and the total
absence of startle reactions to any of the earlier shots.

And THAT sir, is why it is important to understand that Kellerman did not
at the time, realize that this was a gunshot. Neither did most others.

>
> > > Kellerman heard a shot
> > > that was fired when?
> >
> > Probably at 160.
>
> Two people sitting behind him are shot and you need to posit it`s a shot
> at 160 he is reacting to?

Yes, I "need" to posit that because the evidence proves it to be true.
Mrs. Kennedy, Phil Willis and other witnesses stated that Mrs. Kennedy was
originally looking to her left and then reacted to that first "noise", by
turning to her right - toward her husband.

We see her do that beginning at precisely, frame 170, simultaneous to a
series of reactions by JFK which led up to frame 193, when we see his
twisted far to his right with his right hand shielding his face.

You can see my analysis about that shot explained in detail, in this
presentation:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ny4R1Mk3TfY

Instead of insulting me by implying that I "need" to come to various
conclusions in order to support a theory, why don't you simply ask me, so
that you won't have to post such ridiculous questions?

I ONLY state things which I can confirm or at least confirm to a high
degree of probability, through verifiable evidence.

> There is no other commotion behind him that
> could be catching his attention but a shot at z160. aren`t there a couple
> of people shot behind him?

He probably did check those people, but only because he had heard that
"noise".

But what does this have to do with anything? I've never stated or
implied that he turned around in reaction to a shot at 285.

His horribly convoluted reactions began at 291-292, after he had fully
turned back to the front.

>
> > > Kellerman said he heard 3 shots, an early shot before
> > > z285 and then two more, one at z285 and one at z312. but you have another
> > > loud shot in your theory, isn`t that right?
> >
> > Nope. There were only two high powered rifle shots that day. They were
> > the only ones that provoked startle reactions.
>
> Forget about startle reactions, you don`t understand them anyway.

LOL!!

Bud, I did more studying on that subject this week than you have in your
lifetime. Your declaration that "ducking" is not a common startle reaction
has to be one of the most ludicrous statements you've ever made.

And no, I'm not going to "forget about startle reactions", since they are
critical to any honest attempt to determine when high powered rifle shots
were fired that day.



> We are
> talking noises.

Please never, ever, ever speak for me. You are talking only for YOU. I
don't think even most of your fellow nutters would like to be associated
with your arguments, But:-)

> You say Kellerman heard a noise at around z160. You say he
> heard a noise at z285. You say he heard one at z312. Is that the extent of
> the noises that Kellerman heard and counted for shots?

I am not clairvoyant Bud. And I do not have inside information about
what Kellerman heard. All I can go by is what he said, and he said there
was "at least" two shots.

The final shot was hard to identify because it came roughly 1/3rd of a
second following the much louder shot at 312.

>
> And people are being hit when there are no shots heard, do you have
> any witness that mentions this remarkable occurance?

Yes, John Connally was very specific that he never heard the shot that
hit him, which I am quite certain, happened at 223.

Mrs. Kennedy heard one "noise" while she was looking to her left, which
she never believed was a gunshot, and then two "terrible noise" after John
Connally started yelling and drew her attention.

Mrs. Connally heard one ambiguous noise then looked back and saw JFK in
distress. Shortly after that she heard the shot at 285 which she thought,
had wounded her husband. In the Zfilm, we can clearly see her react to
that shot, beginning at 291-292.

And the large majority of relevant witnesses in DP that day heard only one
early noise, a delay, and then closely bunched shots at the end.

The fact that so many people only heard one early shot and that NO law
enforcement people reported two early shots, tells us that only one of the
two was audible.

Statistically, it makes no sense to posit that say half heard 160 and half
heard 223, because if that were true, a sizable number would have heard
both.

>
>
> > > > > Lucky we have you
> > > > > here to tell us which is which.
> >
> > > > > > > > Also notice the startle reactions to 312, which were actually
> > > > > > > > more
> > > > > > > > dramatic and pronounced than those following 285. Obviously,
> > > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > two
> > > > > > > > shots
> > > > > > > > came from different weapons.
> >
> > > > > > > ? ? ? ? ? Not obvious at all. ?Brain matter fell on everyone in
> > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > car.
> >
> > > > > > I don't quite see the logic here, Jean. What does that have to do
> > > > > > with
> > > > > > the shots coming from two different weapons?
> >
> > > > > ? You really can`t grasp the point? You are using the reactions to
> > > > > show that different weapons were used weapons when the circumstances
> > > > > of being hit by bodily material could be the cause of the different
> > > > > reactions.
> >
> > > > That would be pretty tough, since the reactions all took place prior to
> > > > the fatal headshot.
> >

> > > ? You still really can`t grasp the point? You were making a comparison

> > > between two things, the reactions at z285 and the reactions at z312. Your
> > > conclusion as what was the cause of the two differing reaction was that
> > > the occupants of the limo were reacting to the sound of different
> > > weapons.
> > > Jean pointed out that in the second instance the occupants of the limo
> > > were were being showered with skull and brain (of course she didn`t put
> > > it
> > > this coarsely), which might account for their reactions better than
> > > anything else.
> >
> > Are you suggesting that she meant to explain the startle reactions to
> > the 312 shot as being caused by falling brain matter?? If so, she
> > certainly didn't say that.
>
> She certainly did. Heres the exchange...
>
> Robert Harris: "Also notice the startle reactions to 312, which were
> actually more dramatic and pronounced than those following 285. Obviously,
> the two shots came from different weapons."
>
> Jean Davison: "Not obvious at all. Brain matter fell on everyone in
> the car."
>
> I can`t imagine what you thought she meant.

Her statement made no reference whatsoever, to which of the two shots she
was talking about. And in fact, nothing she was saying then made any
sense. Perhaps Jean will clarify this for us.

Was she claiming that both shots DID come from the same weapon??

And if so, is she ready to admit that there was a gunshot at 285, or at
least that it is probable?

Jean?

> And of course Jean is too
> careful to claim she knows for a fact that is what they are reacting to,
> she just offers that possibility (a much better one) to contest your
> expressed certainty.
>
> And it`s tiresome to have to take you by the hand and walk you through
> these simple exchanges.

LOL!! Trashtalk, trashtalk, trashtalk.

Well, you certainly are better at that than dealing with facts and
evidence - can't say that I blame you:-)

> The problem is that you are overly enamored with
> your own ideas, so much so that counter ideas don`t show on your radar.
> You badger people to answer and the answers you are given that don`t jive
> with your own just don`t sink in with you.

Well, nobody's perfect Bud. At least I have good table manners!

>
> > And such an argument is preposterous, first because we already know that
> > the limo passengers were exposed to at least 130 decibels then and that
> > they had no choice but to be startled.
>
> Jackie said the noise was no different than normal motorcade
> background noise.

No she did not.

Don't you even bother to read these testimonies before you blurt out all
this false information, Bud??

She only said that about that first ambiguous noise. She described the two
shots she heard after Connally began to shout, as "terrible noises".

>
> And how do you know the sound was 130 decibels at the limo?

That's because Oswald's rifle was proven to generate 130 decibels at that
distance and it was at the low end of such rifles. Others are more than
twice as loud as the Carcano.

>
> > And the reactions began within exactly 2 frames following the shot, so
> > there is no way that a non-startling event could have caused them to
> > react that quickly.
>
> Getting hit with debris is a startling event.

No sir, it is NOT a startling event - not in the context of our
conversation. Startle reactions are caused by extremely loud sound levels
that disrupt the nervous system. There is no conceivable way that falling
blood and tissue would cause that kind of a reaction.

There is not a psychologist or scientist on the planet who would agree
with you and there are no authoritative definitions of startle reactions
anywhere which claim that people will react within milliseconds to being
grossed out by blood and tissue.

I appreciate that you are the only nutter around who will tackle this,
beyond a hit n' run post or two, but I'm not impressing anyone by beating
you up on the kind of arguments you are making.

Do a little research Bud, and at least get the testimonies right and the
stuff about startle reactions.

Have you even read Alvarez's paper??





Robert Harris

[Jean Davison]

On Jan 3, 10:51 pm, Robert Harris <bobharri...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> In article

> <6fced775-8a9f-47ea-8b66-43d6f3b51...@q9g2000yqe.googlegroups.com>,

>  Jean Davison <jean.davis...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Jan 2, 7:42?pm, Robert Harris <bobharri...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > > In article
> > > <383f10ea-bb2b-4f72-b00e-99d261a91...@p13g2000yqd.googlegroups.com>,
> > > ?Jean Davison <jean.davis...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > On Jan 1, 4:51?pm, Robert Harris <bobharri...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > > > > Earlier today, Robin Unger posted an extremely good Gif animation at
> > > > > JFKHistory.com/forum which depicts the limo passengers reactions to
> > > > > both
> > > > > the 285 and 312 shots.
>
> > > > > It is by far, the best and clearest such animation I have ever seen,
> > > > > and
> > > > > yes, I am eating my heart out:-)
>
> > > > > But if there is anyone who still doubts that Kellerman's reactions are
> > > > > exactly as I described them, this should put his doubts to rest:
>
> > > > >http://i1135.photobucket.com/albums/m635/quaneeri/AnimationJFK.gif
>
> > > > ? ? ? ? ? Has anyone pointed out that when this clip begins Kellerman
> > > > has already turned far to his left to look behind him? ? ?He started
> > > > turning well before Z285.
>
> > > Of course he turned around. He heard one ambiguous noise prior to the
> > > "flurry" at the end.
>
> >            What noise would that be?
>
> That was probably the shot at 160. That was the only one that most
> witnesses noticed.

Not likely. Both Greer and Kellerman are facing the rear
in frame 282, too early for your 285 shot and too late for 160,
imo.

http://www.assassinationresearch.com/zfilm/z282.jpg

Greer turns around twice, just before and after 285. Look
again:

http://i1135.photobucket.com/albums/m635/quaneeri/AnimationJFK.gif

Do you really think that one of those turns is for 160
and the one immediately afterwards is for 285?

>
> > In your clip, Greer also turned
> > around for the first time before Z285, and then again almost immediately.
> > How do you explain that?
>
> He turned quite a bit earlier in reaction to the shot at 160, and again
> in reaction to the shot at 285.

Z282 is not quite a bit earlier.

>I explain all this is in this
> presentation. It's a bit long winded but it covers the attack from start
> to finish.
>
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cvqCtaBkyyE
>
> > IMO, Greer and Kellerman are reacting to noise
> > coming from the back seat, most likely from Connally.
>
> Well, that's not what they said.
>
> They each said they heard an ambiguous noise.

"Firecracker" or "backfire." Kellerman also said that he
immediately heard JFK exclaim, "My God I'm hit." Nobody else heard JFK
say anything, but Connally did cry out.

>
> > Jackie turned her
> > attention to Connally at about the same time.
>
> She turned toward him because he had begun to shout. She would later
> express regret that JBC had drawn her attention and she was not looking
> at JFK when the first shot hit him, so she wasn't able to pull him down
> before the next one killed him.
>

Just a coincidence the agents looked in the back seat at
about the same time?

>
> > > > > Also notice the startle reactions to 312, which were actually more
> > > > > dramatic and pronounced than those following 285. Obviously, the two
> > > > > shots
> > > > > came from different weapons.
>
> > > > ? ? ? ? ? Not obvious at all. ?Brain matter fell on everyone in the
> > > > car.
>
> > > I don't quite see the logic here, Jean. What does that have to do with
> > > the shots coming from two different weapons?
>
> >            Speaking of logic, you're assuming that "two weapons" is the
> > only possible explanation.  I'm saying that if you're showered with brain
> > matter you might react dramatically.
>
> Perhaps, but the 285 reactions began at 290. So it's not likely that
> anything related to the 312 shot caused them:-)

Bud has explained this.

>
>
>
> > > > ? ? ? ? ? Involuntary startle reactions have a definite pattern of
> > > > raised arms, bent elbows, etc. ?Please look it up.
>
> > > They can take a wide assortment of forms.
>
> >             Such as?
>
> Such as spinning around rapidly. Look at the video bud posted in this
> same thread.
>

I don't see anything there resembling the limo occupants'
movements.

>
> > > Tell me something Jean, how did Greer react to the shot at 312?
>
> >             312?  He seems to hunker down,
>
> Jean, are you at all familiar with a film by Abraham Zapruder?
>
> If so, then why don't you look at it? Greer reacted within two frames
> following that shot, by spinning rapidly from front to back - exactly as
> he did following the 285 shot.

I see him turning around twice just before 313. You don't
see that?

>
>
>
>
>
> > possibly raising his shoulders,
> > which might be an actual startle reaction -- unlike his head turns before
> > and after Z285, in which IMO he's simply trying to see what's going on
> > behind him.
>
> > > This is what I see Kellerman doing
>
> > > 1. Dropping his head by more than 30 degrees.
>
> > > 2. Simultaneously twisting his head to his right.
>
> > > 3. Simultaneously raising his left hand to his ear.
>
> > > Then:
>
> > > 4. Straightening back up.
>
> > > 5. Turning his head back to a forward position.
>
> > > 6. Dropping his hand.
>
> > > I see these things happening within the range of frames 292 to 310, or
> > > one single second.
>
> > > Do you see the same Jean?

Pretty much, but it's not a startle reaction.

>
> >          I see a continuation of his turning around.
>
> Jean, my question only requires a simple yes or no.
>
> Do you see him doing the 6 things I have itemized or do you not?? If you
> really do have doubts, look at Unger's animation.
>
> > He looks back,
>
> His reaction began at 291-292. He does not look back then. He does
> exactly what I said he did.

As I see it, his reaction began when he turned around immediately
before this. When his head dips, isn't that during the time the limo
suddenly slowed down?

>
> Why don't you sit down and mimic him. Do every one of those things,
> within a single second and then tell me it was not involuntary.

Not all speedy movements are involuntary. Ever seen
someone catch a housefly in his hand?

Jean

[Bud]

Rest Tony, you`ll only confuse yourself with all these questions.

Ever hear of a strawman? You know, when someone interjects an idea
that has nothing to do with what is being discussed?

[David Von Pein]

>>> "Why don't you shock everyone and talk about the assassination? I am
particularly interested in hearing you explain why you think it is
ridiculous to believe those limo passengers heard the same thing they said

they heard when they reacted to the shot at 285." <<<

Everything is in the post linked below. Perhaps if Bob Harris reads it for
the 31st time, it might sink into his brain that I *have* offered up
reasonable answers for his Z285 theory. He doesn't like the answers I
provide below, but that's not my concern:

http://groups.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/msg/0a581746c27b7a2f

[Anthony Marsh]

On 1/4/2012 9:14 AM, David Von Pein wrote:
>
>>>> "It's not technically accurate to call it "a clip from the Z film" if it's stills digitally enhanced and then animated as GIFs."<<<
>
>
> Oh, is that what Robin Unger did in that Z-Film clip? He pieced
> together separate still images?
>

The fact remains that you were confused by people talking about
animation and did not know what an ANIMATED GIF is.

[Anthony Marsh]

Well, I don't think you're doing a very good job for your side. You've
only posted the same message a couple of times. To match Harris's output
you should post it at least 100 times. Slacker!

[Anthony Marsh]

I didn't offer a false construction. I offered an addition solution.

[Anthony Marsh]

On my Web site of course.

http://the-puzzle-palace.com/rgbskull.gif

McAdams forbids us from displaying images because they would be harder
to filter and censor.

[Bud]

On Jan 4, 9:54 pm, Robert Harris <bobharri...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> In article

> <29ba3a10-8066-464e-8a89-93746da54...@t30g2000vbx.googlegroups.com>,

Kellerman said he heard three shots. Did he count that first noise
as a shot or not, Harris?

> > > > Kellerman heard a shot
> > > > that was fired when?
>
> > > Probably at 160.
>
> >   Two people sitting behind him are shot and you need to posit it`s a shot
> > at 160 he is reacting to?
>
> Yes, I "need" to posit that because the evidence proves it to be true.
> Mrs. Kennedy, Phil Willis and other witnesses stated that Mrs. Kennedy was
> originally looking to her left and then reacted to that first "noise", by
> turning to her right - toward her husband.

She said she turned and looked at her husband and saw skull, how is that
possible, Harris? She didn`t even remember going out on the trunk. You are
building a castle out of mush.

> We see her do that beginning at precisely, frame 170, simultaneous to a
> series of reactions by JFK which led up to frame 193, when we see his
> twisted far to his right with his right hand shielding his face.
>
> You can see my analysis about that shot explained in detail, in this
> presentation:
>
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ny4R1Mk3TfY
>
> Instead of insulting me by implying that I "need" to come to various
> conclusions in order to support a theory, why don't you simply ask me, so
> that you won't have to post such ridiculous questions?
>
> I ONLY state things which I can confirm or at least confirm to a high
> degree of probability, through verifiable evidence.

As usual you prattle on about something you think supports you ideas but
miss the counter point. You put forth the idea that Kellerman was turning
in reaction to a shot at z160. So lets try this again, but this time keep
Jackie`s movements out of it and focus (BTW, you don`t seem to realize how
ridiculous it is to try and match split second actions with witness
recollections) . Beside gunfire, are the other things going behind
Kellerman that might be catching his attention? Wounded people and
concerned spouses and such?

> > There is no other commotion behind him that
> > could be catching his attention but a shot at z160. aren`t there a couple
> > of people shot behind him?
>
> He probably did check those people, but only because he had heard that
> "noise".

Ok, claim to know exactly what prompted Kellerman to turn, but you
aren`t on the firm ground you want to think you are.

> But what does this have to do with anything? I've never stated or
> implied that he turned around in reaction to a shot at 285.
>
> His horribly convoluted reactions began at 291-292, after he had fully
> turned back to the front.

So he turned and saw that people in the limo had been shot. Couldn`t
that reality have sunk in and caused a reaction?

> > > > Kellerman said he heard 3 shots, an early shot before
> > > > z285 and then two more, one at z285 and one at z312. but you have another
> > > > loud shot in your theory, isn`t that right?
>
> > > Nope. There were only two high powered rifle shots that day. They were
> > > the only ones that provoked startle reactions.
>
> >   Forget about startle reactions, you don`t understand them anyway.
>
> LOL!!
>
> Bud, I did more studying on that subject this week than you have in your
> lifetime.

Apparently lots of study didn`t yield understanding.

> Your declaration that "ducking" is not a common startle reaction
> has to be one of the most ludicrous statements you've ever made.

Ducking is not a startle reaction, it`s is a defensive maneuver. It is
not involuntary. A startle reaction is the immediate jerk or flinch, thats
it, thats all. Whether arms coming up or elbows bend or shoulder come up
as part of the flinch varies, but it is only the split second jerk. In the
explosion video I linked to the people exhibit startle reactions, they
flinch. They don`t duck. Even if you told those people that there was
going to be an explosion, even if they expected an explosion they could
not have prevented themselves from flinching, it is involuntary. People
might duck in response to danger, but this is a voluntary reaction. If you
scare someone and they duck, you can say "I`m going to scare you again,
this time I don`t want you to duck" they can choose not to duck. Not so
with startle reactions, there is no choice.

> And no, I'm not going to "forget about startle reactions", since they are
> critical to any honest attempt to determine when high powered rifle shots
> were fired that day.

But you don`t understand them. What you claim are startle reactions
are not.

> > We are
> > talking noises.
>
> Please never, ever, ever speak for me. You are talking only for YOU. I
> don't think even most of your fellow nutters would like to be associated
> with your arguments, But:-)

Oh please Harris, do I really need to do a search and present the dozens
of times you said "We both know..." in a discussion with someone? Why is
it you feel the need to misdirect when I start focusing on the weaknesses
of your ideas?

> > You say Kellerman heard a noise at around z160. You say he
> > heard a noise at z285. You say he heard one at z312. Is that the extent of
> > the noises that Kellerman heard and counted for shots?
>
> I am not clairvoyant Bud. And I do not have inside information about
> what Kellerman heard. All I can go by is what he said, and he said there
> was "at least" two shots.

In addition to the first noise. How can there be a 'flurry" of shots
consisting of 2?

And couldn`t it be that this "flurry" was the shot that hit Kennedy
in the head and broke up hitting various places around him in the limo
(like the chrome, ect)?

> The final shot was hard to identify because it came roughly 1/3rd of a
> second following the much louder shot at 312.

Two shooters firing two separate shots that strike at almost the
exact instant? Thats silly.

> >   And people are being hit when there are no shots heard, do you have
> > any witness that mentions this remarkable occurance?
>
> Yes, John Connally was very specific that he never heard the shot that
> hit him, which I am quite certain, happened at 223.

He said he didn`t hear the second shot. That isn`t specific.

> Mrs. Kennedy heard one "noise" while she was looking to her left, which
> she never believed was a gunshot, and then two "terrible noise" after John
> Connally started yelling and drew her attention.

She doesn`t say "two terrible noise", Harris. Just "terrible
noises". Likely she is referring to noise Connally is making, not
shots.

Mrs. KENNEDY. No; I was looking this way, to the left, and I heard
these terrible noises. You know. And my husband never made any sound. So I
turned to the right. And all I remember is seeing my husband, he had this
sort of quizzical look on his face, and his hand was up, it must have been
his left hand. And just as I turned and looked at him, I could see a piece
of his skull and I remember it was flesh colored. I remember thinking he
just looked as if he had a slight headache. And I just remember seeing
that. No blood or anything.

> Mrs. Connally heard one ambiguous noise then looked back and saw JFK in
> distress. Shortly after that she heard the shot at 285 which she thought,
> had wounded her husband. In the Zfilm, we can clearly see her react to
> that shot, beginning at 291-292.
>
> And the large majority of relevant witnesses in DP that day heard only one
> early noise, a delay, and then closely bunched shots at the end.

The majority of witnesses indicated the shots came from a singular
location/direction.

> The fact that so many people only heard one early shot and that NO law
> enforcement people reported two early shots, tells us that only one of the
> two was audible.

Whatever you mean by "early shots".

> Statistically, it makes no sense to posit that say half heard 160 and half
> heard 223, because if that were true, a sizable number would have heard
> both.

They did. And they counted both. And the headshot making three.

Now I have to produce the whole discussion? *YOU* claimed the difference
in reaction between your supposed z285 and the hit at z312 was
attributable to different weapons being used. Jean pointed out that there
was something going on at z312ish that could account for the way the
people in the limo were acting at that time, they were being pelted by
skull and gore. Jeez Harris.

> And in fact, nothing she was saying then made any
> sense. Perhaps Jean will clarify this for us.

Her idea was clear, the fault is yours, and this is the fourth response
I`ve made trying to hammer it home to you with no success. This is what
I`ve been talking about, ideas outside of your own just don`t appear on
your radar.

> Was she claiming that both shots DID come from the same weapon??

No, no, no. She was contesting your idea that two weapons being
fired was the obvious cause for the way the limo occupants were acting
in z285ish and z313ish.

> And if so, is she ready to admit that there was a gunshot at 285, or at
> least that it is probable?

See, you always go where you want to go regardless of what anyone
says.

> Jean?
>
> > And of course Jean is too
> > careful to claim she knows for a fact that is what they are reacting to,
> > she just offers that possibility (a much better one) to contest your
> > expressed certainty.
>
> >   And it`s tiresome to have to take you by the hand and walk you through
> > these simple exchanges.
>
> LOL!! Trashtalk, trashtalk, trashtalk.

This is the fourth post I`ve tried to explain Jean`s idea to you,
Harris, a simple idea at that. You *still* don`t get it. You don`t get any
ideas that fall outside of your own.

> Well, you certainly are better at that than dealing with facts and
> evidence - can't say that I blame you:-)

I`ll be glad to talk about the evidence if you agree to focus on where I
am focusing on, and not misdirect towards the evidence you think supports
your ideas. But when I bring up things that go against your ideas you will
only turn up the volume of your TV, so whats the use?

> > The problem is that you are overly enamored with
> > your own ideas, so much so that counter ideas don`t show on your radar.
> > You badger people to answer and the answers you are given that don`t jive
> > with your own just don`t sink in with you.
>
> Well, nobody's perfect Bud. At least I have good table manners!

Doesn`t matter here. You don`t want to discuss ideas here, you want
to dictate them.

> > > And such an argument is preposterous, first because we already know that
> > > the limo passengers were exposed to at least 130 decibels then and that
> > > they had no choice but to be startled.
>
> >   Jackie said the noise was no different than normal motorcade
> > background noise.
>
> No she did not.

Mrs. KENNEDY. You know, there is always noise in a motorcade and there
are always motorcycles, besides us, a lot of them backfiring. So I was
looking to the left. I guess there was a noise, but it didn't seem like
any different noise really because there is so much noise, motorcycles and
things. But then suddenly Governor Connally was yelling, "Oh, no, no, no."

> Don't you even bother to read these testimonies before you blurt out all
> this false information, Bud??
>
> She only said that about that first ambiguous noise.

How do you know that the sound she was talking about wasn`t the shot
that hit Connally?

> She described the two
> shots she heard after Connally began to shout, as "terrible noises".

That is only your interpretation of what she meant by what she said.

> >   And how do you know the sound was 130 decibels at the limo?
>
> That's because Oswald's rifle was proven to generate 130 decibels at that
> distance and it was at the low end of such rifles.

At that distance Carcanos always project the same amount of sound
under all conditions? Show your support that the sound must have been
130 decibels at the limo.

> Others are more than
> twice as loud as the Carcano.
>
>
>
> > > And the reactions began within exactly 2 frames following the shot, so
> > > there is no way that a non-startling event could have caused them to
> > > react that quickly.
>
> >   Getting hit with debris is a startling event.
>
> No sir, it is NOT a startling event - not in the context of our
> conversation. Startle reactions are caused by extremely loud sound levels
> that disrupt the nervous system. There is no conceivable way that falling
> blood and tissue would cause that kind of a reaction.

I didn`t say they were startle reactions.

> There is not a psychologist or scientist on the planet who would agree
> with you and there are no authoritative definitions of startle reactions
> anywhere which claim that people will react within milliseconds to being
> grossed out by blood and tissue.

Hit by skull, not grossed out.

> I appreciate that you are the only nutter around who will tackle this,
> beyond a hit n' run post or two, but I'm not impressing anyone by beating
> you up on the kind of arguments you are making.

I`m sure you can take it. Nothing I say is going to reach you.

> Do a little research Bud, and at least get the testimonies right and the
> stuff about startle reactions.

The testimonies are mush, not solid foundations for ideas, and you
haven`t a clue about startle reactions.

> Have you even read Alvarez's paper??

No. Does he have expertise in startle reactions?


> Robert Harris

[Robert Harris]

In article <4f04...@mcadams.posc.mu.edu>,

As usual, you have everything totally wrong Tony.

Hill FIRST heard a shot as he was scanning a group to his left, then
looked right and jumped.

"On the left hand side was a grass area with a few people scattered along
it observing the motorcade passing, and I was visually scanning these
people when I heard a noise similar to a firecracker. The sound came from
my right rear and I immediately moved my head in that direction. In so
doing, my eyes had to cross the Presidential automobile and I saw the
President hunch forward and then slump to his left. I jumped from the
Follow-up car and ran toward the Presidential automobile. "

You need to watch that video and learn about this.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u08P2R2l5T8



Robert Harris

[Robert Harris]

In article
<cf4ad2c4-2b10-4ead...@j9g2000vby.googlegroups.com>,

Read his testimony. If you don't know the answer to that, you shouldn't
be posting in a JFK forum - you should be reading.

>
> > > > > Kellerman heard a shot
> > > > > that was fired when?
> >
> > > > Probably at 160.
> >
> > >   Two people sitting behind him are shot and you need to posit it`s a
> > > shot
> > > at 160 he is reacting to?
> >
> > Yes, I "need" to posit that because the evidence proves it to be true.
> > Mrs. Kennedy, Phil Willis and other witnesses stated that Mrs. Kennedy was
> > originally looking to her left and then reacted to that first "noise", by
> > turning to her right - toward her husband.
>
> She said she turned and looked at her husband and saw skull, how is that
> possible, Harris?

That's because she DID see skull and tissue, but that was at the end of
the attack.

> She didn`t even remember going out on the trunk.

Actually, she did but that's not something you will ever get.

> You are
> building a castle out of mush.

You're making no sense at all Bud. You can't seem to differentiate
between the first shot she heard and the last one.

>
> > We see her do that beginning at precisely, frame 170, simultaneous to a
> > series of reactions by JFK which led up to frame 193, when we see his
> > twisted far to his right with his right hand shielding his face.
> >
> > You can see my analysis about that shot explained in detail, in this
> > presentation:
> >
> > http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ny4R1Mk3TfY
> >
> > Instead of insulting me by implying that I "need" to come to various
> > conclusions in order to support a theory, why don't you simply ask me, so
> > that you won't have to post such ridiculous questions?
> >
> > I ONLY state things which I can confirm or at least confirm to a high
> > degree of probability, through verifiable evidence.
>
> As usual you prattle on

Cut the trashtalk Bud.

You will address me respectfully and discuss only issues and evidence,
or we will have no discussions at all.

It's entirely up to you.





Robert Harris

[Anthony Marsh]

On 1/5/2012 1:40 PM, Robert Harris wrote:
> In article<4f04...@mcadams.posc.mu.edu>,

Before he jumped he SAW JFK hit by a bullet.

[Bud]

It was a strawman. We aren`t discussing getting hit with anything
here, we are talking about startle reactions.

[Bud]

On Jan 5, 1:39 pm, Robert Harris <bobharri...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> In article

> <cf4ad2c4-2b10-4ead-82c6-52636fc19...@j9g2000vby.googlegroups.com>,

I did look but didn`t see it.

But I don`t expect to really get much of evidential value from the limo
passengers anyway, so don`t see much use studying what they said. You sift
through that outhouse looking for gold nuggets.

> > > > > > Kellerman heard a shot
> > > > > > that was fired when?
>
> > > > > Probably at 160.
>
> > > >   Two people sitting behind him are shot and you need to posit it`s a
> > > > shot
> > > > at 160 he is reacting to?
>
> > > Yes, I "need" to posit that because the evidence proves it to be true.
> > > Mrs. Kennedy, Phil Willis and other witnesses stated that Mrs. Kennedy was
> > > originally looking to her left and then reacted to that first "noise", by
> > > turning to her right - toward her husband.
>
> >   She said she turned and looked at her husband and saw skull, how is that
> > possible, Harris?
>
> That's because she DID see skull and tissue, but that was at the end of
> the attack.

Thats wrong, and you know it`s wrong. She said she saw skull as soon
as she turned and saw her husband. that was before the headshot.

> > She didn`t even remember going out on the trunk.
>
> Actually, she did but that's not something you will ever get.

Or you can ever support. She said she didn`t remember going out on the
trunk, but you claim to know more about what she remembers than she did
herself.

Jackie: "You know, then, there were pictures later on of me climbing out
the back. But I don't remember that at all."

> > You are
> > building a castle out of mush.
>
> You're making no sense at all Bud. You can't seem to differentiate
> between the first shot she heard and the last one.

She can`t seem to.

> > > We see her do that beginning at precisely, frame 170, simultaneous to a
> > > series of reactions by JFK which led up to frame 193, when we see his
> > > twisted far to his right with his right hand shielding his face.
>
> > > You can see my analysis about that shot explained in detail, in this
> > > presentation:
>
> > >http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ny4R1Mk3TfY
>
> > > Instead of insulting me by implying that I "need" to come to various
> > > conclusions in order to support a theory, why don't you simply ask me, so
> > > that you won't have to post such ridiculous questions?
>
> > > I ONLY state things which I can confirm or at least confirm to a high
> > > degree of probability, through verifiable evidence.
>
> >   As usual you prattle on
>
> Cut the trashtalk Bud.
>
> You will address me respectfully and discuss only issues and evidence,
> or we will have no discussions at all.
>
> It's entirely up to you.

<snicker> If I held your weak ideas I would create some reason not
to have to defend them also.

> Robert Harris

[Robin Unger]

Just to set the record straight regarding the Zapruder GIF i created.

The Zapruder frames were taken from Oliver Stone's ( JFK the movie ) It is
the coutroom scene during the Clay Shaw trial, where Jim Garrison ( Kevin
Kostner ) runs the Zapruder Film on a projector for the jury.


About a year ago i first created a "smaller version" of this GIF

http://i275.photobucket.com/albums/jj306/quaneeri2/Zapruder2.gif

In that version i laboriously saved EVERY frame to my hard drive, and then
loaded them one frame at a time into Paint shop Pro ( Animation Shop ) the
process took me approx 2 - Hours

In this LARGER version, i actually used some new software which was kindly
provided by Jim Pomerville ( Video to picture ) with this "new software"
i no longer had to go through the laborious job of saving all the frames
one at a time,

It is like a video editing tool.

You load the DVD into the software, you then mark out the START point and
the END point you wish to save, and tell the software you want to create a
GIF from that section.

Using this "Video to Picture" software i was then able to create this
Larger (720 x 480) Zapruder GIF in approx 15 - minutes.

http://i1135.photobucket.com/albums/m635/quaneeri/AnimationJFK.gif

[Robert Harris]

In article
<c4a17776-800f-4472...@z19g2000vbe.googlegroups.com>,
Bud <sirs...@fast.net> wrote:

> On Jan 5, 1:39?pm, Robert Harris <bobharri...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > In article
> > <cf4ad2c4-2b10-4ead-82c6-52636fc19...@j9g2000vby.googlegroups.com>,
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >

> > ?Bud <sirsl...@fast.net> wrote:

> > > On Jan 4, 9:54?pm, Robert Harris <bobharri...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > > > In article
> > > > <29ba3a10-8066-464e-8a89-93746da54...@t30g2000vbx.googlegroups.com>,
> >

> > > > > ? And yesterday tried to mask your meaning with ambiguous wording

> > > ? Kellerman said he heard three shots. Did he count that first noise

> > > as a shot or not, Harris?
> >
> > Read his testimony. If you don't know the answer to that, you shouldn't
> > be posting in a JFK forum - you should be reading.
>
> I did look but didn`t see it.
>
> But I don`t expect to really get much of evidential value from the limo
> passengers anyway, so don`t see much use studying what they said. You sift
> through that outhouse looking for gold nuggets.
>
> > > > > > > Kellerman heard a shot
> > > > > > > that was fired when?
> >
> > > > > > Probably at 160.
> >

> > > > > ? Two people sitting behind him are shot and you need to posit it`s a

> > > > > shot
> > > > > at 160 he is reacting to?
> >
> > > > Yes, I "need" to posit that because the evidence proves it to be true.
> > > > Mrs. Kennedy, Phil Willis and other witnesses stated that Mrs. Kennedy
> > > > was
> > > > originally looking to her left and then reacted to that first "noise",
> > > > by
> > > > turning to her right - toward her husband.
> >

> > > ? She said she turned and looked at her husband and saw skull, how is

> > > ? As usual you prattle on

> >
> > Cut the trashtalk Bud.
> >
> > You will address me respectfully and discuss only issues and evidence,
> > or we will have no discussions at all.
> >
> > It's entirely up to you.
>
> <snicker> If I held your weak ideas I would create some reason not
> to have to defend them also.

Yep, you're just too brilliant for me Bud!

Gosh, I hope you don't call my bluff and agree to debate this stuff like
a mature adult!!

I won't have any excuses then, will I (shuddering) ?





Robert Harris

[Robert Harris]

In article
<a6a617b1-8792-4357...@f33g2000yqh.googlegroups.com>,

David Von Pein <davev...@aol.com> wrote:

Yes David, you did indeed write an article over two years ago which has
been long refuted and which totally silenced you forever more, on the 285
shot.

I posted another rebuttal recently when you reposted that ridiculous thing
and again, you went totally silent.

A couple examples: When I asked you about Greer feeling the "concussion"
of the 285 shot, which was obviously from the shock wave of the passing
bullet, your reply was irrelevant nonsense.

"We're only talking about a fraction more than THREE SECONDS IN REAL TIME
between the time of the actual second shot fired (by Oswald at Z224) and
Bob Harris' make-believe missed shot at Z285. "

This was not a reply David. It was gibberish which had nothing whatsoever
to do with the question.

And when I asked you,

"Why did both Mrs. Kennedy and Mrs. Connally believe that their husbands
were hit by a shot that came after Gov Connally began to shout, but before
the explosive headwound?"

You replied with the following link which did indeed, mention Mrs.
Connally but only in reference to the SBT. You totally evaded the fact
that both she and Mrs. Kennedy firmly placed the second and third shots
AFTER Connally began to shout in the 240's and after Mrs. Connally looked
back in the 250's and saw JFK in distress.

http://groups.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/msg/9871273b0f35f000

And the most outrageous response you made was to this question,

"And why did they both (Mrs. Kennedy and Mrs. Connally) visibly react to
that shot in perfect unison with Zapruder's, Greer's and Kellerman's
reactions?"

Your reply: "Coincidence"

The entire article was like that David. It was utter and total nonsense,
which is why you have NEVER tried to dispute my rebuttals.






Robert Harris

[David Von Pein]

ROBERT HARRIS SAID:

>>> "The entire article was like that David. It was utter and total nonsense, which is why you have NEVER tried to dispute my rebuttals." <<<

DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

I'll repost a few excerpts from my 12/1/09 article, which Bob Harris
thinks is "utter and total nonsense" (but to a person who isn't
married to an unprovable "Z285" theory, I think these excerpts would
be considered quite reasonable indeed):

[QUOTE ON:]

"Why would there necessarily have to be mass hysteria in Dealey
Plaza at that time (circa Z255)? At that point in the James Altgens
picture, it's only been 5.2 seconds since Lee Harvey Oswald fired his
first shot. Not exactly a long time, right Robert? And two Secret
Service agents are, indeed, reacting to the sound of the gunfire by
looking over their right shoulders. But it's only been 1.7 seconds
since anyone in the limousine was HIT by a bullet, which is hardly
enough time for people to start reacting to the EFFECTS of the shots
being fired (i.e., the wounding of people in Dealey Plaza).

[...]

...But to state categorically that Clint Hill was "reacting" to
a specific gunshot fired at precisely Z285 (as you theorize) is just
plain silly and impossible to pin down with spot-on accuracy (as is
the case with pretty much everything you purport with regard to your
totally subjective analysis of the Zapruder Film and the witness
statements in relation to your pet Z285 theory).

[...]

Once more we're treated to Bob Harris' unique subjective look at
things. In Harris' world, everything seems to revolve around his
fictitious missed shot at exactly Z285 of the Zapruder Film. In Bob's
one-sided "Z285 world", there isn't even the slightest possibility
that what we're seeing in the Z-Film just after frame #285 could be
the limousine's occupants behaving in ways that might NOT indicate
that they were each hearing a gunshot at precisely Z285. In Bob's
"Z285" world, the movements of Nellie Connally and Jacqueline Kennedy
couldn't POSSIBLY be the movements and actions of two women who, just
3.33 seconds prior to Z285, heard a gunshot being fired from Lee
Oswald's gun on the sixth floor of the Book Depository....with that
single gunshot resulting in the husbands of both of those women being
wounded by the same bullet....with the two women then reacting in a
perfectly normal fashion by LEANING IN toward their respective wounded
spouses. The above scenario is simply IMPOSSIBLE in the Z285 world of
Robert Harris. Go figure.

[...]

Once again, Mr. Harris is assigning ludicrous levels of ASSUMED
AND PRESUMED SPOT-ON ACCURACY to the statements of certain Dealey
Plaza witnesses. We're only talking about a fraction more than THREE

SECONDS IN REAL TIME between the time of the actual second shot fired
(by Oswald at Z224) and Bob Harris' make-believe missed shot at Z285.

3.3 seconds, Bob!! That's all. Anything you attribute to a missed shot
at precisely Z285 can just as easily be attributed to Oswald's real
second shot at Z224. The difference in real time is negligible. But to
Bob "Z285" Harris, 3.3 seconds is an amount of time that can be
dissected and sliced to absolute perfection in the minds and testimony
of EVERY SINGLE LIMO OCCUPANT. Can you say "That's ridiculous"? I sure
can when talking about this silly "Z285" subject that Bob Harris loves
so much."

-- DVP; Dec. 2009

[QUOTE OFF.]

http://groups.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/msg/0a581746c27b7a2f

[Robert Harris]

David, why did you snip every one of my arguments and examples of how
ridiculous your article was?

And these points are equally ridiculous.

In article
<aeca768b-2bcb-468d...@r5g2000yqc.googlegroups.com>,

David Von Pein <davev...@aol.com> wrote:

> ROBERT HARRIS SAID:
>
> >>> "The entire article was like that David. It was utter and total nonsense,
> >>> which is why you have NEVER tried to dispute my rebuttals." <<<
>
> DAVID VON PEIN SAID:
>
> I'll repost a few excerpts from my 12/1/09 article, which Bob Harris
> thinks is "utter and total nonsense" (but to a person who isn't
> married to an unprovable "Z285" theory, I think these excerpts would
> be considered quite reasonable indeed):
>
> [QUOTE ON:]
>
> "Why would there necessarily have to be mass hysteria in Dealey
> Plaza at that time (circa Z255)?

My reply, which David has totally evaded:

There should have been mass hysteria after the FIRST shot, David.

I don't think you really understand what 130 decibels is.

A noisy vacuum cleaner will generate 70-80 decibels.

90 decibels is the point at which involuntary startle reactions will
occur and prolonged exposure can cause permanent hearing damage. That's
2-4 time louder than the vacuum.

100 db is twice as loud as that.

110 db is four times louder

120 db is eight time louder

130 db, the level that Oswald's rifle generated at street level, is
sixteen times louder.

David, THIS is what reactions to 130 decibels looks like,

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7GH5pGQy6yI

You will see the same thing following 312, although the reactions then
were a little more pronounced than the ones following 285 - obviously,
because the two shots came from different rifles.

But there were no reactions by anyone that were even remotely like that,
prior to frame 285.

Do you disagree with that, David?

(no reply to that question either)

> At that point in the James Altgens
> picture, it's only been 5.2 seconds since Lee Harvey Oswald fired his
> first shot. Not exactly a long time, right Robert? And two Secret
> Service agents are, indeed, reacting to the sound of the gunfire by
> looking over their right shoulders. But it's only been 1.7 seconds
> since anyone in the limousine was HIT by a bullet, which is hardly
> enough time for people to start reacting to the EFFECTS of the shots
> being fired (i.e., the wounding of people in Dealey Plaza).
>
> [...]

And my reply to that, which David has totally evaded:

That shot could NOT have been fired by Oswald, or anyone else using a
high powered rifle.

David, imagine yourself walking into a relatively small area like DP,
that was fairly crowded, and then pulling out a MC rifle and just firing
it up into the air.

Do you think some people would have never noticed it all, while a few
others looked around saying, "gosh, what was that?". Or do you think
there would be pandemonium?

Your theory requires the bystanders to have totally overlooked one of
the early shots, and almost unanimously failing to identify the other
one as a gunshot. Further west, people like Brehm, Hill (both), Moorman
and others, never heard ANY of the early shots.

Of course, we can bicker about what people were supposed to hear, all
day. But this is the clincher, because we know that they only reacted
like this twice - once after 285 and once after 312.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7GH5pGQy6yI

And yet, the early shots SHOULD have been the loudest that day, to the
ears of the limo passengers, if Oswald had fired them all.

It is ridiculously obvious that he did not.

(back to the present)

This argument is especially ludicrous:

"But it's only been 1.7 seconds since anyone in the limousine was HIT by
a bullet, which is hardly enough time for people to start reacting to
the EFFECTS of the shots being fired"

Of course David knows all too well that people will be severely startled
by 130db rifles shots within *1/3rd of a second*. 1.7 seconds might as
well be eternity.

Had high powered rifle shots been fired circa 160 and 223, people would
have been reacting like they did following 285. There would have been NO
happy, smiling faces in the crowd.

>
> ...But to state categorically that Clint Hill was "reacting" to
> a specific gunshot fired at precisely Z285 (as you theorize) is just
> plain silly and impossible to pin down with spot-on accuracy (as is
> the case with pretty much everything you purport with regard to your
> totally subjective analysis of the Zapruder Film and the witness
> statements in relation to your pet Z285 theory).
>
> [...]

Of course David doesn't mention the minor detail that Hill himself said
he jumped almost immediately in reaction to a gunshot and would later
testify that the thought JFK *FIRST* reacted at the same time he jumped
from the running board. This is my long evaded reply to david:

That's not true David. In fact, we have very clear confirmations of when
he heard that shot. Consider this, from his report of 11/22/1963.

"On the left hand side was a grass area with a few people scattered
along it observing the motorcade passing, and I was visually scanning
these people when I heard a noise similar to a firecracker."

There were three candidates for the group that was, "observing the
motorcade passing". That was the crowd at the corner, the two guys just
west of them, and the small group in a grassy area which consisted of
Brehm & son, Babushka lady, J hill and Mary Moorman.

But the only one that matched his description, was number three, right
up to the point where Hill pointed out in later years, that some were
taking pictures (Babuska and Moorman).

And guess what David!?!

Every one of those people who made a statement on the record, described
hearing the first of several shots, just as the President was passing in
front of them!

Brehm said JFK "15-20 feet" from him when the first of those shots was
fired. David, look at your Zfilm and tell me how far Brehm was from JFK
at 285. Here's a clue, the road was 40 feet wide and the limo was just
to the left of center.

What do you get, David?

Jean Hill, just to Brehm's left said the limo was "almost abreast" of
her position and Mary Moorman said she heard 3-4 shots just as she was
snapping her last picture.

Don't you think it's an amazing coincidence that Hill said those people
were "observing the motorcade passing" when that shot was fired, and
that they said that shot was fired just as the motorcade was passing in
front of them??

And here is something else David. Hill said he was "scanning" that group
who were to his left, but all throughout the Zapruder film, right up to
the point where we lose him circa frame 250, we never see him look to
the left.

We pick him up again though, in the Altgens photo at 255. During those 5
frames, he has turned a considerable distance to his left, and is on
perfect track to be looking left, at that small group, well before frame
285.

Now, I am acutely aware of the silly nutter rebuttal, claiming that Hill
was scanning people to his left, via peripheral vision or whatever. But
look at the wide film at 223 and 224 David. Hill was clearly looking to
his right then. There is no way that he was scanning anybody to his left
at that point.

At 160, we just don't see enough of him to be sure. But why would Hill
be looking all the way down the road at Brehm & co. when there was a
much bigger crowd with more potential threats among the people closest
to them? That makes no sense at all.

And after that, Hill was obviously keeping an eye on Louis Witt, as
Steve Barber pointed out long ago, in an article at Mcadams website.
There is just no way that he had heard anything at that point, that he
perceived to be a gunshot.

>
> Once more we're treated to Bob Harris' unique subjective look at
> things. In Harris' world, everything seems to revolve around his
> fictitious missed shot at exactly Z285 of the Zapruder Film. In Bob's
> one-sided "Z285 world",

Sigh... it's trashtalk time again. This is because I asked David about
Greer's reactions, spinning around at nearly inhuman speed while he
simultanously slowed the limo - something he is not exactly eager to
discuss:-)

> there isn't even the slightest possibility
> that what we're seeing in the Z-Film just after frame #285 could be
> the limousine's occupants behaving in ways that might NOT indicate
> that they were each hearing a gunshot at precisely Z285. In Bob's
> "Z285" world, the movements of Nellie Connally and Jacqueline Kennedy
> couldn't POSSIBLY be the movements and actions of two women who, just
> 3.33 seconds prior to Z285, heard a gunshot being fired from Lee
> Oswald's gun on the sixth floor of the Book Depository....with that
> single gunshot resulting in the husbands of both of those women being
> wounded by the same bullet....with the two women then reacting in a
> perfectly normal fashion by LEANING IN toward their respective wounded
> spouses. The above scenario is simply IMPOSSIBLE in the Z285 world of
> Robert Harris. Go figure.
>
> [...]

And my reply which David also evaded:

Ok, are we finished ranting David?

If so, I will repeat the question that you went to all that trouble to
evade:-)

"Why did Bill Greer wait until just after 285 to slow the limo and spin
around so fast that some critics thought his turns were humanly
impossible?"

Of course, Dr. Alvarez answered that question for us. Greer was reacting
to a very loud and startling noise at precisely frame 285. Alvarez
determined that the limo started to decelerate at precisely frame 294.
And we can see that Greer began his Linda Blair impression at 291-292.
That works out to be a perfect match, because he obviously lifted his
foot at the same time that he began to spin around. Watch Greer closely,

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7GH5pGQy6yI

I'm sorry David, but this is not about my "little world". It's about
these ridiculously obvious reactions, the analysis of one of the top
scientists in the world, and the near unanimous statements by the same
people we see reacting and the large majority of other witnesses in DP
who reported that the final shots were "closely bunched".

Even the WC admitted that.

And "closely bunched" is a REALLY good match with 1.5 seconds, as
between 285 and 312. Don't you think?

>
> Once again, Mr. Harris is assigning ludicrous levels of ASSUMED
> AND PRESUMED SPOT-ON ACCURACY to the statements of certain Dealey
> Plaza witnesses. We're only talking about a fraction more than THREE
> SECONDS IN REAL TIME between the time of the actual second shot fired
> (by Oswald at Z224) and Bob Harris' make-believe missed shot at Z285.
> 3.3 seconds, Bob!! That's all. Anything you attribute to a missed shot
> at precisely Z285 can just as easily be attributed to Oswald's real
> second shot at Z224. The difference in real time is negligible.

Of course, this particular rant was for the purpose of dodging my
question about Greer's statement that he felt the "concussion" of what
could only have been the shock wave of the passing bullet. My reply -
evaded as usual,

That's nice David. But why won't you answer the questions?

Why did Greer say he felt the "concussion" of the second shot as he was
turned to the rear?

First of all David, he wasn't turned to the rear at 223 or 160. But he
certainly was at 285. Don't you agree?

And what alternative explanations can you suggest for the "concussion"
Greer felt, other than the shock wave of a passing bullet??

David, they were in the midst of a shooting.

I can't think of any other alternatives but maybe I'm just lacking in
imagination. Can you think of anything?

> But to
> Bob "Z285" Harris, 3.3 seconds is an amount of time that can be
> dissected and sliced to absolute perfection in the minds and testimony
> of EVERY SINGLE LIMO OCCUPANT.

I didn't know that I thought that David. I certainly never said it.

Why is it that you fail to respond to the things I really say, but are
eager to jump on the things you fabricate for me?

No one "dissected" anything. They just reacted to loud gunshots exactly
as we would expect them to.

It is us, the researchers to do the heavy lifting here and even that is
not very complicated. Thanks to the precision timing of the Zapruder
film, we are able to determine exactly when those people reacted and how
much time there was between various, visible events.

By simply watching the limo passengers David, the Zfilm is no longer
silent. It at least tells us when those people were exposed to gunshots
that were loud enough to startle them - and when they weren't.

> Can you say "That's ridiculous"? I sure
> can when talking about this silly "Z285" subject that Bob Harris loves
> so much."

Of course David knows all too well, that I never said anything even
remotely like he claimed.

His entire post was based on trashtalk, posted for the purpose of hiding
his evasions and misrepresentations of what I said. On those rare
occasions when he actually talked about the reactions, he seemed to be
oblivious to the fact that startle reactions MUST occur within 1/3rd of
a second or 6 Zapruder frames. A classic example:

"At that point in the James Altgens picture, it's only been 5.2 seconds
since Lee Harvey Oswald fired his first shot. Not exactly a long time,
right Robert?"

Obviously, David does much better when he goes ad hominem. Facts and
evidence are not exactly his strong points:-)

Also notice that most of the questions I asked David back in 2009 remain
unanswered. He replied to them, but only with irrelevant insults.

And today, when I point out his evasions, he blithely replies by linking
to that long refuted, ridiculous trashtalk from 2009, pretending that he
vanquished another crazy CT:-)







Robert Harris

[David Von Pein]

Bob Harris is on a Z285 merry-go-round. Will he ever be able to
successfully dismount it?

(Or maybe a better question is: Does he want to ever dismount it?)

[Bud]

On Jan 6, 10:27 am, Robert Harris <bobharri...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> David, why did you snip every one of my arguments and examples of how
> ridiculous your article was?
>
> And these points are equally ridiculous.
>
> In article

> <aeca768b-2bcb-468d-9e86-ff1ec6f72...@r5g2000yqc.googlegroups.com>,

>  David Von Pein <davevonp...@aol.com> wrote:
>
> > ROBERT HARRIS SAID:
>
> > >>> "The entire article was like that David. It was utter and total nonsense,
> > >>> which is why you have NEVER tried to dispute my rebuttals." <<<
>
> > DAVID VON PEIN SAID:
>
> > I'll repost a few excerpts from my 12/1/09 article, which Bob Harris
> > thinks is "utter and total nonsense" (but to a person who isn't
> > married to an unprovable "Z285" theory, I think these excerpts would
> > be considered quite reasonable indeed):
>
> > [QUOTE ON:]
>
> >       "Why would there necessarily have to be mass hysteria in Dealey
> > Plaza at that time (circa Z255)?
>
> My reply, which David has totally evaded:
>
> There should have been mass hysteria after the FIRST shot, David.

The evidence is overwhelming that three shots were fired from the
6th floor of the TSBD, so your claims about what should or should not
have occurred are meaningless.

> I don't think you really understand what 130 decibels is.
>
> A noisy vacuum cleaner will generate 70-80 decibels.
>
> 90 decibels is the point at which involuntary startle reactions will
> occur and prolonged exposure can cause permanent hearing damage. That's
> 2-4 time louder than the vacuum.
>
> 100 db is twice as loud as that.
>
> 110 db is four times louder
>
> 120 db is eight time louder
>
> 130 db, the level that Oswald's rifle generated at street level, is
> sixteen times louder.

I haven`t seen you establish that.

I haven`t seen you produce one witnesses who reports being startled
at any time by the noise of any of the shots.

> David, THIS is what reactions to 130 decibels looks like,
>
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7GH5pGQy6yI

The things you claim as startle reactions prior to 312 just aren`t
startle reactions.

Some of the motions could be attributed to a change in the limo
speed when Greer turned.

> You will see the same thing following 312, although the reactions then
> were a little more pronounced than the ones following 285 - obviously,
> because the two shots came from different rifles.

Obviously because only 312 was reaction to a shot.

> But there were no reactions by anyone that were even remotely like that,
> prior to frame 285.
>
> Do you disagree with that, David?
>
> (no reply to that question either)
>
> > At that point in the James Altgens
> > picture, it's only been 5.2 seconds since Lee Harvey Oswald fired his
> > first shot. Not exactly a long time, right Robert? And two Secret
> > Service agents are, indeed, reacting to the sound of the gunfire by
> > looking over their right shoulders. But it's only been 1.7 seconds
> > since anyone in the limousine was HIT by a bullet, which is hardly
> > enough time for people to start reacting to the EFFECTS of the shots
> > being fired (i.e., the wounding of people in Dealey Plaza).
>
> > [...]
>
> And my reply to that, which David has totally evaded:
>
> That shot could NOT have been fired by Oswald, or anyone else using a
> high powered rifle.
>
> David, imagine yourself walking into a relatively small area like DP,
> that was fairly crowded, and then pulling out a MC rifle and just firing
> it up into the air.
>
> Do you think some people would have never noticed it all, while a few
> others looked around saying, "gosh, what was that?". Or do you think
> there would be pandemonium?

Many people were thinking "what was that?". Their minds went to
common loud noises they`ve heard in the past, like backfires and
firecrackers.

> Your theory requires the bystanders to have totally overlooked one of
> the early shots, and almost unanimously failing to identify the other
> one as a gunshot. Further west, people like Brehm, Hill (both), Moorman
> and others, never heard ANY of the early shots.
>
> Of course, we can bicker about what people were supposed to hear, all
> day. But this is the clincher, because we know that they only reacted
> like this twice - once after 285 and once after 312.
>
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7GH5pGQy6yI
>
> And yet, the early shots SHOULD have been the loudest that day, to the
> ears of the limo passengers, if Oswald had fired them all.
>
> It is ridiculously obvious that he did not.
>
> (back to the present)
>
> This argument is especially ludicrous:
>
> "But it's only been 1.7 seconds since anyone in the limousine was HIT by
> a bullet, which is hardly enough time for people to start reacting to
> the EFFECTS of the shots being fired"
>
> Of course David knows all too well that people will be severely startled
> by 130db rifles shots within *1/3rd of a second*. 1.7 seconds might as
> well be eternity.
>
> Had high powered rifle shots been fired circa 160 and 223, people would
> have been reacting like they did following 285. There would have been NO
> happy, smiling faces in the crowd.

You never take into account the noisy motorcycles...

http://blog.leatherup.com/2010/04/12/motorcycle-ear-protection-count-your-decibels/#.Twfy293OV2A

These were creating a racket, and they were louder in the 60s
(legislation in 1979 and 1983 limited the amount of noise motorcycles
were allowed to make). 130 db is probably only 20 or so decibels above
the noise of the motorcycles. Backfires would be in the same range as
gunfire. The people just didn`t think much of these gunfire noises.

Moorman`s thre or four shots could have been the bullet that hit
Kennedy in the head breaking up and hitting various places (the
windshield, the chrome, ect).

> Don't you think it's an amazing coincidence that Hill said those people
> were "observing the motorcade passing" when that shot was fired, and
> that they said that shot was fired just as the motorcade was passing in
> front of them??

Why do you think this places Hill in a specific place that he was
observing them from?

> And here is something else David. Hill said he was "scanning" that group
> who were to his left, but all throughout the Zapruder film, right up to
> the point where we lose him circa frame 250, we never see him look to
> the left.

Maybe it wasn`t scanning that group of people you think he was. Are
these the only people in that "grass area"?

Why the trashtalk, Harris? When I say you "prattle", it`s trashtalk,
when you say David "rants" thats fine.

And of course you don`t produce what Greer actually said, carefully
removing the word "concussion" to suit your ideas. Here is what Greer
actually said...

Mr. GREER. The second one didn't sound any different much than the
first one but I kind of got, by turning around, I don't know whether I
got a little concussion of it, maybe when it hit something or not, I
may have gotten a little concussion that made me think there was
something different to it. But so far as the noise is concerned, I
haven't got any memory of any difference in them at all.

He doesn`t say anything about feeling a "shock wave", he posits that
it might have hit something (if it happened at all, which he isn`t
certain of).

And he says all the shots were the same, which doesn`t help your
ideas at all. Of course when the witnesses say things that don`t
conform with your ideas it doesn`t show on your radar.

> That's nice David. But why won't you answer the questions?
>
> Why did Greer say he felt the "concussion" of the second shot as he was
> turned to the rear?

Why did he specifically point out the noise was the same if there
was a startling shock wave? He has a vague impression of concussion,
which he allows might not have happened at all. Maybe Nellie kicked
the back of his seat.

> First of all David, he wasn't turned to the rear at 223 or 160. But he
> certainly was at 285. Don't you agree?
>
> And what alternative explanations can you suggest for the "concussion"
> Greer felt, other than the shock wave of a passing bullet??
>
> David, they were in the midst of a shooting.
>
> I can't think of any other alternatives but maybe I'm just lacking in
> imagination. Can you think of anything?
>
> > But to
> > Bob "Z285" Harris, 3.3 seconds is an amount of time that can be
> > dissected and sliced to absolute perfection in the minds and testimony
> > of EVERY SINGLE LIMO OCCUPANT.
>
> I didn't know that I thought that David. I certainly never said it.
>
> Why is it that you fail to respond to the things I really say, but are
> eager to jump on the things you fabricate for me?
>
> No one "dissected" anything. They just reacted to loud gunshots exactly
> as we would expect them to.
>
> It is us, the researchers to do the heavy lifting here and even that is
> not very complicated. Thanks to the precision timing of the Zapruder
> film, we are able to determine exactly when those people reacted and how
> much time there was between various, visible events.

Baloney. The witnesses supply mush, and you represent it to be
concrete. It can be shown that each of your witnesses supplied
information that just can`t be.

> By simply watching the limo passengers David, the Zfilm is no longer
> silent. It at least tells us when those people were exposed to gunshots
> that were loud enough to startle them - and when they weren't.

Too bad you don`t understand what a startle reaction is.

> > Can you say "That's ridiculous"? I sure
> > can when talking about this silly "Z285" subject that Bob Harris loves
> > so much."
>
> Of course David knows all too well, that I never said anything even
> remotely like he claimed.
>
> His entire post was based on trashtalk, posted for the purpose of hiding
> his evasions and misrepresentations of what I said. On those rare
> occasions when he actually talked about the reactions, he seemed to be
> oblivious to the fact that startle reactions MUST occur within 1/3rd of
> a second or 6 Zapruder frames. A classic example:
>
> "At that point in the James Altgens picture, it's only been 5.2 seconds
> since Lee Harvey Oswald fired his first shot. Not exactly a long time,
> right Robert?"
>
> Obviously, David does much better when he goes ad hominem. Facts and
> evidence are not exactly his strong points:-)
>
> Also notice that most of the questions I asked David back in 2009 remain
> unanswered. He replied to them, but only with irrelevant insults.
>
> And today, when I point out his evasions, he blithely replies by linking
> to that long refuted, ridiculous trashtalk from 2009, pretending that he
> vanquished another crazy CT:-)

I don`t think he was pretending.

> Robert Harris

[Anthony Marsh]

On 1/7/2012 12:16 PM, Bud wrote:
> On Jan 6, 10:27 am, Robert Harris<bobharri...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>> David, why did you snip every one of my arguments and examples of how
>> ridiculous your article was?
>>
>> And these points are equally ridiculous.
>>
>> In article
>> <aeca768b-2bcb-468d-9e86-ff1ec6f72...@r5g2000yqc.googlegroups.com>,
>> David Von Pein<davevonp...@aol.com> wrote:
>>
>>> ROBERT HARRIS SAID:
>>
>>>>>> "The entire article was like that David. It was utter and total nonsense,
>>>>>> which is why you have NEVER tried to dispute my rebuttals."<<<
>>
>>> DAVID VON PEIN SAID:
>>
>>> I'll repost a few excerpts from my 12/1/09 article, which Bob Harris
>>> thinks is "utter and total nonsense" (but to a person who isn't
>>> married to an unprovable "Z285" theory, I think these excerpts would
>>> be considered quite reasonable indeed):
>>
>>> [QUOTE ON:]
>>
>>> "Why would there necessarily have to be mass hysteria in Dealey
>>> Plaza at that time (circa Z255)?
>>
>> My reply, which David has totally evaded:
>>
>> There should have been mass hysteria after the FIRST shot, David.
>
> The evidence is overwhelming that three shots were fired from the
> 6th floor of the TSBD, so your claims about what should or should not
> have occurred are meaningless.
>

The acoustical evidence proves that three shots were fired from the
6th floor of the TSBD.

>> I don't think you really understand what 130 decibels is.
>>
>> A noisy vacuum cleaner will generate 70-80 decibels.
>>
>> 90 decibels is the point at which involuntary startle reactions will
>> occur and prolonged exposure can cause permanent hearing damage. That's
>> 2-4 time louder than the vacuum.
>>
>> 100 db is twice as loud as that.
>>
>> 110 db is four times louder
>>
>> 120 db is eight time louder
>>
>> 130 db, the level that Oswald's rifle generated at street level, is
>> sixteen times louder.
>
> I haven`t seen you establish that.
>
> I haven`t seen you produce one witnesses who reports being startled
> at any time by the noise of any of the shots.
>

Huh?

>> David, THIS is what reactions to 130 decibels looks like,
>>
>> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7GH5pGQy6yI
>
> The things you claim as startle reactions prior to 312 just aren`t
> startle reactions.
>

Ever hear of jiggle analysis?

> Some of the motions could be attributed to a change in the limo
> speed when Greer turned.
>
>> You will see the same thing following 312, although the reactions then
>> were a little more pronounced than the ones following 285 - obviously,
>> because the two shots came from different rifles.
>
> Obviously because only 312 was reaction to a shot.
>

If 312 was a reaction to a shot then the shot must have been 5 frames
earlier.

Fun to guess, isn't it? But of course you have no way of looking up facts.
On the DPD tape the background noise of the motorcycle was about 80
decibels. And where do you get the 130 dB? From Harris? Are you really
THAT naive? The decibel level at the limo would be about 118 dB.

>>> ...But to state categorically that Clint Hill was "reacting" to
>>> a specific gunshot fired at precisely Z285 (as you theorize) is just
>>> plain silly and impossible to pin down with spot-on accuracy (as is
>>> the case with pretty much everything you purport with regard to your
>>> totally subjective analysis of the Zapruder Film and the witness
>>> statements in relation to your pet Z285 theory).
>>
>>> [...]
>>
>> Of course David doesn't mention the minor detail that Hill himself said
>> he jumped almost immediately in reaction to a gunshot and would later
>> testify that the thought JFK *FIRST* reacted at the same time he jumped
>> from the running board. This is my long evaded reply to david:
>>
>> That's not true David. In fact, we have very clear confirmations of when
>> he heard that shot. Consider this, from his report of 11/22/1963.
>>
>> "On the left hand side was a grass area with a few people scattered
>> along it observing the motorcade passing, and I was visually scanning
>> these people when I heard a noise similar to a firecracker."
>>
>> There were three candidates for the group that was, "observing the
>> motorcade passing". That was the crowd at the corner, the two guys just
>> west of them, and the small group in a grassy area which consisted of

>> Brehm& son, Babushka lady, J hill and Mary Moorman.

>>
>> But the only one that matched his description, was number three, right
>> up to the point where Hill pointed out in later years, that some were
>> taking pictures (Babuska and Moorman).
>>
>> And guess what David!?!
>>
>> Every one of those people who made a statement on the record, described
>> hearing the first of several shots, just as the President was passing in
>> front of them!
>>
>> Brehm said JFK "15-20 feet" from him when the first of those shots was
>> fired. David, look at your Zfilm and tell me how far Brehm was from JFK
>> at 285. Here's a clue, the road was 40 feet wide and the limo was just
>> to the left of center.
>>
>> What do you get, David?
>>
>> Jean Hill, just to Brehm's left said the limo was "almost abreast" of
>> her position and Mary Moorman said she heard 3-4 shots just as she was
>> snapping her last picture.
>
> Moorman`s thre or four shots could have been the bullet that hit
> Kennedy in the head breaking up and hitting various places (the
> windshield, the chrome, ect).
>

And you really think the spacing of those impacts would sound like two
different shots? Why don't you instead claim that when people heard the
shock wave and then the muzzle blast it sounded like two separate shots?
Or the pergola as a reflector? Something a little more inventive.

>> Don't you think it's an amazing coincidence that Hill said those people
>> were "observing the motorcade passing" when that shot was fired, and
>> that they said that shot was fired just as the motorcade was passing in
>> front of them??
>
> Why do you think this places Hill in a specific place that he was
> observing them from?
>

English? Hill doesn't specify WHICH people. Harris is lumping
assumptions together like a house of cards.

>> And here is something else David. Hill said he was "scanning" that group
>> who were to his left, but all throughout the Zapruder film, right up to
>> the point where we lose him circa frame 250, we never see him look to
>> the left.
>
> Maybe it wasn`t scanning that group of people you think he was. Are
> these the only people in that "grass area"?
>

As always Harris claims that testimony can only be interpreted one way,
the way he needs it for his wacky theories.

>> We pick him up again though, in the Altgens photo at 255. During those 5
>> frames, he has turned a considerable distance to his left, and is on
>> perfect track to be looking left, at that small group, well before frame
>> 285.
>>
>> Now, I am acutely aware of the silly nutter rebuttal, claiming that Hill
>> was scanning people to his left, via peripheral vision or whatever. But
>> look at the wide film at 223 and 224 David. Hill was clearly looking to
>> his right then. There is no way that he was scanning anybody to his left
>> at that point.
>>
>> At 160, we just don't see enough of him to be sure. But why would Hill

>> be looking all the way down the road at Brehm& co. when there was a

Like maybe the chrome topping?

> He doesn`t say anything about feeling a "shock wave", he posits that
> it might have hit something (if it happened at all, which he isn`t
> certain of).
>

Clint Hill was. Something metal. Like the chrome topping.

> And he says all the shots were the same, which doesn`t help your
> ideas at all. Of course when the witnesses say things that don`t
> conform with your ideas it doesn`t show on your radar.
>
>
>> That's nice David. But why won't you answer the questions?
>>
>> Why did Greer say he felt the "concussion" of the second shot as he was
>> turned to the rear?
>
> Why did he specifically point out the noise was the same if there
> was a startling shock wave? He has a vague impression of concussion,
> which he allows might not have happened at all. Maybe Nellie kicked
> the back of his seat.
>

Silly.

[Robert Harris]

In article
<68e81bfc-f38f-4837...@j9g2000vby.googlegroups.com>,

Before we continue Bud, why don't you tell us about your proof that
three shots came from the 6th floor of the depository?








Robert Harris

[Bud]

Crap.

> >> I don't think you really understand what 130 decibels is.
>
> >> A noisy vacuum cleaner will generate 70-80 decibels.
>
> >> 90 decibels is the point at which involuntary startle reactions will
> >> occur and prolonged exposure can cause permanent hearing damage. That's
> >> 2-4 time louder than the vacuum.
>
> >> 100 db is twice as loud as that.
>
> >> 110 db is four times louder
>
> >> 120 db is eight time louder
>
> >> 130 db, the level that Oswald's rifle generated at street level, is
> >> sixteen times louder.
>
> >    I haven`t seen you establish that.
>
> >    I haven`t seen you produce one witnesses who reports being startled
> > at any time by the noise of any of the shots.
>
> Huh?

If one of those words is giving you problems try an online
dictionary.

> >> David, THIS is what reactions to 130 decibels looks like,
>
> >>http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7GH5pGQy6yI
>
> >    The things you claim as startle reactions prior to 312 just aren`t
> > startle reactions.
>
> Ever hear of jiggle analysis?

I used to watch "Baywatch", does that count?

> >    Some of the motions could be attributed to a change in the limo
> > speed when Greer turned.
>
> >> You will see the same thing following 312, although the reactions then
> >> were a little more pronounced than the ones following 285 - obviously,
> >> because the two shots came from different rifles.
>
> >    Obviously because only 312 was reaction to a shot.
>
> If 312 was a reaction to a shot then the shot must have been 5 frames
> earlier.

Yah, I neglected to include "following", thanks or the heads up,
Tony.

> >      http://blog.leatherup.com/2010/04/12/motorcycle-ear-protection-count-...

>
> >    These were creating a racket, and they were louder in the 60s
> > (legislation in 1979 and 1983 limited the amount of noise motorcycles
> > were allowed to make). 130 db is probably only 20 or so decibels above
> > the noise of the motorcycles. Backfires would be in the same range as
> > gunfire. The people just didn`t think much of these gunfire noises.
>
> Fun to guess, isn't it? But of course you have no way of looking up facts.
> On the DPD tape the background noise of the motorcycle was about 80
> decibels.

Where did you get that from?

Did I say spacing? A bullet fragment hitting chrome would sound
different than a bullet fragment hitting glass.

>Why don't you instead claim

Why don`t you stop playing with strawmen?

> that when people heard the
> shock wave and then the muzzle blast it sounded like two separate shots?
> Or the pergola as a reflector? Something a little more inventive.
>
> >> Don't you think it's an amazing coincidence that Hill said those people
> >> were "observing the motorcade passing" when that shot was fired, and
> >> that they said that shot was fired just as the motorcade was passing in
> >> front of them??
>
> >   Why do you think this places Hill in a specific place that he was
> > observing them from?
>
> English?

Yes, it was. Harris is using Hill to corroborate those witnesses as
to where the limo was when the shot hit, but Hill doesn`t give his
position.

The chrome was likely hit by a fragment from the third shot. Greer
reports this possible shock wave on the second shot I believe.

> >    And he says all the shots were the same, which doesn`t help your
> > ideas at all. Of course when the witnesses say things that don`t
> > conform with your ideas it doesn`t show on your radar.
>
> >> That's nice David. But why won't you answer the questions?
>
> >> Why did Greer say he felt the "concussion" of the second shot as he was
> >> turned to the rear?
>
> >    Why did he specifically point out the noise was the same if there
> > was a startling shock wave? He has a vague impression of concussion,
> > which he allows might not have happened at all. Maybe Nellie kicked
> > the back of his seat.
>
> Silly.

Not as silly as Greers speculation that the possible concussion he
felt was from the bullet hitting something.

[Anthony Marsh]

So you claim it was just random noise and coincidence that they found
exactly three shots from the sniper's nest?

BBN. Why have you never bothered to read their report?

And maybe the sound of hitting the chrome topping was at exactly the
same time as the hitting of the glass and drowned it out.

>> Why don't you instead claim
>
> Why don`t you stop playing with strawmen?
>

I'm just trying to help you invent silly excuses which might work better
than what you've come up with so far.

Show me this claim.
I think the chrome was hit by a fragment from the last shot from the
TSBD at Z-330.

>>> And he says all the shots were the same, which doesn`t help your
>>> ideas at all. Of course when the witnesses say things that don`t
>>> conform with your ideas it doesn`t show on your radar.
>>
>>>> That's nice David. But why won't you answer the questions?
>>
>>>> Why did Greer say he felt the "concussion" of the second shot as he was
>>>> turned to the rear?
>>
>>> Why did he specifically point out the noise was the same if there
>>> was a startling shock wave? He has a vague impression of concussion,
>>> which he allows might not have happened at all. Maybe Nellie kicked
>>> the back of his seat.
>>
>> Silly.
>
> Not as silly as Greers speculation that the possible concussion he
> felt was from the bullet hitting something.
>

What's the matter with the chrome topping being that concussion?

[Anthony Marsh]

The acoustical evidence.

>
>
>
>
>
> Robert Harris
>

[Robert Harris]

In article <4f05...@mcadams.posc.mu.edu>,

He NEVER saw JFK hit by a bullet. He was very specific that he was
scanning that group to his left when he heard the shot.

Don't you even bother to read these testimonies before making ridiculous
statements?

And he thought JFK first reacted at the same time he was jumping from the
running board. Obviously, that shot had been fired immediately prior to
that.


Robert Harris

[Jason Burke]

On 1/10/2012 3:59 PM, Robert Harris wrote:
> In article<4f05...@mcadams.posc.mu.edu>,

Harris,
You DO realize that light travels faster than sound, don't you?

[Jean Davison]

Bump for Robert to show an unanswered post:


On Jan 4, 8:59 pm, Jean Davison <jean.davis...@gmail.com> wrote:

> On Jan 3, 10:51 pm, Robert Harris <bobharri...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > In article

> > <6fced775-8a9f-47ea-8b66-43d6f3b51...@q9g2000yqe.googlegroups.com>,
> >  Jean Davison <jean.davis...@gmail.com> wrote:

>
> > > On Jan 2, 7:42?pm, Robert Harris <bobharri...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > > > In article

> > > > <383f10ea-bb2b-4f72-b00e-99d261a91...@p13g2000yqd.googlegroups.com>,

> > > > ?Jean Davison <jean.davis...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > > On Jan 1, 4:51?pm, Robert Harris <bobharri...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > > > > > Earlier today, Robin Unger posted an extremely good Gif animation at
> > > > > > JFKHistory.com/forum which depicts the limo passengers reactions to
> > > > > > both
> > > > > > the 285 and 312 shots.
>
> > > > > > It is by far, the best and clearest such animation I have ever seen,
> > > > > > and
> > > > > > yes, I am eating my heart out:-)
>
> > > > > > But if there is anyone who still doubts that Kellerman's reactions are
> > > > > > exactly as I described them, this should put his doubts to rest:
>
> > > > > >http://i1135.photobucket.com/albums/m635/quaneeri/AnimationJFK.gif
>
> > > > > ? ? ? ? ? Has anyone pointed out that when this clip begins Kellerman
> > > > > has already turned far to his left to look behind him? ? ?He started
> > > > > turning well before Z285.
>
> > > > Of course he turned around. He heard one ambiguous noise prior to the
> > > > "flurry" at the end.
>

> > >            What noise would that be?
>
> > That was probably the shot at 160. That was the only one that most
> > witnesses noticed.
>
>             Not likely.  Both Greer and Kellerman are facing the rear
> in frame 282, too early for your 285 shot and too late for 160,
> imo.
>
> http://www.assassinationresearch.com/zfilm/z282.jpg
>
>             Greer turns around twice, just before and after 285.  Look
> again:
>
> http://i1135.photobucket.com/albums/m635/quaneeri/AnimationJFK.gif
>
>              Do you really think that one of those turns is for 160
> and the one immediately afterwards is for 285?
>
>
>
> > > In your clip, Greer also turned
> > > around for the first time before Z285, and then again almost immediately.
> > > How do you explain that?
>
> > He turned quite a bit earlier in reaction to the shot at 160, and again
> > in reaction to the shot at 285.
>
>            Z282 is not quite a bit earlier.
>
> >I explain all this is in this
> > presentation. It's a bit long winded but it covers the attack from start
> > to finish.
>
> >http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cvqCtaBkyyE
>
> > > IMO, Greer and Kellerman are reacting to noise
> > > coming from the back seat, most likely from Connally.
>
> > Well, that's not what they said.
>
> > They each said they heard an ambiguous noise.
>
>            "Firecracker" or "backfire."  Kellerman also said that he
> immediately heard JFK exclaim, "My God I'm hit."  Nobody else heard JFK
> say anything, but Connally did cry out.
>
>
>
> > > Jackie turned her
> > > attention to Connally at about the same time.
>
> > She turned toward him because he had begun to shout. She would later
> > express regret that JBC had drawn her attention and she was not looking
> > at JFK when the first shot hit him, so she wasn't able to pull him down
> > before the next one killed him.
>
>           Just a coincidence the agents looked in the back seat at
> about the same time?

>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > > > > > Also notice the startle reactions to 312, which were actually more

> > > > > > dramatic and pronounced than those following 285. Obviously, the two
> > > > > > shots
> > > > > > came from different weapons.
>
> > > > > ? ? ? ? ? Not obvious at all. ?Brain matter fell on everyone in the

> > > > > car.
>
> > > > I don't quite see the logic here, Jean. What does that have to do with
> > > > the shots coming from two different weapons?
>

> > >            Speaking of logic, you're assuming that "two weapons" is the
> > > only possible explanation.  I'm saying that if you're showered with brain
> > > matter you might react dramatically.
>
> > Perhaps, but the 285 reactions began at 290. So it's not likely that
> > anything related to the 312 shot caused them:-)
>
>              Bud has explained this.
>
>
>
> > > > > ? ? ? ? ? Involuntary startle reactions have a definite pattern of
> > > > > raised arms, bent elbows, etc. ?Please look it up.

>
> > > > They can take a wide assortment of forms.
>

> > >             Such as?
>
> > Such as spinning around rapidly. Look at the video bud posted in this
> > same thread.
>
>        I don't see anything there resembling the limo occupants'
> movements.

>
>
>
> > > > Tell me something Jean, how did Greer react to the shot at 312?
>

> > >             312?  He seems to hunker down,
>
> > Jean, are you at all familiar with a film by Abraham Zapruder?
>
> > If so, then why don't you look at it? Greer reacted within two frames
> > following that shot, by spinning rapidly from front to back - exactly as
> > he did following the 285 shot.
>
>            I see him turning around twice just before 313.  You don't
> see that?
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > > possibly raising his shoulders,
> > > which might be an actual startle reaction -- unlike his head turns before
> > > and after Z285, in which IMO he's simply trying to see what's going on
> > > behind him.

>
> > > > This is what I see Kellerman doing
>
> > > > 1. Dropping his head by more than 30 degrees.
>
> > > > 2. Simultaneously twisting his head to his right.
>
> > > > 3. Simultaneously raising his left hand to his ear.
>
> > > > Then:
>
> > > > 4. Straightening back up.
>
> > > > 5. Turning his head back to a forward position.
>
> > > > 6. Dropping his hand.
>
> > > > I see these things happening within the range of frames 292 to 310, or
> > > > one single second.
>
> > > > Do you see the same Jean?
>

>           Pretty much, but it's not a startle reaction.
>
>
>
> > >          I see a continuation of his turning around.
>
> > Jean, my question only requires a simple yes or no.
>
> > Do you see him doing the 6 things I have itemized or do you not?? If you
> > really do have doubts, look at Unger's animation.
>
> > > He looks back,
>
> > His reaction began at 291-292. He does not look back then. He does
> > exactly what I said he did.
>
>          As I see it, his reaction began when he turned around immediately
> before this.  When his head dips, isn't that during the time the limo
> suddenly slowed down?
>
>
>
> > Why don't you sit down and mimic him. Do every one of those things,
> > within a single second and then tell me it was not involuntary.
>
>           Not all speedy movements are involuntary.   Ever seen
> someone catch a housefly in his hand?
>
> Jean- Hide quoted text -
>