Earlier this year I challenged mcadams re: his statement in his book that Mrs. Connally didn't realize that her husband was hit at frame 223.
That much was true enough, since he basically usurped that fact from my posts going back to 1995:-) But John's explanation omitted the fact that she stated quite clearly that it was the next shot, fired after she looked back at the President and before the fatal head explosion that she mistakenly believed, wounded her husband.
John's "reply" was that my theory was not popular enough for him to have to address the issue. Setting aside the many millions of views on my Youtube presentations, his argument fails because it is not my theory that demands an explanation. It is Mrs. Connally's statement.
I'm sure he would like to tell us that she was simply mistaken, but the problem is, that she reacted to that shot by spinning around to her husband and then pulling him back to her - exactly as she testified.
And that reaction began at frame 291, a third of a second after frame 285 and in perfect unison with every other surviving passenger in the limousine. John also claims that I am the only one who can see these reactions, and refused to reply when I pointed out that numerous other nutters have tried to argue they were caused by a backfire, a siren, or the limo rapidly decelerating.
These are the reactions that John claims are a figment of my imagination:
Reactions like that are only seen immediately following 285 and 313. None of the early shots were loud enough to startle anyone and only one was loud enough to be heard at all.
>Earlier this year I challenged mcadams re: his statement in his book >that Mrs. Connally didn't realize that her husband was hit at frame 223.
>That much was true enough, since he basically usurped that fact from my >posts going back to 1995:-) But John's explanation omitted the fact that >she stated quite clearly that it was the next shot, fired after she >looked back at the President and before the fatal head explosion that >she mistakenly believed, wounded her husband.
>John's "reply" was that my theory was not popular enough for him to have >to address the issue. Setting aside the many millions of views on my >Youtube presentations, his argument fails because it is not my theory >that demands an explanation. It is Mrs. Connally's statement.
>I'm sure he would like to tell us that she was simply mistaken, but the >problem is, that she reacted to that shot by spinning around to her >husband and then pulling him back to her - exactly as she testified.
>And that reaction began at frame 291, a third of a second after frame >285 and in perfect unison with every other surviving passenger in the >limousine. John also claims that I am the only one who can see these >reactions, and refused to reply when I pointed out that numerous other >nutters have tried to argue they were caused by a backfire, a siren, or >the limo rapidly decelerating.
>These are the reactions that John claims are a figment of my imagination:
>Reactions like that are only seen immediately following 285 and 313. >None of the early shots were loud enough to startle anyone and only one >was loud enough to be heard at all.
>Oswald did not fire all the shots.
Bob, Nellie was simply mistaken. That happens all the time in witness
testimony.
What happens with you try to microanalyze testimony and base an entire
theory on a single perception of a single witness? You get a wacky
theory.
> Earlier this year I challenged mcadams re: his statement in his book
> that Mrs. Connally didn't realize that her husband was hit at frame 223.
Why do you even bother criticizing McAadams when he keeps changing the frame number every month? It's like trying to nail jello to the wall. Or like Romney's Etch-a-Sketch.
> That much was true enough, since he basically usurped that fact from my
> posts going back to 1995:-) But John's explanation omitted the fact that
> she stated quite clearly that it was the next shot, fired after she
> looked back at the President and before the fatal head explosion that
> she mistakenly believed, wounded her husband.
> John's "reply" was that my theory was not popular enough for him to have
> to address the issue. Setting aside the many millions of views on my
> Youtube presentations, his argument fails because it is not my theory
> that demands an explanation. It is Mrs. Connally's statement.
MIllions of views on YouTube are absolutely meaningless and have nothing to do with serious research.
> I'm sure he would like to tell us that she was simply mistaken, but the
> problem is, that she reacted to that shot by spinning around to her
> husband and then pulling him back to her - exactly as she testified.
> And that reaction began at frame 291, a third of a second after frame
> 285 and in perfect unison with every other surviving passenger in the
> limousine. John also claims that I am the only one who can see these
> reactions, and refused to reply when I pointed out that numerous other
> nutters have tried to argue they were caused by a backfire, a siren, or
> the limo rapidly decelerating.
> These are the reactions that John claims are a figment of my imagination:
> Reactions like that are only seen immediately following 285 and 313.
> None of the early shots were loud enough to startle anyone and only one
> was loud enough to be heard at all.
Some people like to fudge the facts to fit their arguments. It is my opinion, and I really shouldn't have to say so, because the fact that I'm saying it should make it clear to any reasonable person that my saying it implies already that it is indeed my opinion, is that this is a dishonest practice. But to the matter at hand: Jackie begins her reaction at frame 289 and Nellie begins her reaction at frame 291. And this is the Zapruder film, so the comforting idea that you can precisely calculate the time is mere masturbatory illusion and metaphysical farce. In my opinion. Roy Kellerman does not react at all. His head is already in motion at frame 286, and he stays that course. Greer starts to move his head at 290, but not in any startled reaction to a shot. He is turning to chat with Roy. No doubt they are concerned with the dismal season had by the Washington Senators, and were discussing the importance of good pitching. Any reasonable analysis of the actions of the limo's occupants must conclude that Kellerman and Greer are not at all startled by what has just occurred. Hmmm...that's odd. Reasonable people could disagree, I suppose, about whether Jackie and Nellie are both reacting to the same event if Zapruder Time is stipulated to resemble real time, but you would need two fools in the same room for that to condition to be accepted as fact. So, this would merely be their opinions, though I doubt that they would admit as much.
One might also note another startled move in frames 306-309. This is John Connally doing a startled move in reaction to a gun being fired about 3 feet from his face. He, naturally, turns towards the shot. Go look at where he turns! I won't ruin the surprise for you.
John McAdams wrote:
> On 7 Oct 2012 11:15:55 -0400, Robert Harris <bobharri...@yahoo.com>
> wrote:
>> Earlier this year I challenged mcadams re: his statement in his book
>> that Mrs. Connally didn't realize that her husband was hit at frame 223.
>> That much was true enough, since he basically usurped that fact from my
>> posts going back to 1995:-) But John's explanation omitted the fact that
>> she stated quite clearly that it was the next shot, fired after she
>> looked back at the President and before the fatal head explosion that
>> she mistakenly believed, wounded her husband.
>> John's "reply" was that my theory was not popular enough for him to have
>> to address the issue. Setting aside the many millions of views on my
>> Youtube presentations, his argument fails because it is not my theory
>> that demands an explanation. It is Mrs. Connally's statement.
>> I'm sure he would like to tell us that she was simply mistaken, but the
>> problem is, that she reacted to that shot by spinning around to her
>> husband and then pulling him back to her - exactly as she testified.
>> And that reaction began at frame 291, a third of a second after frame
>> 285 and in perfect unison with every other surviving passenger in the
>> limousine. John also claims that I am the only one who can see these
>> reactions, and refused to reply when I pointed out that numerous other
>> nutters have tried to argue they were caused by a backfire, a siren, or
>> the limo rapidly decelerating.
>> These are the reactions that John claims are a figment of my imagination:
>> Reactions like that are only seen immediately following 285 and 313.
>> None of the early shots were loud enough to startle anyone and only one
>> was loud enough to be heard at all.
>> Oswald did not fire all the shots.
> Bob, Nellie was simply mistaken. That happens all the time in witness
> testimony.
Mrs. Connally said she heard two shots after turning around and looking at JFK, which happened in the late 250's. Why didn't you tell your readers that John?
And you know very well, that three of the limo passengers dropped their heads by 30 or more degrees in the same 1/6th of a second, almost immediately after frame 285. And their reactions were simultaneous with Greer's as he spun around at almost inhuman speed and slowed the limo.
Why didn't you tell your readers that John? Why not let them make an informed decision about the cause of those reactions?
> What happens with you try to microanalyze testimony and base an entire
> theory on a single perception of a single witness? You get a wacky
> theory.
Yes, of course you're right. There was only one person in all of Dealey Plaza who supported this shot!
At least we can't call that a lie of *omission* eh John:-)
In article <a0c89760-c1e5-4445-86df-f283ac62e7e8@googlegroups.com>,
fatoldcr...@gmail.com wrote:
> One might also note another startled move in frames 306-309. This is John > Connally doing a startled move in reaction to a gun being fired about 3 > feet from his face. He, naturally, turns towards the shot. Go look at > where he turns! I won't ruin the surprise for you.
I'm looking at it right now, again, and I don't know how many hundreds upon hundreds of times I've seen it by now, nor do I recall now how many years ago I first saw it. I see nothing at all that looks like a startled reaction on his part. Instead I see a more gradual turn of his head toward the front of the limo that starts before the head shot to JFK and continues for quite a few frames after that, and it seems to be merely in the context of Nellie pulling him down out of the line of fire. And who's firing a gun about three feet from his face? Is this Greer again?
Where's the gun? I don't see it.
Surely you cannot be one of the many people who still think the obvious reflection of sunlight on top of Kellerman's head is the barrel of a pistol?
In article <2f9c36b9-bdbe-4a54-97c6-1f38f77fdbe2@googlegroups.com>,
fatoldcr...@gmail.com wrote:
> Some people like to fudge the facts to fit their arguments.
Like you do in nearly every one of your articles?
> It is my > opinion, and I really shouldn't have to say so, because the fact that I'm > saying it should make it clear to any reasonable person that my saying it > implies already that it is indeed my opinion, is that this is a dishonest > practice.
Then why do you not express the same viewpoint about your own obvious speculations?
> But to the matter at hand: Jackie begins her reaction at frame > 289 and Nellie begins her reaction at frame 291.
Reaction to what? A shot being fired right about there? Or dawning horror that both of their husbands may have been shot seconds earlier?
> And this is the Zapruder > film, so the comforting idea that you can precisely calculate the time is > mere masturbatory illusion and metaphysical farce. In my opinion. Roy > Kellerman does not react at all. His head is already in motion at frame > 286, and he stays that course. Greer starts to move his head at 290, but > not in any startled reaction to a shot. He is turning to chat with Roy.
"Chat." That is an interesting interpretation.
> No > doubt they are concerned with the dismal season had by the Washington > Senators, and were discussing the importance of good pitching.
Oh yes, they "could not possibly" be talking about anything else, oh no.
> Any > reasonable analysis of the actions of the limo's occupants must conclude > that Kellerman and Greer are not at all startled by what has just > occurred.
You have an extraordinarily different definition of "reasonable" than most English-speakers I know.
> Hmmm...that's odd. Reasonable people could disagree, I suppose,
They sure could.
> about whether Jackie and Nellie are both reacting to the same event if > Zapruder Time is stipulated to resemble real time, but you would need two > fools in the same room for that to condition to be accepted as fact. So, > this would merely be their opinions, though I doubt that they would admit > as much.
You need to admit that it is merely your opinion, and nothing even remotely close to established fact, that any shot was fired from less than three feet away from Connally, as you said in another article in this thread yesterday, and that it is also only your opinion, not established fact, that any shot was fired from the bridge. I have still not seen you address how S.M. Holland could be standing almost right beside the shooter on the bridge and not notice a man almost right beside him firing a rifle right down at the limousine as it was approaching the same bridge that both he and the shooter were standing on, with both of them standing on the part of the bridge that was directly over Elm Street.
In article <5071bc6...@mcadams.posc.mu.edu>,
Anthony Marsh <anthony.ma...@comcast.net> wrote:
> Why do you even bother criticizing McAadams when he keeps changing the > frame number every month?
Oh, he's changing the frame number every month? The frame number for what, exactly? Remember how you falsely accused me of changing my frames, when the real truth is that I've *always* said that JBC and JFK began to react in frame 226, and have never once given a different frame for that in the past seven years at least, not even outside of the newsgroups?
Remember how you also falsely claimed that I had said JFK already had his fists up by Z225, when in fact you've *never* seen me say that? Remember how for the past several days you have refused to admit that you made this very obvious mistake?
So you'll forgive me if I don't yet believe you when you say that John McAdams changes his frame every month. You were provably wrong when you said something like that about me, so you're probably also wrong about him too.
John Reagor King wrote:
> In article <2f9c36b9-bdbe-4a54-97c6-1f38f77fdbe2@googlegroups.com>,
> fatoldcr...@gmail.com wrote:
>> Some people like to fudge the facts to fit their arguments.
> Like you do in nearly every one of your articles?
>> It is my
>> opinion, and I really shouldn't have to say so, because the fact that I'm
>> saying it should make it clear to any reasonable person that my saying it
>> implies already that it is indeed my opinion, is that this is a dishonest
>> practice.
> Then why do you not express the same viewpoint about your own obvious
> speculations?
>> But to the matter at hand: Jackie begins her reaction at frame
>> 289 and Nellie begins her reaction at frame 291.
> Reaction to what? A shot being fired right about there? Or dawning
> horror that both of their husbands may have been shot seconds earlier?
I gotta give you credit Mr. King. You are the first nutter in a very long time, to actually try to address the 285 shot issue.
So, is it your argument that Mrs. Kennedy, Mrs. Connally and SA Kellerman all ducked within the same 1/6th of a second, because it had just dawned on them that they were being shot at??
There are two very serious problems with that theory. First, the notion that they all came to that conclusion in the same 1/6th of a second, is improbable beyond serious consideration. When we add Greer's and John Connally's reactions, we come to exactly 5 people whom you want us to believe, realized there was a shooting in absolute perfect unison.
The other problem is that each of the people we see reacting, (except John Connally) told us exactly what they were reacting to - and more importantly - WHEN. Let's review:
Mrs. Connally said she heard that shot after she looked back and saw JFK in distress, and before the explosive head shot. She thought that was the one that wounded her husband.
Mrs. Kennedy said she heard two shots AFTER John Connally began to shout, which we know happened in the 240's. She expressed regret that Connally's shouting had drawn her attention when the first of those shots was fired, causing her to be looking away from JFK and unable to pull him down before the next shot which was fatal.
Bill Greer said the last two shots were nearly simultaneous.
Kellerman said the final shots came in a "flurry" and likened the last two, to a pair of sonic booms.
As I'm sure you know, their recollections matched perfectly with the large majority of other relevant witnesses in Dealey Plaza that day. The WC concluded that "most" of them only heard a single shot, a delay and then "closely bunched" shots at the very end of the attack.
Dr. Alvarez concluded that Greer and Zapruder were startled by a loud noise at Zapruder frame 285. So did Dr. Michael Stroscio Phd. Physics, who has chaired Presidential science commissions.
Stroscio fully agreed with Alvarez, with one rather glaring exception. He disputed Alvarez's speculation that the noise was a siren. His paper on the subject came out well before my own discovery of that shot.
