Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.
Dismiss
Mcadams "error" of omission
78 views
Skip to first unread message
Robert Harris
Oct 7, 2012, 11:15:55 AM10/7/12
to
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:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7GH5pGQy6yI
And this brief presentation explains them in more detail:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cv7Lz25Xyno
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.
Robert Harris
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:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7GH5pGQy6yI
And this brief presentation explains them in more detail:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cv7Lz25Xyno
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.
Robert Harris
John McAdams
Oct 7, 2012, 5:53:21 PM10/7/12
to
On 7 Oct 2012 11:15:55 -0400, Robert Harris <bobha...@yahoo.com>
wrote:
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.
.John
--------------
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/home.htm
wrote:
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.
.John
--------------
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/home.htm
Anthony Marsh
Oct 7, 2012, 6:09:25 PM10/7/12
to
On 10/7/2012 11:15 AM, Robert Harris 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.
>
Why do you even bother criticizing McAadams when he keeps changing the
> 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.
>
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.
>
to do with serious research.
fatol...@gmail.com
Oct 8, 2012, 12:13:39 AM10/8/12
to
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.
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.
fatol...@gmail.com
Oct 8, 2012, 12:14:01 AM10/8/12
to
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.
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.
Robert Harris
Oct 8, 2012, 7:59:26 PM10/8/12
to
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.
Plaza who supported this shot!
At least we can't call that a lie of *omission* eh John:-)
Robert Harris
John Reagor King
Oct 8, 2012, 9:01:38 PM10/8/12
to
In article <a0c89760-c1e5-4445...@googlegroups.com>,
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?
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?
John Reagor King
Oct 8, 2012, 9:02:16 PM10/8/12
to
In article <2f9c36b9-bdbe-4a54...@googlegroups.com>,
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.
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.
speculations?
> But to the matter at hand: Jackie begins her reaction at frame
> 289 and Nellie begins her reaction at frame 291.
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.
> 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.
most English-speakers I know.
> 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.
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.
John Reagor King
Oct 8, 2012, 9:02:47 PM10/8/12
to
In article <5071bc6a$1...@mcadams.posc.mu.edu>,
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.
Anthony Marsh <anthon...@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
> Why do you even bother criticizing McAadams when he keeps changing the
> frame number every month?
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.
Robert Harris
Oct 9, 2012, 4:00:14 PM10/9/12
to
John Reagor King wrote:
> In article <2f9c36b9-bdbe-4a54...@googlegroups.com>,
> fatol...@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
> In article <2f9c36b9-bdbe-4a54...@googlegroups.com>,
> fatol...@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?
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.
Robert Harris
0 new messages