Question for David Emerling
Robert Harris
Perhaps it was an oversight David, but you failed to answer some very
important questions in our recent discussion about the limo passengers'
reactions to the final shots. This was from that thread:
On 18 Oct 2009 18:55:09 -0400, davidemerling <davide...@gmail.com>
wrote:
>On Oct 17, 9:01?pm, Robert Harris <reharr...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>> Notice that the reactions following 312 are more dramatic than those
>> following 285, which suggests that the 312 shot came from a louder and
>> more powerful weapon.
>
>I think a better (and more logical) reason to explain the "more
dramatic"
>reactions following Z-312 is because of the "more dramatic" results
>produced from that shot. A super-sonic bullet impacting a human skull
>makes a fairly loud and sickening sound when compared to the same
bullet
>transiting soft tissue (i.e. the neck shot) ... not to mention the
visual
>effects of that shot. I don't think they are reacting so much to the
sound
>of the gunshot as much as they are reacting to the sound and sight of
the
>bullet smashing Kennedy's skull.
David, clinical psychologists provoke involuntary startle reactions in
test subjects with sounds of about 90 decibels. 90 decibels also happens
to be the level at which prolonged exposure will result in permanent
hearing damage.
Based on measurements by HSCA experts, the limo passengers were exposed to
a muzzle blast that was 5 times that loud and a shock wave that was 16
times as loud.
How did you come to conclude that those sounds did not startle the limo
passengers?
How did you come to conclude that the sound of the bullet hitting JFK was
louder?
And finally, how was Kellerman whose reaction was the most dramatic of all
of them, affected by the "visual elements" of that shot, when he was
facing fully forward at the time and could not see JFK?
Please be specific.
Robert Harris
davidemerling
> Perhaps it was an oversight David, but you failed to answer some very
> important questions in our recent discussion about the limo passengers'
> reactions to the final shots. This was from that thread:
>
I don't even recall addressing that issue. I thought I simply said that
their startled reaction at Z-313 most likely had to do with the sights and
sounds of Kennedy's head exploding. Did I say something more than that?
If I recall, the HSCA agreed with the 3-shot scenario from the Warren
Commission (i.e. all fired by Oswald) and then they added a fourth shot
from the grassy knoll based on the last minute acoustic findings - yet-
they concluded that the grassy knoll shot must have missed.
David Emerling
Memphis, TN
Raymond
(1) The TAPES did not prove a gun was fired from the grassy knoll; ...
http://www.jdtippit.com/html/theory_nov.htm
However, the WC did believe it was possible that a shot from a .38 cal
pistol
was fired on the knoll, possibly as a diversionary shot to draw
attention from the
shooter in the TSBD. When the reconstruction was performed, in 1964,
a .38
was fired on the GK (Marrs)
>
> David Emerling
> Memphis, TN- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
Raymond
>
> - Show quoted text -
RE:" The 3-shot scenario from the Warren Commission (i.e. all fired by
Oswald)"
The WC was not certain about a three shot scenario from the weapon
found in the TSBD. And, it would be damn difficult to even PROVE that
LHO fired the TSBD rifle at the Motorcade
From The WR Pages 110-111
The physical and other evidence examined by the Commission compels the
conclusion that at least TWO shots were fired. As discussed
previously, the nearly whole bullet discovered at Parkland Hospital
and the two larger fragments found in the Presidential automobile,
which were identified as coming from the assassination rifle, came
from at least two separate bullets and possibly from three.336 The
most convincing evidence relating to the number of shots was provided
by the presence on the sixth floor of three spent cartridges which
were demonstrated to have been fired by the same rifle that fired the
bullets which caused the wounds. It is possible that the assassin?
carried an empty shell in the rifle and fired only two shots, with the
witnesses hearing multiple noises made by the same shot.
Robert Harris
<38d00dd6-2ccf-48f3...@e34g2000vbc.googlegroups.com>,
davidemerling <davide...@gmail.com> wrote:
Question 1: David, clinical psychologists provoke involuntary startle
reactions in test subjects with sounds of about 90 decibels. 90 decibels
also happens to be the level at which prolonged exposure will result in
permanent hearing damage.
Based on measurements by HSCA experts, the limo passengers were exposed
to a muzzle blast that was 5 times that loud and a shock wave that was
16 times as loud.
How did you come to conclude that those sounds did not startle the limo
passengers?
Question 2: How did you come to conclude that the sound of the bullet
hitting JFK was louder?
Question 3: how was Kellerman whose reaction was the most dramatic of
all of them, affected by the "visual elements" of that shot, when he was
facing fully forward at the time and could not see JFK?
Why are you continuing to evade the questions, David?
If they seem too complex or confusing just let me know and I will reword
them for you.
Robert Harris
timstter
> Perhaps it was an oversight David, but you failed to answer some very
> important questions in our recent discussion about the limo passengers'
> reactions to the final shots. This was from that thread:
>
Hi Robert,
Perhaps it was an oversight Robert, but you failed to answer some very
important questions in our recent discussion about Oswald in Clinton.
The main question would be, Robert, if Oswald was in Clinton LA, as you
claim, and the identification he showed was a Military card cancelled with
two postmarks on it, why does one of the postmarks appear to read October
28, 1963?
That's MUCH too late for Oswald to be in Clinton, isn't it Robert?
Please be specific in your response to the points raised on te thread in
question, or here if you prefer.
Regards,
Tim Brennan
Sydney, Australia
*Newsgroup(s) Commentator*
davidemerling
> In article
> <38d00dd6-2ccf-48f3-88d5-f1a5a4777...@e34g2000vbc.googlegroups.com>,
I believe that humans have involuntary reactions to loud sounds. That has
been proven on more than one occasion.
But if one were in the immediately vicinity of a bullet's impact, even if
fired from a loud gun, and the impact is just a few inches/feet from you,
accompanied by horrific visual effects, I would think that an argument can
be made that THAT would cause a GREATER reaction. And those reactions
would be nearly simultaneous - so it would be difficult to say what caused
the reaction.
Why don't you just tell us where you're going with this.
The medical evidence tells us two important things: Only two bullets
struck anybody in the limousine. Both those bullets were fired from
BEHIND. The bullet recovered (CE399) and the fragments recovered were all
conclusively linked to the rifle found on the 6th floor of the Depository.
It was Lee Oswald's rifle. It had his prints on it. Oswald had no alibi.
Are you saying another shot was fired, from somewhere much closer, and
MISSED ... just like the HSCA conclusion?
Where is the origin of YOUR shot? Who did it hit, if anybody?
David Emerling
Memphis, TN
Anthony Marsh
You are highly confused. They did not believe it. And you are talking
about the HSCA, not the HSCA. The HSCA only wanted to allow for ANY sub
sonic shot regardless of which weapon fired it.
> shooter in the TSBD. When the reconstruction was performed, in 1964,
> a .38
> was fired on the GK (Marrs)
>
Again, it was the HSCA which did the tests in 1978.
Anthony Marsh
That's only an assumption you make.
> BEHIND. The bullet recovered (CE399) and the fragments recovered were all
> conclusively linked to the rifle found on the 6th floor of the Depository.
> It was Lee Oswald's rifle. It had his prints on it. Oswald had no alibi.
>
The lead core fragments are not proven to have been fired from Oswald's
rifle. Only the jacket fragments.
ShutterBun
> Perhaps it was an oversight David, but you failed to answer some very
> important questions in our recent discussion about the limo passengers'
> reactions to the final shots. This was from that thread:
>
At the risk of geeking everyone out, I will happily point out that the
phrase "91 decibels" is, in this context, complete nonsense. First off,
how a "decibel" affects one's eardrums is directly related to how far away
the sound source is. To put things in perspective, a decent stereo
speaker pumps out about 90 decibels at 1 meter at 1 watt. Key phrase: "at
1 meter." The farther away you get, the fewer decibels you are exposed
to, at a (roughly) inverse square rate. To make a blanket statement that
the limo passengers endured a muzzle blast of 450 decibels (from a
distance of 200+ feet!) is ridiculous.
Rather than rely on faulty physics to draw your conclusions, why not
listen to how people actually described it. "It sounded like a
firecracker" or "It sounded like a backfire." A rifle blast from 200 feet
while in a car surrounded by motorcycles is hardly enough to make someone
"jump." If it startled them, it was only enough to make them turn their
heads, which many of them did. Do you dispute that?
How was Kellerman affected visually, while facing forward? Well, maybe
the fact that a bullet fragment just bounced off his windshield (and the
rearview mirror) would get his attention, no?
Robert Harris
<414a24a9-56e6-4e90...@f10g2000vbl.googlegroups.com>,
davidemerling <davide...@gmail.com> wrote:
You can learn about it in this video, which requires a recent version of
Quicktime:
http://www.jfkhistory.com/Nellie2/Nellie2.mov
Perhaps, if you view it you will be able to then answer those questions:
Question 1: David, clinical psychologists provoke involuntary startle
reactions in test subjects with sounds of about 90 decibels. 90 decibels
also happens to be the level at which prolonged exposure will result in
permanent hearing damage.
Based on measurements by HSCA experts, the limo passengers were exposed
to a muzzle blast that was 5 times that loud and a shock wave that was
16 times as loud.
How did you come to conclude that those sounds did not startle the limo
passengers?
Question 2: How did you come to conclude that the sound of the bullet
hitting JFK was louder?
Question 3: how was Kellerman whose reaction was the most dramatic of
all of them, affected by the "visual elements" of that shot, when he was
facing fully forward at the time and could not see JFK?
Why are you continuing to evade the questions, David?
If they seem too complex or confusing just let me know and I will reword
them for you.
Robert Harris
>
> David Emerling
> Memphis, TN
Robert Harris
<1adbba06-e29d-4a63...@d9g2000prh.googlegroups.com>,
ShutterBun <shutt...@gmail.com> wrote:
Wow!! Nothing gets by you Shutterbuns. How did you know I as asking
about a noise 12 miles away?!
The levels I cited were to the ears of the limo passengers. In fact, the
130 decibel shock wave was measured within a radius of 10 feet from the
bullet's path, which means that most of those people probably heard a
slightly louder level than I stated.
> To put things in perspective, a decent stereo
> speaker pumps out about 90 decibels at 1 meter at 1 watt. Key phrase: "at
> 1 meter." The farther away you get, the fewer decibels you are exposed
> to, at a (roughly) inverse square rate. To make a blanket statement that
> the limo passengers endured a muzzle blast of 450 decibels (from a
> distance of 200+ feet!) is ridiculous.
Yes, Shutterbun, that's why all of these levels are at the point of the
passengers ears. The HSCA measurements of the muzzle blast were at
varying distance and levels ranged from 135db to 115 at the furtherest
distance.
If you would have just asked me, I could have spared you all the
irrelevant chatter.
Robert Harris
Robert Harris
<70da2619-0c47-49da...@j9g2000prh.googlegroups.com>,
timstter <tims...@gmail.com> wrote:
I thought you had bailed out on that one.
I believe I already stated that no-one knows for sure how they got there.
But it is obvious, that one of the stamps was present when Oswald was in
Clinton.
Why would it matter whether there was one or two? Either way, it obviously
appeared to the registrar to have been "cancelled".
Robert Harris
Herbert Blenner
The 90-decibel pressure level of the muzzle blast at the limousine
accounted for the distance from the weapon.
People go astray when they attempt to relate a pressure level to a
perceived loudness. This is especially true when the sound is as brief as
a muzzle blast or a shockwave. For a graphic demonstration see the
following link.
http://mysite.verizon.net/a1eah71/earwitness.htm
The acoustic environment surrounding the trajectory strongly affects the
duration of the muzzle blast and hence its perceived loudness. When the
trajectory parallels the ground, sonic reflections stretch the muzzle
blast and enhance loudness. By contrast, a muzzle blast from a trajectory
coming down toward the ground undergoes less stretching and reflections
may even reduce the loudness near the ground.
Herbert
davidemerling
> Question 1: David, clinical psychologists provoke involuntary startle
> reactions in test subjects with sounds of about 90 decibels. 90 decibels
> also happens to be the level at which prolonged exposure will result in
> permanent hearing damage.
So? Does this mean that if a sound was only 75 decibels, they wouldn't
react? Does it mention anything about responses to unexpected and sudden
visual stimuli? Does it mean that whenever you see somebody react it
NECESSARILY means they were subjected to a sound around 90 decibels?
> Based on measurements by HSCA experts, the limo passengers were exposed
> to a muzzle blast that was 5 times that loud and a shock wave that was
> 16 times as loud.
How could they know that for sure? How can you measure decibels from a
silent movie?
> How did you come to conclude that those sounds did not startle the limo
> passengers?
I'm not proposing I know with any certainty WHY they reacted the way they
did. All I'm saying is that you cannot claim they react with the certainty
of reason that you are asserting.
> Question 2: How did you come to conclude that the sound of the bullet
> hitting JFK was louder?
I think a gunshot would be louder than a bullet slamming into a human
skull. But that may not be true if the gunshot was far away and you were
inches (like Jackie Kennedy) from the location of the bullet's impact. In
that case, the bullet hitting JFK's head could very well have been louder.
> Question 3: how was Kellerman whose reaction was the most dramatic of
> all of them, affected by the "visual elements" of that shot, when he was
> facing fully forward at the time and could not see JFK?
>
> Why are you continuing to evade the questions, David?
Stop flattering yourself and embarrassing yourself all in the same
breath.
I told you that I cannot, with any certainty, what stimulus caused anybody
to react as they did. I could speculate, I guess. A very close gunshot
could very well explain it ... I guess ... but why do you think that is a
BETTER explanation than the more obvious reasons? I think what ShutterBun
said makes perfect sense. Perhaps Kellerman was responding from bullet
fragments ricocheting just inches from his face? I don't know. That seems
perfectly reasonable to me.
> If they seem too complex or confusing just let me know and I will reword
> them for you.
No - it's not too complex or confusing - it's just kinda ... well ...
silly ... and desperate on your part.
Boy, you REALLY need there to be a conspiracy, don't you?
I would be interested in your response to ShutterBun. He seems to have a
unique knack for popping all your bubbles with nothing more than just
responsible research and common sense.
Don't you ever find it puzzling how many smart people, over the years,
specifically tasked to investigate this crime, just don't seem to see the
bizarre things you seem to see?
David Emerling
Memphis, TN
davidemerling
> At the risk of geeking everyone out, I will happily point out that the
> phrase "91 decibels" is, in this context, complete nonsense. First off,
> how a "decibel" affects one's eardrums is directly related to how far away
> the sound source is. To put things in perspective, a decent stereo
> speaker pumps out about 90 decibels at 1 meter at 1 watt. Key phrase: "at
> 1 meter." The farther away you get, the fewer decibels you are exposed
> to, at a (roughly) inverse square rate. To make a blanket statement that
> the limo passengers endured a muzzle blast of 450 decibels (from a
> distance of 200+ feet!) is ridiculous.
>
> Rather than rely on faulty physics to draw your conclusions, why not
> listen to how people actually described it. "It sounded like a
> firecracker" or "It sounded like a backfire." A rifle blast from 200 feet
> while in a car surrounded by motorcycles is hardly enough to make someone
> "jump." If it startled them, it was only enough to make them turn their
> heads, which many of them did. Do you dispute that?
>
> How was Kellerman affected visually, while facing forward? Well, maybe
> the fact that a bullet fragment just bounced off his windshield (and the
> rearview mirror) would get his attention, no?
It seems a gun blast and a jet engine both produce about 140dbs.
You might want to ask Robert why a jet (especially one with TWO
engines) flying overhead at 37,000 feet is almost completely silent?
Shouldn't we be *startled* because it's over 90dbs?
David Emerling
Memphis, TN
Anthony Marsh
Probably because you rarely see one flying only 200 feet away from you!
> David Emerling
> Memphis, TN
>
Robert Harris
<2fdf4cd4-e9c2-4005...@q14g2000vbi.googlegroups.com>,
davidemerling <davide...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Oct 23, 11:26�am, Robert Harris <reharr...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > Question 1: David, clinical psychologists provoke involuntary startle
> > reactions in test subjects with sounds of about 90 decibels. 90 decibels
> > also happens to be the level at which prolonged exposure will result in
> > permanent hearing damage.
>
> So? Does this mean that if a sound was only 75 decibels, they wouldn't
> react?
They might react David, but they would not exhibit startle reactions,
which are much different and more dramatic, and would occur within 1/3rd
of a second of the stimulus.
That's why it is so significant that the reactions following 285 and 312
were simultaneous and that all of them began to react within the same
1/6th of a second.
You might understand the differences better, if you watch the early
reactions to the shot at 160, which are spread out over several seconds
and are totally different in nature than the ones following 285 and 312.
> Does it mention anything about responses to unexpected and sudden
> visual stimuli? Does it mean that whenever you see somebody react it
> NECESSARILY means they were subjected to a sound around 90 decibels?
Yes, it actually does David. That was Alvarez's conclusion and there
really are no alternative explanations for the kinds of reactions we see
then.
>
> > Based on measurements by HSCA experts, the limo passengers were exposed
> > to a muzzle blast that was 5 times that loud and a shock wave that was
> > 16 times as loud.
>
> How could they know that for sure? How can you measure decibels from a
> silent movie?
David, the HSCA conducted tests in Dealey Plaza, firing an identical
rifle from the alleged SN and positioning microphones at varying
distances from the window.
THEY confirmed the sound level of the shock wave to be 130 decibels
within a 10 foot radius of the passing bullet and sound levels in the
range of 135 to 115 decibels from the muzzle blast, depending on the
distance to the rifle.
Those numbers are very realistic and consistent with other tests which
you can find around the web. You will find other, more powerful rifles
generating more than double the levels the HSCA produced in their tests.
I am disappointed that you would express such absolute certainty in your
conclusions, without being aware of such things.
>
> > How did you come to conclude that those sounds did not startle the limo
> > passengers?
>
> I'm not proposing I know with any certainty WHY they reacted the way they
> did. All I'm saying is that you cannot claim they react with the certainty
> of reason that you are asserting.
David, there are no reasonable alternatives.
Alvarez, who was a staunch WC supporter, speculated that the sound might
have been from a siren, but besides the fact that no-one in DP reported
hearing sirens prior to the end of the shooting, the same witnesses we
see reacting, were VERY clear about what they heard at the time.
And we both know what that was, don't we David?
But since you still haven't answered that question, let me rephrase it
for you.
Wouldn't you agree that the sound levels the HSCA discovered in their
tests, would be expected to startle the limo passengers - especially
when the earliest shots were fired?
That question only requires a simple yes or no, David.
>
> > Question 2: How did you come to conclude that the sound of the bullet
> > hitting JFK was louder?
>
> I think a gunshot would be louder than a bullet slamming into a human
> skull. But that may not be true if the gunshot was far away and you were
> inches (like Jackie Kennedy) from the location of the bullet's impact. In
> that case, the bullet hitting JFK's head could very well have been louder.
David, a report from Oswald's rifle, at the position of the 312 shot
would have generated a shock wave 16 times louder than is required to
provoke startle reactions, and the muzzle blast would have been about
115 decibels, or 5 times louder.
Years ago I bought a decibel meter from Radio Shack. If you ever get
your hands on one, play your stereo at 90 db for awhile. If you are at
all like me, you won't get much past 80-85 db because you will be too
concerned about damaging your speakers.
But after you do that, you will laugh at the notion that people in DP
just didn't notice one of the early shots and mistook the other one for
a firecracker.
>
> > Question 3: how was Kellerman whose reaction was the most dramatic of
> > all of them, affected by the "visual elements" of that shot, when he was
> > facing fully forward at the time and could not see JFK?
> >
> > Why are you continuing to evade the questions, David?
>
> Stop flattering yourself and embarrassing yourself all in the same
> breath.
>
> I told you that I cannot, with any certainty, what stimulus caused anybody
> to react as they did. I could speculate, I guess.
Yes David, and it is your speculation that I am challenging. It is
simply impossible.
You do the same thing the worst of the critics do. You are desperately
trying to twist the facts to make them support your theory. But it just
doesn't work.
> A very close gunshot
> could very well explain it ... I guess ...
Why would you make a statement like that, after admitting that you have
no clue about these sound levels???
> but why do you think that is a
> BETTER explanation than the more obvious reasons?
WHAT "more obvious reasons"??
That Kellerman ducked because he saw JFK get shot, while he was looking
in the opposite direction??
> I think what ShutterBun
> said makes perfect sense. Perhaps Kellerman was responding from bullet
> fragments ricocheting just inches from his face? I don't know. That seems
> perfectly reasonable to me.
No it doesn't David, because now you realize how loud gunshots from high
powered rifles are.
>
> > If they seem too complex or confusing just let me know and I will reword
> > them for you.
>
> No - it's not too complex or confusing - it's just kinda ... well ...
> silly ... and desperate on your part.
David, why is it silly to learn when the shots in Dealey Plaza were
fired??
By looking at the witness reactions and nonreactions, it becomes easy to
determine when high powered rifle shots were fired - and when they were
not.
You should want to know that, as much as I do. Don't you David?
Robert Harris
Robert Harris
<1adbba06-e29d-4a63...@d9g2000prh.googlegroups.com>,
ShutterBun <shutt...@gmail.com> wrote:
I'm afraid that what you label as "complete nonsense", is actually
ignorance on your part. Of course distance is a critical factor, as anyone
who made it through junior high school, must realize.
The shock wave of a passing bullet from Oswald's rifle was measured by
HSCA experts, to be 130 decibels within a 10 foot radius of the bullet.
The muzzle blast was measured at varying distances, from 30 feet to
approximately the distance at the 312 shot, ranging from 137 decibels to
115 decibels at that furthest point.
Even the most minimal of those numbers was horrendously loud, which is
confirmed by the dramatic reactions of the limo passengers following the
312 shot.
> First off,
> how a "decibel" affects one's eardrums is directly related to how far away
> the sound source is. To put things in perspective, a decent stereo
> speaker pumps out about 90 decibels at 1 meter at 1 watt.
> Key phrase: "at
> 1 meter." The farther away you get, the fewer decibels you are exposed
> to, at a (roughly) inverse square rate. To make a blanket statement that
> the limo passengers endured a muzzle blast of 450 decibels (from a
> distance of 200+ feet!) is ridiculous.
450 decibels???
Yes indeed, that is ridiculous. The limo passengers would probably have
been killed by such a sound.
And of course, the distance has already been factored in to my
conclusions, as everyone in this newsgroup except you, undoubtedly
realizes.
And don't worry shutterbuns, nobody is going to accuse you of "geeking"
them out:-)
Robert Harris
PS - moderators, would you mind either posting this message or notifying
me if you are not going to?
Anthony Marsh
Excuse me? Did HSCA actually FIRED Oswald's rifle? You can point me to
that testimony? The difference in dB from Oswald's rifle to any other
Mannlicher-Carcano is barely noticeable.
> The muzzle blast was measured at varying distances, from 30 feet to
> approximately the distance at the 312 shot, ranging from 137 decibels to
> 115 decibels at that furthest point.
>
> Even the most minimal of those numbers was horrendously loud, which is
> confirmed by the dramatic reactions of the limo passengers following the
> 312 shot.
>
>
>
>
>> First off,
>> how a "decibel" affects one's eardrums is directly related to how far away
>> the sound source is. To put things in perspective, a decent stereo
>> speaker pumps out about 90 decibels at 1 meter at 1 watt.
>> Key phrase: "at
>> 1 meter." The farther away you get, the fewer decibels you are exposed
>> to, at a (roughly) inverse square rate. To make a blanket statement that
>> the limo passengers endured a muzzle blast of 450 decibels (from a
>> distance of 200+ feet!) is ridiculous.
>
>
> 450 decibels???
>
> Yes indeed, that is ridiculous. The limo passengers would probably have
> been killed by such a sound.
>
The Army is working on that right now.
davidemerling
> > I think what ShutterBun
> > said makes perfect sense. Perhaps Kellerman was responding from bullet
> > fragments ricocheting just inches from his face? I don't know. That seems
> > perfectly reasonable to me.
>
> No it doesn't David, because now you realize how loud gunshots from high
> powered rifles are.
Yes it DOES make sense!
Imagine you are hiding behind a tree and I am 260ft away with a high-
powered rifle.
Let's say I take a shot at you that you are not expecting. I miss you but
hit the tree very near your face. You will hear (and see!) the bullet
impact the tree BEFORE you hear the gunshot since the bullet is traveling
faster than the speed of sound. Your startled reaction will begin much
more likely as a result of the bullet hitting the tree and not the sound
of the gunshot. And, I'm not so sure the impact on the tree wouldn't
actually be a LOUDER sound because of the close proximity of your ears to
the point of impact as compared to the distance from the origin of the
shot.
Your decibel argument, although interesting, is not ironclad and certainly
DOES involve some speculation. I don't think it deserves the CERTAINTY
that you are assigning it.
So, you think there were shots fired at BOTH Z-285 and Z-313? I'm just
trying to understand your assassination sequence. Would you mind
recounting it for me? At this point, I'm not trying to be argumentative,
I'm just trying to understand what you're saying this all means.
If you *do* think a shot was fired at Z-285 - what do you think it hit (if
anything)?
David Emerling
Memphis, TN
Robert Harris
wrote:
Because it's 37,000 feet away?
Robert Harris
Robert Harris
Herbert Blenner
> On 24 Oct 2009 00:11:19 -0400, Robert Harris <reharr...@yahoo.com>
> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> >In article
> ><1adbba06-e29d-4a63-9d81-dac2ba679...@d9g2000prh.googlegroups.com>,
When comparing physical distances use farther or farthest.
>
>
>
>
>
> >If you would have just asked me, I could have spared you all the
> >irrelevant chatter.
>
> >Robert Harris- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
timstter
Wow! This is brewing as a ding-dong JFK-CT battle on semantics!
Candidly, my money is on Herbert. The presentation on his website is
FIRST CLASS, even if I disagree with much of the reasoning! :-)
Robert Harris
<a80de1ea-5df9-4d29...@q14g2000vbi.googlegroups.com>,
Herbert Blenner <a1e...@verizon.net> wrote:
> > >> in this context, complete nonsense. ?First off,
> > >> how a "decibel" affects one's eardrums is directly related to how far
> > >> away
> > >> the sound source is. ?
> >
> > >Wow!! Nothing gets by you Shutterbuns. How did you know I as asking
> > >about a noise 12 miles away?!
> >
> > >The levels I cited were to the ears of the limo passengers. In fact, the
> > >130 decibel shock wave was measured within a radius of 10 feet from the
> > >bullet's path, which means that most of those people probably heard a
> > >slightly louder level than I stated.
> >
> > >> To put things in perspective, a decent stereo
> > >> speaker pumps out about 90 decibels at 1 meter at 1 watt. ?Key phrase:
> > >> "at
> > >> 1 meter." ?The farther away you get, the fewer decibels you are exposed
> > >> to, at a (roughly) inverse square rate. ?To make a blanket statement
> > >> that
> > >> the limo passengers endured a muzzle blast of 450 decibels (from a
> > >> distance of 200+ feet!) is ridiculous.
> >
> > >Yes, Shutterbun, that's why all of these levels are at the point of the
> > >passengers ears. The HSCA measurements of the muzzle blast were at
> > >varying distance and levels ranged from 135db to 115 at the furtherest
> > >distance.
> >
> > furthest.
> >
> > RH
>
> When comparing physical distances use farther or farthest.
Dictionary.com (Websters) shows them as synonymous.
Robert Harris
Robert Harris
<a7dc22bb-f28c-4b51...@31g2000vbf.googlegroups.com>,
davidemerling <davide...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Oct 24, 1:56?pm, Robert Harris <reharr...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > > I think what ShutterBun
> > > said makes perfect sense. Perhaps Kellerman was responding from bullet
> > > fragments ricocheting just inches from his face? I don't know. That seems
> > > perfectly reasonable to me.
> >
> > No it doesn't David, because now you realize how loud gunshots from high
> > powered rifles are.
>
> Yes it DOES make sense!
David, please notice my reply to Shutterbun and the fact that he left
town on a very fast horse:-)
The sound of fragments hitting the windshield would not been anything at
all like the sound of a high powered rifle shot.
>
> Imagine you are hiding behind a tree and I am 260ft away with a high-
> powered rifle.
>
> Let's say I take a shot at you that you are not expecting. I miss you but
> hit the tree very near your face. You will hear (and see!) the bullet
> impact the tree BEFORE you hear the gunshot since the bullet is traveling
> faster than the speed of sound. Your startled reaction will begin much
> more likely as a result of the bullet hitting the tree and not the sound
> of the gunshot. And, I'm not so sure the impact on the tree wouldn't
> actually be a LOUDER sound because of the close proximity of your ears to
> the point of impact as compared to the distance from the origin of the
> shot.
David, it is ridiculous to claim that a bullet hitting a tree or
fragments bouncing off a windshield would generate a sound level like
that of a rifle shot.
Why don't you share with us, the evidence or studies you have seen,
which convinced you otherwise.
>
> Your decibel argument, although interesting, is not ironclad and certainly
> DOES involve some speculation. I don't think it deserves the CERTAINTY
> that you are assigning it.
What exactly, are you claiming is uncertain?
There is undoubtedly, some plus or minus in the decibel levels, but the
least of them are still many times louder than the levels which have
been proven to provoke involuntary startle reactions.
The science here goes back to the 1930's David and has been confirmed
and reconfirmed, many times.
>
> So, you think there were shots fired at BOTH Z-285 and Z-313? I'm just
> trying to understand your assassination sequence. Would you mind
> recounting it for me?
I will be glad to David. This video is a good starting point.
http://www.jfkhistory.com/Nellie2/Nellie2.mov
You will need a recent version of Quicktime, David, which is a free
download at apple.com for both PC's and Macs.
Or if you prefer, you can watch it on Youtube.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ql6VqZDiC6s
> At this point, I'm not trying to be argumentative,
> I'm just trying to understand what you're saying this all means.
>
> If you *do* think a shot was fired at Z-285 - what do you think it hit (if
> anything)?
The shot at frame 285, apparently missed the President and went on to
strike the Main St pavement, where it shattered and sent a chunk of lead
to strike the curbing and a tiny piece of debris to nick James Tague.
You can see an explanation of how that happened, as well as the most
likely trajectory for the shot, in the video. Be sure to watch it to the
very end.
Of course, there are numerous other confirmations for that shot, which I
will be glad to tell you about, but there is a restriction of 10 minutes
on Youtube.
Robert Harris
davidemerling
> The sound of fragments hitting the windshield would not been anything at
> all like the sound of a high powered rifle shot.
That's true - but that's not what Shutterbun was saying. He was simply
saying that the fragments hitting the window and the frame, in front
of his face, could have caused him to react.
> > Imagine you are hiding behind a tree and I am 260ft away with a high-
> > powered rifle.
>
> > Let's say I take a shot at you that you are not expecting. I miss you but
> > hit the tree very near your face. You will hear (and see!) the bullet
> > impact the tree BEFORE you hear the gunshot since the bullet is traveling
> > faster than the speed of sound. Your startled reaction will begin much
> > more likely as a result of the bullet hitting the tree and not the sound
> > of the gunshot. And, I'm not so sure the impact on the tree wouldn't
> > actually be a LOUDER sound because of the close proximity of your ears to
> > the point of impact as compared to the distance from the origin of the
> > shot.
>
> David, it is ridiculous to claim that a bullet hitting a tree or
> fragments bouncing off a windshield would generate a sound level like
> that of a rifle shot.
I think we've established the decibel level has MUCH to do with how
close the source of the sound is to one's ears. That's why a jet at
37,000 feet, with two engines producing 140dbs each, is essentially
SILENT from the ground.
Actually, a bullet slamming into a human skull would make a sickening
and rather loud sound. Imagine what it must have sounded like for
Jackie Kennedy.
And yet, I maintain that she would SEE and HEAR that sound BEFORE the
sound of the rifle would get to her ears ... even if it had a higher
decibel level. Do you disagree with that? That's just Physics 101
stuff.
> Why don't you share with us, the evidence or studies you have seen,
> which convinced you otherwise.
Well, uh ... a super-sonic bullet, by definition, travels faster than
the sound of the gun which fired it. And since light travels faster
than sound - the visual results of the bullet's impact is usually
going to be apparent before the sound. You can open a high school
physics book and figure that much out.
Have you ever had anybody jump out from around a corner and say "Boo!"
that made you jump? In order to make you jump, do they have to yell
over 90dbs? No! Mostly, you are VISUALLY shocked. In fact, they may
not have to say a word.
My "study" for that last statement is the discipline of Common Sense
and everybody's life experience. We all know it's true. A priori.
> > Your decibel argument, although interesting, is not ironclad and certainly
> > DOES involve some speculation. I don't think it deserves the CERTAINTY
> > that you are assigning it.
>
> What exactly, are you claiming is uncertain?
I'm claiming that the reactions of the limousine occupants cannot,
with CERTAINTY, be attributed to a loud sound.
> There is undoubtedly, some plus or minus in the decibel levels, but the
> least of them are still many times louder than the levels which have
> been proven to provoke involuntary startle reactions.
>
> The science here goes back to the 1930's David and has been confirmed
> and reconfirmed, many times.
I do not contest that unexpected sounds that reach a certain level
cause involuntary reactions. By the way, if the sound occurs while an
individual has already been excited, the effect is diminished
substantially. This is why soldiers, when under continuous fire, stop
flinching after a while. They "acclimate" to the noise and it takes
even GREATER volumes to elicit a reaction.
But you cannot say that whenever somebody reacts that it NECESSARILY
is the result of a loud noise. That may or may not be true.
> > So, you think there were shots fired at BOTH Z-285 and Z-313? I'm just
> > trying to understand your assassination sequence. Would you mind
> > recounting it for me?
>
> I will be glad to David. This video is a good starting point.
>
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ql6VqZDiC6s
Let's see if I have this correctly.
You think a shot was fired at Z-285 (from the Dal-Tex Building) that
missed everything and hit the curb by Tague.
Well - that would certainly make it a conspiracy because we KNOW
Oswald was shooting from the 6th floor sniper's nest.
I was really trying to see these reactions of which you spoke at Z-285
but whenever your video zoomed in on this, it always cutoff the frame
numbers at the top.
It's an interesting theory. But I don't think it is as definitive as
you claim. Your level of certainty does not match mine. And I don't
think it's because I believe that Oswald acted alone. Why you say is
not without substance - it's just not compelling. And it's very
difficult to PROVE.
Is this a personal theory of yours? Is it shared by any of the notable
conspiracy researchers in any of their books? I've read them all but I
can't keep track of all their wild theories.
It seems to me you do a lot of arguing against Oswald's guilt. I'd
like you to share the entire shooting sequence for me ... from your
point of view. Again, I'm not being argumentative. Just wanting to
know what your unified theory is.
> Of course, there are numerous other confirmations for that shot, which I
> will be glad to tell you about, but there is a restriction of 10 minutes
> on Youtube.
I take it you are not a fan of the HSCA's acoustics findings?
David Emerling
Memphis, TN
Robert Harris
<12e415ef-923f-43a4...@b2g2000yqi.googlegroups.com>,
davidemerling <davide...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Oct 27, 6:51?pm, Robert Harris <reharr...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > The sound of fragments hitting the windshield would not been anything at
> > all like the sound of a high powered rifle shot.
>
> That's true - but that's not what Shutterbun was saying. He was simply
> saying that the fragments hitting the window and the frame, in front
> of his face, could have caused him to react.
>
> > > Imagine you are hiding behind a tree and I am 260ft away with a high-
> > > powered rifle.
> >
> > > Let's say I take a shot at you that you are not expecting. I miss you but
> > > hit the tree very near your face. You will hear (and see!) the bullet
> > > impact the tree BEFORE you hear the gunshot since the bullet is traveling
> > > faster than the speed of sound. Your startled reaction will begin much
> > > more likely as a result of the bullet hitting the tree and not the sound
> > > of the gunshot. And, I'm not so sure the impact on the tree wouldn't
> > > actually be a LOUDER sound because of the close proximity of your ears to
> > > the point of impact as compared to the distance from the origin of the
> > > shot.
> >
> > David, it is ridiculous to claim that a bullet hitting a tree or
> > fragments bouncing off a windshield would generate a sound level like
> > that of a rifle shot.
>
> I think we've established the decibel level has MUCH to do with how
> close the source of the sound is to one's ears.
Yes, but it has much more to do with how loud the noise is.
> That's why a jet at
> 37,000 feet, with two engines producing 140dbs each, is essentially
> SILENT from the ground.
>
> Actually, a bullet slamming into a human skull would make a sickening
> and rather loud sound. Imagine what it must have sounded like for
> Jackie Kennedy.
I suspect that "sickening" is a good adjective.
>
> And yet, I maintain that she would SEE and HEAR that sound BEFORE the
> sound of the rifle would get to her ears ... even if it had a higher
> decibel level. Do you disagree with that? That's just Physics 101
> stuff.
This is a pointless question. The shock wave which was measured at 130
decibels does not originate from the rifle, but from the bullet itself,
so it would be heard simultaneous with the bullet strike.
But that isn't relevant to anything. Even if a much weaker sound arrived
first and was sufficient to startle someone, how would that change the
fact that the much louder noise provoked involuntary startle reactions??
I mean, what is the significance of your argument?
>
> > Why don't you share with us, the evidence or studies you have seen,
> > which convinced you otherwise.
>
> Well, uh ... a super-sonic bullet, by definition, travels faster than
> the sound of the gun which fired it. And since light travels faster
> than sound - the visual results of the bullet's impact is usually
> going to be apparent before the sound. You can open a high school
> physics book and figure that much out.
David it is beyond pathetic that you would alter my question and pretend
I asked you something entirely different than what I asked. Here is the
entire, unbutchered question:
"David, it is ridiculous to claim that a bullet hitting a tree or
fragments bouncing off a windshield would generate a sound level like
that of a rifle shot.
Why don't you share with us, the evidence or studies you have seen,
which convinced you otherwise."
I was NOT asking you to discuss the speed of sound. I was asking you to
explain why you think that the other noises you described would produce
sounds that were comparable to a rifle shot.
David, has it ever occurred to you that if your theory was right, you
wouldn't have to employ those kinds of tactics??
>
> Have you ever had anybody jump out from around a corner and say "Boo!"
> that made you jump? In order to make you jump, do they have to yell
> over 90dbs? No! Mostly, you are VISUALLY shocked. In fact, they may
> not have to say a word.
>
> My "study" for that last statement is the discipline of Common Sense
> and everybody's life experience. We all know it's true. A priori.
But no-one said "boo" David. And we already know how the limo passengers
reacted to the much weaker sounds at 160 and 223. They only heard one of
the two, and the one they did heard, was described as like a firecracker
and much weaker than the shots at the end.
>
> > > Your decibel argument, although interesting, is not ironclad and certainly
> > > DOES involve some speculation. I don't think it deserves the CERTAINTY
> > > that you are assigning it.
> >
> > What exactly, are you claiming is uncertain?
>
> I'm claiming that the reactions of the limousine occupants cannot,
> with CERTAINTY, be attributed to a loud sound.
But there are no alternatives. The final shots were described by some
witnesses as "ear shattering". They caused people to scream and dive to
the ground.
The problem you have, David is that you are faced with a double whammy.
BOTH the reactions of the witnesses and the witness statements tell us
exactly the same thing.
ONE early noise that was unlike a gunshot and TWO shots at the end that
were loud as hell.
The Secret Service seemed "sluggish" ONLY because they heard nothing
that sounded like a gunshot until 285. But immediately after 285, they
went into action instantly. Clint Hill said he leaped off the running
board in direct reaction to a gunshot and mistakenly thought that JFK
first reacted simultaneous with his leap.
Look at all the happy,smiling faces in the Altgens photo, David. In your
theory, that photo was taken after the TWO loudest shots of the day were
fired.
If those people could be startled by a "boo" or a tiny fragment bouncing
off the windshield, then why weren't they startled by those two shots
which should have knocked their socks off???
Let's continue, after you address those questions, David. I answered
quite a few for you, now it's your turn.
Robert Harris
davidemerling
> > And yet, I maintain that she would SEE and HEAR that sound BEFORE the
> > sound of the rifle would get to her ears ... even if it had a higher
> > decibel level. Do you disagree with that? That's just Physics 101
> > stuff.
>
> This is a pointless question. The shock wave which was measured at 130
> decibels does not originate from the rifle, but from the bullet itself,
> so it would be heard simultaneous with the bullet strike.
Let's say the bullet strike and the shock wave sound are essentially
simultaneous. That being the case, how can you determine WHICH causes
the person near the impact to react - the sight or the sound?
> But that isn't relevant to anything. Even if a much weaker sound arrived
> first and was sufficient to startle someone, how would that change the
> fact that the much louder noise provoked involuntary startle reactions??
Once a person is in the process of reacting to some external stimulus
- whether it be a loud sound or shocking visual, or whatever - they
become less susceptible to subsequent sights/sounds.
I guess I don't understand why you insist that ALL reactions MUST be a
result of ONLY a loud sound.
> I mean, what is the significance of your argument?
I don't see why this is so difficult. The significance of my argument
is that I maintain people can involuntarily react to other stimuli -
not just loud sounds.
> "David, it is ridiculous to claim that a bullet hitting a tree or
> fragments bouncing off a windshield would generate a sound level like
> that of a rifle shot.
I think the sound of a super-sonic bullet, fired nearly a football field's
length away, into a human skull, could very well produce a louder sound to
somebody just INCHES away from impact (like Jackie) than the gunshot
itself. It think it's possible.
I don't know how solidly the fragments hit the windshield chrome. It must
have been quite hard because it put a good dent in it and, unlike most
cars, that framing was SOLID. But, still, I think the agent cold be
reacting to the PROXIMITY of the sound - not so much the decibel level.
And yet - I don't think that is my main problem with your theory.
I think the reactions are not as distinct as you claim -and- not everybody
in the limousine seems to be effected. What about the OTHER than the
limousine occupants? Shouldn't they be reacting to Z-285 as well? We know
a shot was fired at Z-312 - do you see the occupants reacting to that
(because of the sound) in the same way that you claim they reacted to
Z-285?
This is a HIGHLY theoretical contention on your part because you are
claiming the bullet missed. You are going to have the same difficulty that
many have trying to prove that there was a missed shot around Z-160 and,
yet, I'd say there is BETTER evidence of that than your missed shot at
Z-285.
It's a theory ... not completely without merit ... but not a very
compelling one. I imagine that goes a long way toward explaining why you
are practically the only person who advocates that scenario.
> > Have you ever had anybody jump out from around a corner and say "Boo!"
> > that made you jump? In order to make you jump, do they have to yell
> > over 90dbs? No! Mostly, you are VISUALLY shocked. In fact, they may
> > not have to say a word.
>
> > My "study" for that last statement is the discipline of Common Sense
> > and everybody's life experience. We all know it's true. A priori.
>
> But no-one said "boo" David. And we already know how the limo passengers
> reacted to the much weaker sounds at 160 and 223. They only heard one of
> the two, and the one they did heard, was described as like a firecracker
> and much weaker than the shots at the end.
Of course, nobody said "Boo!" That was only to illustrate that people DO
exhibit involuntary reactions to visual a stimulus that is not accompanied
with a particularly loud sound. You disagree with that?
> The Secret Service seemed "sluggish" ONLY because they heard nothing
> that sounded like a gunshot until 285. But immediately after 285, they
> went into action instantly. Clint Hill said he leaped off the running
> board in direct reaction to a gunshot and mistakenly thought that JFK
> first reacted simultaneous with his leap.
But we KNOW there were gunshots before Z-285. Surely, you're not saying
this was the very first shot in the shooting sequence. Are you?
And, if you're NOT saying that - then why wouldn't the Secret Service
agents react to these LOUD gunshots that occurred before Z-285? According
to you, aren't they supposed to be twitching around like fish on hot
concrete because of the decibel level?
> Look at all the happy,smiling faces in the Altgens photo, David. In your
> theory, that photo was taken after the TWO loudest shots of the day were
> fired.
The Altgens photo shows not only some of the agents looking back over
their right shoulder but you can also see some people in the crowd looking
toward the Depository. The two agents on the right running board are
CLEARLY reacting to a something behind them.
I can't see their face (because they're turned around) - but I'm guessing
they are *not* smiling at this point.
http://www.jfkfiles.com/jfk/images/news/altgens_255.jpg
In fact, on the far left side of this photo, by the Depository, you can
see a man wearing a hat with a light-colored shirt looking straight UP at
the Depository - a very unusual place to be looking as the motorcade
passes by in front of him.
I see all kinds of reactions. I'm sorry, I just don't see all the "smiling
faces" that you're talking about. Quite the opposite. People ARE reacting!
David Emerling
Memphis, TN
Robert Harris
So, if they were not startled by a gunshot following frame 285, then
what was it Mr. Emerling?
Robert Harris
In article
<cc93a26c-f041-4158...@k19g2000yqc.googlegroups.com>,
davidemerling <davide...@gmail.com> wrote:
davidemerling
> So, if they were not startled by a gunshot following frame 285, then
> what was it Mr.Emerling?
That's the point! I'm not so sure the reactions you are talking about are
there. It's very subjective, yet, you have a great deal of certainty in
it. I don't think that certainty is warranted.
I agree people often have involuntary reactions to loud sounds. I also
believe that every reaction is not NECESSARILY because of a loud sound.
Further, I don't see the distinct reactions that you describe. And it
wasn't for the lack of trying.
I reiterate - you have to be wondering why YOU are one of the only people
who believes this scenario.
By the way, you can call me Dave, Mr. Harris. :)
You're starting to behave like Rossley who, in his debate with McAdams,
immediately asked if he could call Professor McAdams, John. Then he
proceeded to derisively refer to him as "Sir!" after nearly every
sentence.
But if you insist on Mr. Emerling - that's fine, too.
David Emerling
Memphis, TN
Robert Harris
Over the years, I have seen three kinds of nutters, David. There are
those who acknowledge these ridiculously obvious reactions, mumble
something about how I can't prove what caused them, and then clam up.
There are those who just clam up.
And there are a tiny percentage who claim they just can't see the
reactions at all.
The first two at least exhibit a trace of integrity.
Over 40 thousand people have viewed my youtube videos on this subject
and thousands more at my website, and they have given me almost flawless
approval ratings, and I don't know of a single conspiracy person in ACJ
who disagrees - in spite of the fact that many of them despise me for my
views on the SBT and the validity of the Zapruder film.
I have had a paper on the subject fully endorsed by Dr. Michael
Stroscio, who holds a Phd in Physics, has written his own paper on
Alvarez's analysis of the Zfilm, and who has chaired Presidential
science commissions.
But even if I was the only person on the planet to know about this, my
only regret would be that I haven't worked hard enough to make it known.
Robert Harris
In article
<630145ba-b2ca-4810...@v25g2000yqk.googlegroups.com>,
Anthony Marsh
> Over the years, I have seen three kinds of nutters, David. There are
> those who acknowledge these ridiculously obvious reactions, mumble
> something about how I can't prove what caused them, and then clam up.
>
You see what you WANT to see.
> There are those who just clam up.
>
There are those who ignore you because you can not debate any issue
reasonably.
> And there are a tiny percentage who claim they just can't see the
> reactions at all.
>
So, in your mind all reactions prove a shot?
> The first two at least exhibit a trace of integrity.
>
> Over 40 thousand people have viewed my youtube videos on this subject
> and thousands more at my website, and they have given me almost flawless
> approval ratings, and I don't know of a single conspiracy person in ACJ
> who disagrees - in spite of the fact that many of them despise me for my
> views on the SBT and the validity of the Zapruder film.
>
Nonsense. That's what's called selection bias. Not a random poll.
People who specifically seek out your video are predisposed to believe
it. That's WHY they seek it out. People who reject your nonsense
wouldn't even bother going there.
> I have had a paper on the subject fully endorsed by Dr. Michael
> Stroscio, who holds a Phd in Physics, has written his own paper on
> Alvarez's analysis of the Zfilm, and who has chaired Presidential
> science commissions.
>
Another false Argument by Authority. You have no such endorsement and
can't show anything confirming what you claim.
Anthony Marsh
> On Oct 31, 3:53 pm, Robert Harris<reharr...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>> So, if they were not startled by a gunshot following frame 285, then
>> what was it Mr.Emerling?
>
> That's the point! I'm not so sure the reactions you are talking about are
> there. It's very subjective, yet, you have a great deal of certainty in
> it. I don't think that certainty is warranted.
>
Lattimer's theory was that it was caused by a siren. Prove that wrong.
> I agree people often have involuntary reactions to loud sounds. I also
> believe that every reaction is not NECESSARILY because of a loud sound.
> Further, I don't see the distinct reactions that you describe. And it
> wasn't for the lack of trying.
>
> I reiterate - you have to be wondering why YOU are one of the only people
> who believes this scenario.
>
It's a necessary part of the mindset to be the only one to believe a
vital truth that no one else can see.
> By the way, you can call me Dave, Mr. Harris. :)
>
> You're starting to behave like Rossley who, in his debate with McAdams,
> immediately asked if he could call Professor McAdams, John. Then he
> proceeded to derisively refer to him as "Sir!" after nearly every
> sentence.
>
Somewhat like Sarah Palin asked Biden if she could call him Joe.
A pretense of respectability.
> But if you insist on Mr. Emerling - that's fine, too.
>
What if we prefer David?
> David Emerling
> Memphis, TN
davidemerling
> So, if they were not startled by a gunshot following frame 285, then
> what was it Mr.Emerling?
As I keep saying - I'm not seeing this startled reaction at 285 that
you seem to think is so clear.
Apparently, I have a lot of company in having difficulty seeing a
collective startled reaction.
David Emerling
Memphis, TN
davidemerling
> Over the years, I have seen three kinds of nutters, David. There are
> those who acknowledge these ridiculously obvious reactions, mumble
> something about how I can't prove what caused them, and then clam up.
>
> There are those who just clam up.
>
> And there are a tiny percentage who claim they just can't see the
> reactions at all.
>
> The first two at least exhibit a trace of integrity.
>
> Over 40 thousand people have viewed my youtube videos on this subject
> and thousands more at my website, and they have given me almost flawless
> approval ratings, and I don't know of a single conspiracy person in ACJ
> who disagrees - in spite of the fact that many of them despise me for my
> views on the SBT and the validity of the Zapruder film.
>
> I have had a paper on the subject fully endorsed by Dr. Michael
> Stroscio, who holds a Phd in Physics, has written his own paper on
> Alvarez's analysis of the Zfilm, and who has chaired Presidential
> science commissions.
>
> But even if I was the only person on the planet to know about this, my
> only regret would be that I haven't worked hard enough to make it known.
>
> Robert Harris
If your work is so widely accepted and acclaimed - then all I have to say
is that you are wasting your time making silly YouTube videos and posting
on alt.assassination.jfk.
You've cracked the case! You have categorical proof that a shot originated
from somewhere other than the 6th floor sniper's nest. This is a
bombshell! I'm sure you've been offered book deals and movie rights. This
has been debated for over 4 decades and there are dozens and dozens of
wild conspiracy theories, none of which have ever taken root. But you've
hit the mother lode.
The difference between the 80% of the public who believes that there was a
conspiracy is that there is wide disagreement amongst them. In great
contrast, the 20% who do not believe in a conspiracy, have surprisingly
similar stories. It's funny how the TRUTH works in that way - isn't it?
David Emerling
Memphis, TN
Anthony Marsh
If you had already proved your case that Oswald was the lone shooter and
there was no conspiracy then you wouldn't need to waste your time here
arguing this case. You already lost the argument as 90% of the public
believe it was a conspiracy, but that doesn't stop you from trying to
convert people.
davidemerling
> > Over 40 thousand people have viewed my youtube videos on this subject
> > and thousands more at my website, and they have given me almost flawless
> > approval ratings, and I don't know of a single conspiracy person in ACJ
> > who disagrees - in spite of the fact that many of them despise me for my
> > views on the SBT and the validity of the Zapruder film.
>
> Nonsense. That's what's called selection bias. Not a random poll.
> People who specifically seek out your video are predisposed to believe
> it. That's WHY they seek it out. People who reject your nonsense
> wouldn't even bother going there.
This reminds me of a political discussion I had with my mother-in-law many
years ago. She's a rabid right-winger. I tend to be much more liberal,
politically speaking.
She HATED Bill Clinton!
She watches all the news programs - especially anything having to do with
politics. She would listen to these call-in shows on C-SPAN.
She tells me one time. "They even hate Bill Clinton in Arkansas - his HOME
state! People are always calling in from Arkansas and saying that they're
glad he's no longer their governor. He was horrible! He is the most hated
president in history."
Oh really?
I told her ...
If "everybody" in Arkansas hates him so much - then how did he ever get
elected governor - FIVE times! Somebody must like him.
Further - who do you think the state of Arkansas gave their electoral
votes to in BOTH presidential elections which Clinton won? They
OVERWHELMINGLY gave them to Clinton!
You can't draw a conclusion from a call-in talk show. Generally, ANGRY
people call those shows. Nobody is going to call from Arkansas and say, "I
just want to say that I like Bill Clinton and I think he's doing a
wonderful job. That's all I really have to say. Thank you, and have a
pleasant day."
Talk shows are biased toward angry people, malcontents, and skeptics. In
no way do they represent the pulse of the nation - or the TRUTH for that
matter.
The same goes for YouTube sites.
How do people even FIND Bob's YouTube sites? They probably do a keyword
search that is consistent with their bias -or- YouTube has suggested the
site based on similar sites.
For instance, how many LN's use the term "magic bullet"? Not many - I
would guess. The fact that they're even searching for the term "magic
bullet" already indicates a certain bias. And, by using that term, they
are very likely to stumble upon Bob's site. Then they make a favorable
comment. And then Bob thinks that everybody agrees with him ... just like
my mother-in-law who thought "everybody" in Arkansas hated Bill Clinton
based on the call-in talk shows she watched.
I agree with you 100% on that, Tony. And I almost NEVER agree with you on
anything. :)
David Emerling
Memphis, TN
davidemerling
> If you had already proved your case that Oswald was the lone shooter and
> there was no conspiracy then you wouldn't need to waste your time here
> arguing this case. You already lost the argument as 90% of the public
> believe it was a conspiracy, but that doesn't stop you from trying to
> convert people.
I'm not on any crusade to convince the world of the truth in the
Kennedy assassination. I wouldn't dare flatter myself to think that I
could have that kind of impact.
It's an event in history that I have researched and find interesting.
Mostly, I'm amused by the likes of those (like yourself) who have
actually taken the time to research the assassination and have come to
a most bizarre conclusion. You should know better.
But the great masses who, when polled, express the view that a
conspiracy existed do NOT know better. I don't blame them for
believing as they do. I've always maintained that the conspiracy crowd
is far more vocal and persistent than the those NOT believing in a
conspiracy. Besides, a conspiracy is far more interesting. So, it's
not surprising what the polls indicate. They are mostly a reflection
of the literature on the topic.
I run into people who believe that there was a conspiracy all the
time. Mostly, they are just regular people who have read a book or two
on the subject (invariably with a conspiracy theme) and have seen the
movie "JFK." In fact, I can almost tell you what book they have read
by the opinions they express. I'm not mean to them. I don't belittle
them. I don't try to embarrass them and make them feel stupid. It's
not their fault, really. They haven't researched the case so it's not
fair to be too critical of them. I usually just make a few comments
about their beliefs and I do not engage them any more than they are
willing to listen. I really don't care what they believe - quite
frankly. What difference does it make?
Most of you CTers could do the same thing to a casual LN-believer. If
they have not researched the case to any degree, there is no doubt you
can make them question their beliefs. Maybe you could even convert
them. It's like beating up on a girl. Big deal. I get no particular
enjoyment from it.
The much more fascinating dynamic is represented by people like
yourself. You HAVE read the Warren Report. You HAVE read most of the
testimony. You've seen the reports from professionals and you STILL
think it indicates a conspiracy. That's fascinating stuff! What swirls
around inside the head of a normally intelligent person and causes
them to believe the most outrageous things is captivating to me. It's
like a train wreck. I guess that's why I even bother listening to
debates between McAdams and Rossley or listen to DiEugenio express his
wacky opinions. And when I'm done listening, I realize that I've just
wasted my time and I'll never get those two hours back.
David Emerling
Memphis, TN
tomnln
Every person I have met who Believes the Warren Report has Never shown ANY
knowledge
of the evidence/testimony in the 26 Volumes.
SEE>>> http://whokilledjfk.net/
SEE>>> http://whokilledjfk.net/radio_debate.htm
"davidemerling" <davide...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:a41bb7b2-d2da-4546...@r27g2000vbp.googlegroups.com...
bigdog
>
> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
Which opinion poll shows that 90% of the public believes there was a
conspiracy to assassinate JFK. A majority of Americans believe Oswald was
guilty. A majority think it was a conspiracy. A majority are half right.
90% is a gross overstatement.
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,102511,00.html
Opinion polls have consistently showed the number believing there was a
conspiracy to be about two thirds. Less than 10% are not sure and the
number who believe Oswald acted alone falls in the 20-25% range. Of course
most of the two thirds who believe there was a conspiracy can be forgiven
because they know so little about the case. What is mind boggling is that
people who have passionately studied the assassination and know the facts
could come to the conclusion there was a conspiracy.
A slightly higher percentage believe the government covered about key
facts, about three fourths. That could be true even if Oswald had acted
alone but I see nothing that leads me to believe the WC covered up
anything. Most of the ammunition that has been used against them is what
they made public in the 26 volumes. If that constitutes a cover- up, it is
the worst cover-up ever conducted.
Anthony Marsh
Wrong. That is the recent polls. Earlier polls were 80-90% conspiracy.
> number who believe Oswald acted alone falls in the 20-25% range. Of course
Lone nut never got to 20-25%.
> most of the two thirds who believe there was a conspiracy can be forgiven
> because they know so little about the case. What is mind boggling is that
> people who have passionately studied the assassination and know the facts
> could come to the conclusion there was a conspiracy.
>
> A slightly higher percentage believe the government covered about key
> facts, about three fourths. That could be true even if Oswald had acted
> alone but I see nothing that leads me to believe the WC covered up
> anything. Most of the ammunition that has been used against them is what
> they made public in the 26 volumes. If that constitutes a cover- up, it is
> the worst cover-up ever conducted.
>
You have not seen because you did not look, just as the WC never looked.