Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.
Dismiss
John replies re: the 285 shot
49 views
Skip to first unread message
Robert Harris
Apr 21, 2012, 9:03:55 PM4/21/12
to
John's statement,
"How does one 'refute' a wacko perception that people in the limo are
doing something ("ducking") that they clearly aren't doing."
For those who might be new to the subject, these are the reactions at
issue:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7GH5pGQy6yI
For a more detailed, slow motion view, which includes the startle
reactions following both 285 and 312:
http://jfkhistory.com/285reactions.gif
First of all John, let's define our terms. Would you agree that someone
dropping his head forward and downward by 30 or more degrees was ducking?
And would you agree that three people doing that in perfect unison with
one another suggests that they were startled?
I really hope you don't intend to run from these issues like you have in
the past, john. No one is demanding that you agree with me. But you do
need to defend your own claims. And you need to stop pretending that you
are being "harassed" when you are asked to do so.
Robert Harris
John McAdams
Apr 21, 2012, 9:43:12 PM4/21/12
to
On 21 Apr 2012 21:03:55 -0400, Robert Harris <bobha...@yahoo.com>
wrote:
>
>John's statement,
>
>"How does one 'refute' a wacko perception that people in the limo are
>doing something ("ducking") that they clearly aren't doing."
>
>For those who might be new to the subject, these are the reactions at
>issue:
>
>http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7GH5pGQy6yI
>
>For a more detailed, slow motion view, which includes the startle
>reactions following both 285 and 312:
>
>http://jfkhistory.com/285reactions.gif
>
>
>First of all John, let's define our terms. Would you agree that someone
>dropping his head forward and downward by 30 or more degrees was ducking?
>
No, Bob. "Ducking" implies they were trying to get out of the line of
fire, or some such.
>And would you agree that three people doing that in perfect unison with
>one another suggests that they were startled?
>
There weren't startled. It's obvious what they were doing.
Jackie was looking into her husband's face.
Nellie was looking into *her* husband's face.
Kellerman was leaning forward, probably (if memory serves) to get the
microphone in front of him.
>
>I really hope you don't intend to run from these issues like you have in
>the past, john.
that's untrue Bob, and you *know* it's untrue.
I have answered you dozens of times in the past.
You just haven't liked the answers.
You can't badger and hector people into agreeing with you, Bob.
>No one is demanding that you agree with me. But you do
>need to defend your own claims. And you need to stop pretending that you
>are being "harassed" when you are asked to do so.
>
>
Bob, I've stated quite clearly what the film shows.
If you continue to demand that I see something *you want me to see*
(which is not in the film) you are merely harassing me.
I've given you an answer.
If you don't like the answer, tough.
You have to accept that you are *not* going to get any other answer.
.John
--------------
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/home.htm
wrote:
>
>John's statement,
>
>"How does one 'refute' a wacko perception that people in the limo are
>doing something ("ducking") that they clearly aren't doing."
>
>For those who might be new to the subject, these are the reactions at
>issue:
>
>http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7GH5pGQy6yI
>
>For a more detailed, slow motion view, which includes the startle
>reactions following both 285 and 312:
>
>http://jfkhistory.com/285reactions.gif
>
>
>First of all John, let's define our terms. Would you agree that someone
>dropping his head forward and downward by 30 or more degrees was ducking?
>
fire, or some such.
>And would you agree that three people doing that in perfect unison with
>one another suggests that they were startled?
>
Jackie was looking into her husband's face.
Nellie was looking into *her* husband's face.
Kellerman was leaning forward, probably (if memory serves) to get the
microphone in front of him.
>
>I really hope you don't intend to run from these issues like you have in
>the past, john.
I have answered you dozens of times in the past.
You just haven't liked the answers.
You can't badger and hector people into agreeing with you, Bob.
>No one is demanding that you agree with me. But you do
>need to defend your own claims. And you need to stop pretending that you
>are being "harassed" when you are asked to do so.
>
>
If you continue to demand that I see something *you want me to see*
(which is not in the film) you are merely harassing me.
I've given you an answer.
If you don't like the answer, tough.
You have to accept that you are *not* going to get any other answer.
.John
--------------
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/home.htm
Ken McDonald
Apr 21, 2012, 10:54:34 PM4/21/12
to
"Robert Harris" <bobha...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:bobharris77-7208...@70-3-168-216.pools.spcsdns.net...
you're "stuck" on this ducking theory, but you're wrong.
The videos that you show are misleading. I know why you don't show them.
Let's go back to Z246 when Jackie places her hand on JFK's left arm and
begins to pull it down. It looks to me like she is looking at JFK at this
point. At Z251 she begins to turn her head towards JBC while still pulling
JFK's left arm down. Meanwhile JBC begins to face JFK around Z256. At Z272
he is definitely turned enough to see JFK. At Z276, JBC begins to fall
into Nellie's lap. Jackie is still looking at JBC. At Z291, Jackie quickly
begins to turn her head towards JFK because of JBC's reaction. Jackie was
turned towards JBC since she began at Z251. JBC knows that he has been
shot and now knows that JFK was shot too. Hence "they're going to kill us
all." Jackie continues to lower her head and turn it to look at JFK. She
knows something is wrong due to JBC's actions. Don't try to tell me she's
not looking at JBC. She isn't turned towards him and staring into space.
After Z285, they have come to realize that both JFK and JBC have been shot
and everyone is reacting to it. It's so easy to see if you start from the
beginning. Why doesn't Greer Duck? Why doesn't JFK duck? He's just sitting
there like a statue. I know he was wearing a brace, but that wouldn't keep
him from moving his head due to an ear shattering sound like you propose.
Ken
Anthony Marsh
Apr 22, 2012, 7:46:06 AM4/22/12
to
On 4/21/2012 9:43 PM, John McAdams wrote:
> On 21 Apr 2012 21:03:55 -0400, Robert Harris<bobha...@yahoo.com>
> wrote:
>
>>
>> John's statement,
>>
>> "How does one 'refute' a wacko perception that people in the limo are
>> doing something ("ducking") that they clearly aren't doing."
>>
>> For those who might be new to the subject, these are the reactions at
>> issue:
>>
>> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7GH5pGQy6yI
>>
>> For a more detailed, slow motion view, which includes the startle
>> reactions following both 285 and 312:
>>
>> http://jfkhistory.com/285reactions.gif
>>
>>
>> First of all John, let's define our terms. Would you agree that someone
>> dropping his head forward and downward by 30 or more degrees was ducking?
>>
>
> No, Bob. "Ducking" implies they were trying to get out of the line of
> fire, or some such.
>
How would they even know where the line of fire was? Especially if shots
> On 21 Apr 2012 21:03:55 -0400, Robert Harris<bobha...@yahoo.com>
> wrote:
>
>>
>> John's statement,
>>
>> "How does one 'refute' a wacko perception that people in the limo are
>> doing something ("ducking") that they clearly aren't doing."
>>
>> For those who might be new to the subject, these are the reactions at
>> issue:
>>
>> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7GH5pGQy6yI
>>
>> For a more detailed, slow motion view, which includes the startle
>> reactions following both 285 and 312:
>>
>> http://jfkhistory.com/285reactions.gif
>>
>>
>> First of all John, let's define our terms. Would you agree that someone
>> dropping his head forward and downward by 30 or more degrees was ducking?
>>
>
> No, Bob. "Ducking" implies they were trying to get out of the line of
> fire, or some such.
>
were coming from three different locations.
>
>> And would you agree that three people doing that in perfect unison with
>> one another suggests that they were startled?
>>
>
> There weren't startled. It's obvious what they were doing.
>
> Jackie was looking into her husband's face.
>
> Nellie was looking into *her* husband's face.
>
the time like a regular routine?
Humphrey Maltravers
Apr 22, 2012, 5:47:51 PM4/22/12
to
On Apr 22, 6:46 am, Anthony Marsh <anthony.ma...@comcast.net> wrote:
> On 4/21/2012 9:43 PM, John McAdams wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On 21 Apr 2012 21:03:55 -0400, Robert Harris<bobharri...@yahoo.com>
> On 4/21/2012 9:43 PM, John McAdams wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
he was shot. I had no earthly idea. I'll readily admit I'm no student
of the JFK assassination. My interest stems primarily from having met
him when I was seven years old. What became of the back brace? I
guess it was removed at the hospital.
Robert Harris
Apr 22, 2012, 9:40:12 PM4/22/12
to
In article <09o6p7905qe9fl30s...@4ax.com>,
duck
verb
1 he ducked behind the wall: bob down, bend (down), stoop (down), crouch
(down), squat (down), hunch down, hunker down; cower, cringe.
Obviously, they were not consciously trying to get out of the line of
fire, because their reactions were involuntary.
So, based on an accurate definition of the term, would you agree that
people dropping their heads down and forward by app. 30 degrees, were in
fact, "ducking"?
>
>
> >And would you agree that three people doing that in perfect unison with
> >one another suggests that they were startled?
> >
>
> There weren't startled. It's obvious what they were doing.
>
> Jackie was looking into her husband's face.
>
> Nellie was looking into *her* husband's face.
>
> Kellerman was leaning forward, probably (if memory serves) to get the
> microphone in front of him.
Uh huh, and do you believe they all just coincidentally, decided to
carry out these motions in the same 1/6th of a second?
As for Kellerman, I am still waiting for you to answer my question from
several months ago. If you need to refresh your memory, examine this
animation:
http://jfkhistory.com/285reactions.gif
I believe that beginning in frame 291, he
1. Dropped his head by 30 or more degrees.
2. Simultaneously raised his left hand to his ear.
3. Simultaneously, twisted his head to the right.
He then,
4. Straightened back up.
5. Simultaneously, turned back to a straight-forward position.
6. Simultaneously, dropped his hand from his ear.
7. All six of those reactions were carried out within ONE SECOND.
Do you agree with all seven of my assertions, John? And if not, then
which of them do you dispute?
>
> >
> >I really hope you don't intend to run from these issues like you have in
> >the past, john.
>
> that's untrue Bob, and you *know* it's untrue.
John, I know it's true, and I predict that you will prove it by once
again, refusing to provide specific answers to my questions.
Right John :-)
Robert Harris
John McAdams <john.m...@marquette.edu> wrote:
> On 21 Apr 2012 21:03:55 -0400, Robert Harris <bobha...@yahoo.com>
> wrote:
>
> >
> >John's statement,
> >
> >"How does one 'refute' a wacko perception that people in the limo are
> >doing something ("ducking") that they clearly aren't doing."
> >
> >For those who might be new to the subject, these are the reactions at
> >issue:
> >
> >http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7GH5pGQy6yI
> >
> >For a more detailed, slow motion view, which includes the startle
> >reactions following both 285 and 312:
> >
> >http://jfkhistory.com/285reactions.gif
> >
> >
> >First of all John, let's define our terms. Would you agree that someone
> >dropping his head forward and downward by 30 or more degrees was ducking?
> >
>
> No, Bob. "Ducking" implies they were trying to get out of the line of
> fire, or some such.
This is how Webster's defines the term:
> On 21 Apr 2012 21:03:55 -0400, Robert Harris <bobha...@yahoo.com>
> wrote:
>
> >
> >John's statement,
> >
> >"How does one 'refute' a wacko perception that people in the limo are
> >doing something ("ducking") that they clearly aren't doing."
> >
> >For those who might be new to the subject, these are the reactions at
> >issue:
> >
> >http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7GH5pGQy6yI
> >
> >For a more detailed, slow motion view, which includes the startle
> >reactions following both 285 and 312:
> >
> >http://jfkhistory.com/285reactions.gif
> >
> >
> >First of all John, let's define our terms. Would you agree that someone
> >dropping his head forward and downward by 30 or more degrees was ducking?
> >
>
> No, Bob. "Ducking" implies they were trying to get out of the line of
> fire, or some such.
duck
verb
1 he ducked behind the wall: bob down, bend (down), stoop (down), crouch
(down), squat (down), hunch down, hunker down; cower, cringe.
Obviously, they were not consciously trying to get out of the line of
fire, because their reactions were involuntary.
So, based on an accurate definition of the term, would you agree that
people dropping their heads down and forward by app. 30 degrees, were in
fact, "ducking"?
>
>
> >And would you agree that three people doing that in perfect unison with
> >one another suggests that they were startled?
> >
>
> There weren't startled. It's obvious what they were doing.
>
> Jackie was looking into her husband's face.
>
> Nellie was looking into *her* husband's face.
>
> Kellerman was leaning forward, probably (if memory serves) to get the
> microphone in front of him.
carry out these motions in the same 1/6th of a second?
As for Kellerman, I am still waiting for you to answer my question from
several months ago. If you need to refresh your memory, examine this
animation:
http://jfkhistory.com/285reactions.gif
I believe that beginning in frame 291, he
1. Dropped his head by 30 or more degrees.
2. Simultaneously raised his left hand to his ear.
3. Simultaneously, twisted his head to the right.
He then,
4. Straightened back up.
5. Simultaneously, turned back to a straight-forward position.
6. Simultaneously, dropped his hand from his ear.
7. All six of those reactions were carried out within ONE SECOND.
Do you agree with all seven of my assertions, John? And if not, then
which of them do you dispute?
>
> >
> >I really hope you don't intend to run from these issues like you have in
> >the past, john.
>
> that's untrue Bob, and you *know* it's untrue.
again, refusing to provide specific answers to my questions.
Right John :-)
Robert Harris
Robert Harris
Apr 22, 2012, 9:41:22 PM4/22/12
to
In article <zo-dnXBK1Jbn7w7S...@giganews.com>,
I don't think so and neither did he, but that's not too important, in
the context of this discussion.
> At Z276, JBC begins to fall
> into Nellie's lap. Jackie is still looking at JBC. At Z291, Jackie quickly
> begins to turn her head towards JFK because of JBC's reaction.
And how did you determine that? She began to duck at precisely 290,
within the same 1/6th of a second, of reactions by every other surviving
passenger in the limousine.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7GH5pGQy6yI
> Jackie was
> turned towards JBC since she began at Z251. JBC knows that he has been
> shot and now knows that JFK was shot too. Hence "they're going to kill us
> all." Jackie continues to lower her head and turn it to look at JFK.
No sir, she was not looking at her husband. She was looking down and
away from him.
http://jfkhistory.com/312.jpg
> She
> knows something is wrong due to JBC's actions. Don't try to tell me she's
> not looking at JBC.
LOL!! I've only been saying that about 16 years, so I promise not to
deny it:-)
> She isn't turned towards him and staring into space.
That is correct; she is not staring into space... sigh
> After Z285, they have come to realize that both JFK and JBC have been shot
> and everyone is reacting to it. It's so easy to see if you start from the
> beginning. Why doesn't Greer Duck?
Because it was not physically possible for him to immediately duck. He
was turned to the rear then, when he felt what he described as the
"concussion" of the second shot he heard. Obviously, that was the shock
wave from the passing bullet.
Dr. Luis Alvarez concluded that the reason Greer slowed the limo was
that he was startled by a loud noise at precisely frame 285. Dr. Michael
Stroscio, who also holds a Phd in Physics and has chaired presidential
science commissions, agreed with Alvarez, although he disputed Alvarez's
speculation that the noise was a siren.
It is ridiculously obvious that Greer lifted his foot from the gas and
then spun around at almost inhuman speed, because he was thoroughly
startled. He began his reaction in almost perfect unison with the
reactions of the other passengers.
> Why doesn't JFK duck?
Probably because he was neurologically frozen by a bullet passing near
cervical vertebrae in which nerves are connected that permit motion. For
example his elbow extensors connected at C7, which is undoubtedly why
his arms rose above his shoulders. Or at least, that is what two
neurologists told me many years ago.
Reach for your own throat, imagining that you are suffering a tremendous
pain there. Now look at your elbows. Where are they?
Oswald's rifle generated sound levels of 130 or more decibels, which is
16 times louder than the level at which involuntary startle reactions
will occur.
When high powered rifle shots were fired into or near the limousine, the
passengers HAD TO HAVE BEEN STARTLED. They had no say in the matter. We
see exactly that following both 312 and 285, but at no other time. Those
were in fact, the ONLY shots fired in DP that day, from high powered
rifles.
Robert Harris
the context of this discussion.
> At Z276, JBC begins to fall
> into Nellie's lap. Jackie is still looking at JBC. At Z291, Jackie quickly
> begins to turn her head towards JFK because of JBC's reaction.
within the same 1/6th of a second, of reactions by every other surviving
passenger in the limousine.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7GH5pGQy6yI
> Jackie was
> turned towards JBC since she began at Z251. JBC knows that he has been
> shot and now knows that JFK was shot too. Hence "they're going to kill us
> all." Jackie continues to lower her head and turn it to look at JFK.
away from him.
http://jfkhistory.com/312.jpg
> She
> knows something is wrong due to JBC's actions. Don't try to tell me she's
> not looking at JBC.
deny it:-)
> She isn't turned towards him and staring into space.
> After Z285, they have come to realize that both JFK and JBC have been shot
> and everyone is reacting to it. It's so easy to see if you start from the
> beginning. Why doesn't Greer Duck?
was turned to the rear then, when he felt what he described as the
"concussion" of the second shot he heard. Obviously, that was the shock
wave from the passing bullet.
Dr. Luis Alvarez concluded that the reason Greer slowed the limo was
that he was startled by a loud noise at precisely frame 285. Dr. Michael
Stroscio, who also holds a Phd in Physics and has chaired presidential
science commissions, agreed with Alvarez, although he disputed Alvarez's
speculation that the noise was a siren.
It is ridiculously obvious that Greer lifted his foot from the gas and
then spun around at almost inhuman speed, because he was thoroughly
startled. He began his reaction in almost perfect unison with the
reactions of the other passengers.
> Why doesn't JFK duck?
cervical vertebrae in which nerves are connected that permit motion. For
example his elbow extensors connected at C7, which is undoubtedly why
his arms rose above his shoulders. Or at least, that is what two
neurologists told me many years ago.
Reach for your own throat, imagining that you are suffering a tremendous
pain there. Now look at your elbows. Where are they?
Oswald's rifle generated sound levels of 130 or more decibels, which is
16 times louder than the level at which involuntary startle reactions
will occur.
When high powered rifle shots were fired into or near the limousine, the
passengers HAD TO HAVE BEEN STARTLED. They had no say in the matter. We
see exactly that following both 312 and 285, but at no other time. Those
were in fact, the ONLY shots fired in DP that day, from high powered
rifles.
Robert Harris
Jason Burke
Apr 22, 2012, 11:04:34 PM4/22/12
to
> the context of this discussion.
>
>
>> At Z276, JBC begins to fall
>> into Nellie's lap. Jackie is still looking at JBC. At Z291, Jackie quickly
>> begins to turn her head towards JFK because of JBC's reaction.
>
> And how did you determine that? She began to duck at precisely 290,
> within the same 1/6th of a second, of reactions by every other surviving
> passenger in the limousine.
>
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7GH5pGQy6yI
>
>
>> Jackie was
>> turned towards JBC since she began at Z251. JBC knows that he has been
>> shot and now knows that JFK was shot too. Hence "they're going to kill us
>> all." Jackie continues to lower her head and turn it to look at JFK.
>
> No sir, she was not looking at her husband. She was looking down and
> away from him.
>
> http://jfkhistory.com/312.jpg
>
>
>> She
>> knows something is wrong due to JBC's actions. Don't try to tell me she's
>> not looking at JBC.
>
> LOL!! I've only been saying that about 16 years, so I promise not to
> deny it:-)
>
'LOL' and 'smiley faces' like the average twelve year old.
But I doubt it, based on your 'hypothesis'.
>
>
>> She isn't turned towards him and staring into space.
>
> That is correct; she is not staring into space... sigh
>
>> After Z285, they have come to realize that both JFK and JBC have been shot
>> and everyone is reacting to it. It's so easy to see if you start from the
>> beginning. Why doesn't Greer Duck?
>
> Because it was not physically possible for him to immediately duck. He
> was turned to the rear then, when he felt what he described as the
> "concussion" of the second shot he heard. Obviously, that was the shock
> wave from the passing bullet.
>
> Dr. Luis Alvarez concluded that the reason Greer slowed the limo was
> that he was startled by a loud noise at precisely frame 285.
analysis, don't you?
Dr. Michael
> Stroscio, who also holds a Phd in Physics and has chaired presidential
> science commissions, agreed with Alvarez, although he disputed Alvarez's
> speculation that the noise was a siren.
>
> It is ridiculously obvious that Greer lifted his foot from the gas and
> then spun around at almost inhuman speed, because he was thoroughly
> startled. He began his reaction in almost perfect unison with the
> reactions of the other passengers.
>
>> Why doesn't JFK duck?
>
> Probably because he was neurologically frozen by a bullet passing near
> cervical vertebrae in which nerves are connected that permit motion.
front?
For
> example his elbow extensors connected at C7, which is undoubtedly why
> his arms rose above his shoulders. Or at least, that is what two
> neurologists told me many years ago.
>
> Reach for your own throat, imagining that you are suffering a tremendous
> pain there. Now look at your elbows. Where are they?
>
>
> Oswald's rifle generated sound levels of 130 or more decibels, which is
> 16 times louder than the level at which involuntary startle reactions
> will occur.
>
> When high powered rifle shots were fired into or near the limousine, the
> passengers HAD TO HAVE BEEN STARTLED. They had no say in the matter. We
> see exactly that following both 312 and 285,
but at no other time.
Those
> were in fact, the ONLY shots fired in DP that day, from high powered
> rifles.
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Robert Harris
Ken McDonald
Apr 23, 2012, 6:00:52 PM4/23/12
to
news:bobharris77-7762...@70-3-168-216.pools.spcsdns.net...
Greer was already turned to the rear of the limo at Z280.
>
>> Why doesn't JFK duck?
>
> Probably because he was neurologically frozen by a bullet passing near
> cervical vertebrae in which nerves are connected that permit motion. For
> example his elbow extensors connected at C7, which is undoubtedly why
> his arms rose above his shoulders. Or at least, that is what two
> neurologists told me many years ago.
Not true. Look at his right arm. It goes down on it's own. He was able to
move his head after the shot through his neck. He moved his body to the
left soon after too. So don't try to tell me he was frozen.
>
> Reach for your own throat, imagining that you are suffering a tremendous
> pain there. Now look at your elbows. Where are they?
There! I've got you! JFK never ever reached for his throat. If you can't
actually see what JFK does after being shot through his neck, I can't
believe anything you say about the Zapruder film. Please explaing in
detail what you see JFK doing beginning at Z225 through Z262. I have no
idea how much pain he suffered and neither do you.
>
>
> Oswald's rifle generated sound levels of 130 or more decibels, which is
> 16 times louder than the level at which involuntary startle reactions
> will occur.
>
> When high powered rifle shots were fired into or near the limousine, the
> passengers HAD TO HAVE BEEN STARTLED. They had no say in the matter. We
> see exactly that following both 312 and 285, but at no other time. Those
> were in fact, the ONLY shots fired in DP that day, from high powered
> rifles.
Ken
>
>> Why doesn't JFK duck?
>
> Probably because he was neurologically frozen by a bullet passing near
> cervical vertebrae in which nerves are connected that permit motion. For
> example his elbow extensors connected at C7, which is undoubtedly why
> his arms rose above his shoulders. Or at least, that is what two
> neurologists told me many years ago.
move his head after the shot through his neck. He moved his body to the
left soon after too. So don't try to tell me he was frozen.
>
> Reach for your own throat, imagining that you are suffering a tremendous
> pain there. Now look at your elbows. Where are they?
actually see what JFK does after being shot through his neck, I can't
believe anything you say about the Zapruder film. Please explaing in
detail what you see JFK doing beginning at Z225 through Z262. I have no
idea how much pain he suffered and neither do you.
>
>
> Oswald's rifle generated sound levels of 130 or more decibels, which is
> 16 times louder than the level at which involuntary startle reactions
> will occur.
>
> When high powered rifle shots were fired into or near the limousine, the
> passengers HAD TO HAVE BEEN STARTLED. They had no say in the matter. We
> see exactly that following both 312 and 285, but at no other time. Those
> were in fact, the ONLY shots fired in DP that day, from high powered
> rifles.
Sandy McCroskey
Apr 23, 2012, 6:06:44 PM4/23/12
to
different points, but to observe that these people moved their heads down
would be an objective observation. If that's all you meant by "duck," the
word would fit. You could also say they jerked their heads down or phrase
the motion in some other way. But there is a reason you stick with "duck."
You intend to convey the connotation also implied in two of the synonyms
listed above "cower, cringe," which is a purely subjective reading of the
cause of these motions.
Some dictionaries do not give a definition of "duck" in this sense that
simply refers to such a motion without a like connotation. As here:
http://oxforddictionaries.com/definition/duck--2
1 [no object] lower the head or the body quickly to avoid a blow or
missile or so as not to be seen: spectators ducked for cover
[with object]: he ducked his head and entered
[with object] avoid (a blow or missile) by moving quickly: he ducked a
punch from an angry first baseman
According to this dictionary, it would be inaccurate to use the word
"duck" (sans object) for Jackie's motion if she was actually lowering
her head to better see her dying husband.
/sandy
Anthony Marsh
Apr 23, 2012, 6:34:05 PM4/23/12
to
Why don't you stop misrepresenting what people say?
You keep trying to put words in people's mouths.
That's not an honest debating tactic.
Anthony Marsh
Apr 23, 2012, 6:36:31 PM4/23/12
to
What happened to your silencers? Was the storm drain shot a high powered
rifle? What make and model?
Cat got your tongue again?
>
>
>
>
> Robert Harris
Robert Harris
Apr 23, 2012, 9:19:13 PM4/23/12
to
In article <WeCdnQ9NR8kiTAnS...@giganews.com>,
That is correct. Greer heard the shot at 160, and reacted by turning
around.
>
> >
> >> Why doesn't JFK duck?
> >
> > Probably because he was neurologically frozen by a bullet passing near
> > cervical vertebrae in which nerves are connected that permit motion. For
> > example his elbow extensors connected at C7, which is undoubtedly why
> > his arms rose above his shoulders. Or at least, that is what two
> > neurologists told me many years ago.
>
> Not true. Look at his right arm.
Well, maybe you're smarting than the neurologists:-)
> It goes down on it's own. He was able to
> move his head after the shot through his neck. He moved his body to the
> left soon after too. So don't try to tell me he was frozen.
There was only one person in that car who didn't react in perfect unison
with the others, following the shot at 285. Maybe you have a better
explanation for that, other than that he had been shot.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7GH5pGQy6yI
Robert Harris
around.
>
> >
> >> Why doesn't JFK duck?
> >
> > Probably because he was neurologically frozen by a bullet passing near
> > cervical vertebrae in which nerves are connected that permit motion. For
> > example his elbow extensors connected at C7, which is undoubtedly why
> > his arms rose above his shoulders. Or at least, that is what two
> > neurologists told me many years ago.
>
> Not true. Look at his right arm.
> It goes down on it's own. He was able to
> move his head after the shot through his neck. He moved his body to the
> left soon after too. So don't try to tell me he was frozen.
with the others, following the shot at 285. Maybe you have a better
explanation for that, other than that he had been shot.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7GH5pGQy6yI
Robert Harris
Robert Harris
Apr 23, 2012, 9:20:23 PM4/23/12
to
In article <4f9589a2$1...@mcadams.posc.mu.edu>,
I have all of them beginning at 290-292. What frame numbers do you see?
> but to observe that these people moved their heads down
> would be an objective observation. If that's all you meant by "duck," the
> word would fit.
Thank you.
> You could also say they jerked their heads down or phrase
> the motion in some other way. But there is a reason you stick with "duck."
Normally, I say that they dropped their heads simultaneously by roughly 30
or more degrees. It is John who seems to forever use the word "duck". But
that really isn't as important as the reason they ducked.
> You intend to convey the connotation also implied in two of the synonyms
> listed above "cower, cringe," which is a purely subjective reading of the
> cause of these motions.
They were neither cowering nor cringing. Those were involuntary reactions,
described in Britannica's definition of "startle reactions", which
includes "avoidance movement of the head".
>
> Some dictionaries do not give a definition of "duck" in this sense that
> simply refers to such a motion without a like connotation. As here:
>
> http://oxforddictionaries.com/definition/duck--2
>
> 1 [no object] lower the head or the body quickly to avoid a blow or
> missile or so as not to be seen: spectators ducked for cover
> [with object]: he ducked his head and entered
> [with object] avoid (a blow or missile) by moving quickly: he ducked a
> punch from an angry first baseman
>
> According to this dictionary, it would be inaccurate to use the word
> "duck" (sans object) for Jackie's motion if she was actually lowering
> her head to better see her dying husband.
She was not examining her husband's head. She was looking down and away
from him then.
http://jfkhistory.com/312.jpg
And the fact that all of these people reacted simultaneously is what
settles the question. They were startled by a loud noise then, which is
why Greer slowed the limo and why the WC concluded that "most" relevant
witnesses said the final shots were closely bunched.
285 and 312 were 1.5 seconds apart. Those were the ONLY two shots that
were loud enough to startle the limo passengers.
BTW, take a look at my question to mcadams, regarding Kellerman's
reactions. Maybe you would like to take a shot at it.
Robert Harris
> but to observe that these people moved their heads down
> would be an objective observation. If that's all you meant by "duck," the
> word would fit.
> You could also say they jerked their heads down or phrase
> the motion in some other way. But there is a reason you stick with "duck."
or more degrees. It is John who seems to forever use the word "duck". But
that really isn't as important as the reason they ducked.
> You intend to convey the connotation also implied in two of the synonyms
> listed above "cower, cringe," which is a purely subjective reading of the
> cause of these motions.
described in Britannica's definition of "startle reactions", which
includes "avoidance movement of the head".
>
> Some dictionaries do not give a definition of "duck" in this sense that
> simply refers to such a motion without a like connotation. As here:
>
> http://oxforddictionaries.com/definition/duck--2
>
> 1 [no object] lower the head or the body quickly to avoid a blow or
> missile or so as not to be seen: spectators ducked for cover
> [with object]: he ducked his head and entered
> [with object] avoid (a blow or missile) by moving quickly: he ducked a
> punch from an angry first baseman
>
> According to this dictionary, it would be inaccurate to use the word
> "duck" (sans object) for Jackie's motion if she was actually lowering
> her head to better see her dying husband.
from him then.
http://jfkhistory.com/312.jpg
And the fact that all of these people reacted simultaneously is what
settles the question. They were startled by a loud noise then, which is
why Greer slowed the limo and why the WC concluded that "most" relevant
witnesses said the final shots were closely bunched.
285 and 312 were 1.5 seconds apart. Those were the ONLY two shots that
were loud enough to startle the limo passengers.
BTW, take a look at my question to mcadams, regarding Kellerman's
reactions. Maybe you would like to take a shot at it.
Robert Harris
Sandy McCroskey
Apr 23, 2012, 11:10:22 PM4/23/12
to
On 4/23/12 9:20 PM, Robert Harris wrote:
> In article<4f9589a2$1...@mcadams.posc.mu.edu>,
If so, John is pointing out that your observation is always conflated with
your subjective interpretation of the respective motions all having a
single cause and simultaneous beginning.
>
>> You intend to convey the connotation also implied in two of the synonyms
>> listed above "cower, cringe," which is a purely subjective reading of the
>> cause of these motions.
>
> They were neither cowering nor cringing. Those were involuntary reactions,
> described in Britannica's definition of "startle reactions", which
> includes "avoidance movement of the head".
>
Of course, "cringing" or "cowering" can also be involuntary reactions.
>>
>> Some dictionaries do not give a definition of "duck" in this sense that
>> simply refers to such a motion without a like connotation. As here:
>>
>> http://oxforddictionaries.com/definition/duck--2
>>
>> 1 [no object] lower the head or the body quickly to avoid a blow or
>> missile or so as not to be seen: spectators ducked for cover
>> [with object]: he ducked his head and entered
>> [with object] avoid (a blow or missile) by moving quickly: he ducked a
>> punch from an angry first baseman
>>
>> According to this dictionary, it would be inaccurate to use the word
>> "duck" (sans object) for Jackie's motion if she was actually lowering
>> her head to better see her dying husband.
>
>
> She was not examining her husband's head. She was looking down and away
> from him then.
>
> http://jfkhistory.com/312.jpg
>
> And the fact that all of these people reacted simultaneously is what
> settles the question.
To *you*, it does.
Those who disagree with you are not dishonest.
They just don't see it the way you do.
> They were startled by a loud noise then, which is
> why Greer slowed the limo and why the WC concluded that "most" relevant
> witnesses said the final shots were closely bunched.
>
> 285 and 312 were 1.5 seconds apart. Those were the ONLY two shots that
> were loud enough to startle the limo passengers.
>
> BTW, take a look at my question to mcadams, regarding Kellerman's
> reactions. Maybe you would like to take a shot at it.
>
You've directed the same questions to me, too, and more than once, if
memory serves. For some strange reason, you always insist that someone who
answers them all with a single answer in a single sentence is not
addressing your specific six-step breakdown of Kellerman's actions. If I
gave the same answer 6 numbered times, would that satisfy you?
No, because there is only one answer you will ever accept. You're not
going to get it, so you should resign yourself to being unsatisfied on
that score.
But since you're sure you're right and we're all wrong, you should make
your case to someone who can do something about it. Convince a journalist
for a respected publication to write the article that will blow the lid
off the JFK assassination once and for all.
Awww, but all the respected publications are in on the cover-up, right?
Darn it!
/sandy
> In article<4f9589a2$1...@mcadams.posc.mu.edu>,
your subjective interpretation of the respective motions all having a
single cause and simultaneous beginning.
>
>> You intend to convey the connotation also implied in two of the synonyms
>> listed above "cower, cringe," which is a purely subjective reading of the
>> cause of these motions.
>
> They were neither cowering nor cringing. Those were involuntary reactions,
> described in Britannica's definition of "startle reactions", which
> includes "avoidance movement of the head".
>
>>
>> Some dictionaries do not give a definition of "duck" in this sense that
>> simply refers to such a motion without a like connotation. As here:
>>
>> http://oxforddictionaries.com/definition/duck--2
>>
>> 1 [no object] lower the head or the body quickly to avoid a blow or
>> missile or so as not to be seen: spectators ducked for cover
>> [with object]: he ducked his head and entered
>> [with object] avoid (a blow or missile) by moving quickly: he ducked a
>> punch from an angry first baseman
>>
>> According to this dictionary, it would be inaccurate to use the word
>> "duck" (sans object) for Jackie's motion if she was actually lowering
>> her head to better see her dying husband.
>
>
> She was not examining her husband's head. She was looking down and away
> from him then.
>
> http://jfkhistory.com/312.jpg
>
> And the fact that all of these people reacted simultaneously is what
> settles the question.
Those who disagree with you are not dishonest.
They just don't see it the way you do.
> They were startled by a loud noise then, which is
> why Greer slowed the limo and why the WC concluded that "most" relevant
> witnesses said the final shots were closely bunched.
>
> 285 and 312 were 1.5 seconds apart. Those were the ONLY two shots that
> were loud enough to startle the limo passengers.
>
> BTW, take a look at my question to mcadams, regarding Kellerman's
> reactions. Maybe you would like to take a shot at it.
>
memory serves. For some strange reason, you always insist that someone who
answers them all with a single answer in a single sentence is not
addressing your specific six-step breakdown of Kellerman's actions. If I
gave the same answer 6 numbered times, would that satisfy you?
No, because there is only one answer you will ever accept. You're not
going to get it, so you should resign yourself to being unsatisfied on
that score.
But since you're sure you're right and we're all wrong, you should make
your case to someone who can do something about it. Convince a journalist
for a respected publication to write the article that will blow the lid
off the JFK assassination once and for all.
Awww, but all the respected publications are in on the cover-up, right?
Darn it!
/sandy
Ken McDonald
Apr 23, 2012, 11:11:35 PM4/23/12
to
news:bobharris77-726C...@70-3-168-216.pools.spcsdns.net...
Why didn't he duck? He was still looking back when you say everyone is
ducking. How do you know he is reacting to a shot at Z160? Did he tell
you?
>
>
>>
>> >
>> >> Why doesn't JFK duck?
>> >
>> > Probably because he was neurologically frozen by a bullet passing near
>> > cervical vertebrae in which nerves are connected that permit motion.
>> > For
>> > example his elbow extensors connected at C7, which is undoubtedly why
>> > his arms rose above his shoulders. Or at least, that is what two
>> > neurologists told me many years ago.
>>
>> Not true. Look at his right arm.
>
> Well, maybe you're smarting than the neurologists:-)
Those are the neurolgist's opinions, not facts. You do know the difference
don't you? Yes, his elbows rose quite high, but he did other things that
were not reflexive.
I can see what JFK does after he is shot through the neck. Obviously you
don't. You wouldn't have asked me to grab or clutch at my throat if you
did. I notice that you snipped that part out. It was embarrassing for you
wasn't it? Come on Robert, tell me what he does after he is shot through
the neck. Once you realize what he did, you will know he wasn't frozen,
but you can't admit it. His back brace may have prevented him from moving
forward, but he could have moved his head. I have no doubt about that. The
only reason he didn't lower his right arm down further is because it's on
the side of the limo.
>
>
>
>> It goes down on it's own. He was able to
>> move his head after the shot through his neck. He moved his body to the
>> left soon after too. So don't try to tell me he was frozen.
>
> There was only one person in that car who didn't react in perfect unison
> with the others, following the shot at 285. Maybe you have a better
> explanation for that, other than that he had been shot.
Greer didn't.
>
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7GH5pGQy6yI
Again.... Your video is misleading because you're not showing what
happened before or after. If you did, people would see what was really
going on.
Jackie continues to move her head down until Z313. She turns her head
towards JFK at Z290 (at that time she had to have seen JFK) and begins to
lower her head until Z313. She did this after she realized JBC was shot
and knew there was something wrong with her husband. You're never going to
get away with saying she wasn't moving to see what was wrong with him.
There's no snipping during a serious debate Robert. Why? It's obvious to
me that I wrote something you can't support. People can tell when you're
going down. You start with the "LOLs," the "sigh," and last but not least,
the snipping when things get really tough for you. Come on Robert. Tell me
what JFK does after he is shot through the neck. He wasn't frozen and that
ear shattering shockwave from the bullet at Z285 must have scared the hell
out of him. Yet, no reaction whatsoever.
Ken
ducking. How do you know he is reacting to a shot at Z160? Did he tell
you?
>
>
>>
>> >
>> >> Why doesn't JFK duck?
>> >
>> > Probably because he was neurologically frozen by a bullet passing near
>> > cervical vertebrae in which nerves are connected that permit motion.
>> > For
>> > example his elbow extensors connected at C7, which is undoubtedly why
>> > his arms rose above his shoulders. Or at least, that is what two
>> > neurologists told me many years ago.
>>
>> Not true. Look at his right arm.
>
> Well, maybe you're smarting than the neurologists:-)
don't you? Yes, his elbows rose quite high, but he did other things that
were not reflexive.
I can see what JFK does after he is shot through the neck. Obviously you
don't. You wouldn't have asked me to grab or clutch at my throat if you
did. I notice that you snipped that part out. It was embarrassing for you
wasn't it? Come on Robert, tell me what he does after he is shot through
the neck. Once you realize what he did, you will know he wasn't frozen,
but you can't admit it. His back brace may have prevented him from moving
forward, but he could have moved his head. I have no doubt about that. The
only reason he didn't lower his right arm down further is because it's on
the side of the limo.
>
>
>
>> It goes down on it's own. He was able to
>> move his head after the shot through his neck. He moved his body to the
>> left soon after too. So don't try to tell me he was frozen.
>
> There was only one person in that car who didn't react in perfect unison
> with the others, following the shot at 285. Maybe you have a better
> explanation for that, other than that he had been shot.
>
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7GH5pGQy6yI
Again.... Your video is misleading because you're not showing what
happened before or after. If you did, people would see what was really
going on.
Jackie continues to move her head down until Z313. She turns her head
towards JFK at Z290 (at that time she had to have seen JFK) and begins to
lower her head until Z313. She did this after she realized JBC was shot
and knew there was something wrong with her husband. You're never going to
get away with saying she wasn't moving to see what was wrong with him.
There's no snipping during a serious debate Robert. Why? It's obvious to
me that I wrote something you can't support. People can tell when you're
going down. You start with the "LOLs," the "sigh," and last but not least,
the snipping when things get really tough for you. Come on Robert. Tell me
what JFK does after he is shot through the neck. He wasn't frozen and that
ear shattering shockwave from the bullet at Z285 must have scared the hell
out of him. Yet, no reaction whatsoever.
Ken
Ken McDonald
Apr 24, 2012, 9:47:18 AM4/24/12
to
news:bobharris77-726C...@70-3-168-216.pools.spcsdns.net...
Somehow I missed this. How can you possibly tell where her eyes are
directed? You can't have her looking at JFK because it would refute your
"ducking" theory. This frame means nothing because you can't see her eyes
well enough to tell. If you start from when they came back into view after
the sign, everything falls into place, but you can't have that. You have
to start at Z274 so no one can see what happens before.
directed? You can't have her looking at JFK because it would refute your
"ducking" theory. This frame means nothing because you can't see her eyes
well enough to tell. If you start from when they came back into view after
the sign, everything falls into place, but you can't have that. You have
to start at Z274 so no one can see what happens before.
Jason Burke
Apr 24, 2012, 9:47:30 AM4/24/12
to
Jean Davison
Apr 24, 2012, 9:48:16 AM4/24/12
to jjdavi...@yahoo.com
On Apr 23, 8:20 pm, Robert Harris <bobharri...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> In article <4f9589a...@mcadams.posc.mu.edu>,
> > > In article <09o6p7905qe9fl30sv8o74sha4b8oq2...@4ax.com>,
> > > John McAdams <john.mcad...@marquette.edu> wrote:
>
> > >> On 21 Apr 2012 21:03:55 -0400, Robert Harris <bobharri...@yahoo.com>
You think these are startle reactions, but look at the
reactions to a loud noise on YouTube:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=icnRMW6P9nc&feature=related
As you can see there, in true startle reactions people tend to
"jump out of their skins." They typically raise their arms or shoulders,
make quick jerky movements, and look in the direction of the noise. If
they cover their ears, they cover *both* ears. None of the limo occupants
react in this way, much less all of them.
What is obvious to *you* is a subjective judgment on your
part. We don't see it that way.
If you'll look it up on Advanced Group Search, you'll see
that we've tried to tell you this over and over again.
http://groups.google.com/advanced_search?hl=en&q=&hl=en&
Jean
> In article <4f9589a...@mcadams.posc.mu.edu>,
> > > In article <09o6p7905qe9fl30sv8o74sha4b8oq2...@4ax.com>,
> > > John McAdams <john.mcad...@marquette.edu> wrote:
>
> > >> On 21 Apr 2012 21:03:55 -0400, Robert Harris <bobharri...@yahoo.com>
reactions to a loud noise on YouTube:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=icnRMW6P9nc&feature=related
As you can see there, in true startle reactions people tend to
"jump out of their skins." They typically raise their arms or shoulders,
make quick jerky movements, and look in the direction of the noise. If
they cover their ears, they cover *both* ears. None of the limo occupants
react in this way, much less all of them.
What is obvious to *you* is a subjective judgment on your
part. We don't see it that way.
If you'll look it up on Advanced Group Search, you'll see
that we've tried to tell you this over and over again.
http://groups.google.com/advanced_search?hl=en&q=&hl=en&
Jean
Ken McDonald
Apr 24, 2012, 9:48:54 AM4/24/12
to
news:bobharris77-6FE0...@70-3-168-216.pools.spcsdns.net...
That frame is meaningless. You can't tell where her eyes are directed. You
can't have her looking at JFK because your "ducking" or 'startle reaction"
theory won't allow it. If you watch the Zapruder film from the beginning,
all of the reactions fall into place and there is no "ducking" or "startle
reactions" except for JFK and JBC. She wasn't looking into space after she
saw what John Connally did. She was trying to see what was wrong with her
husband. That doesn't mean she was looking at his head. She already saw
his head before she began looking at John Connally and again when she
turned her attention back to JFK before she began to slowly lower her head
and turns it to the right. And she kept lowering it until Z313. That's not
a startle reaction, it's a conscious decision to lower her head to inspect
her husband whether you want to believe it or not. She turns her head away
from John Connally very quickly and lowers her head slowly.
>
> And the fact that all of these people reacted simultaneously is what
> settles the question. They were startled by a loud noise then, which is
> why Greer slowed the limo and why the WC concluded that "most" relevant
> witnesses said the final shots were closely bunched.
Greer was looking back beginning at Z278 and tha't when he probably took
his foot of the gas and he didn't duck.
>
> 285 and 312 were 1.5 seconds apart. Those were the ONLY two shots that
> were loud enough to startle the limo passengers.
The only people in the car that were startled were the two people that
were shot. You can see the beginning of both of them at Z225.
>
> BTW, take a look at my question to mcadams, regarding Kellerman's
> reactions. Maybe you would like to take a shot at it.
Kellerman bends down to get the mike and then is speaking into it with his
left hand.
Ken
can't have her looking at JFK because your "ducking" or 'startle reaction"
theory won't allow it. If you watch the Zapruder film from the beginning,
all of the reactions fall into place and there is no "ducking" or "startle
reactions" except for JFK and JBC. She wasn't looking into space after she
saw what John Connally did. She was trying to see what was wrong with her
husband. That doesn't mean she was looking at his head. She already saw
his head before she began looking at John Connally and again when she
turned her attention back to JFK before she began to slowly lower her head
and turns it to the right. And she kept lowering it until Z313. That's not
a startle reaction, it's a conscious decision to lower her head to inspect
her husband whether you want to believe it or not. She turns her head away
from John Connally very quickly and lowers her head slowly.
>
> And the fact that all of these people reacted simultaneously is what
> settles the question. They were startled by a loud noise then, which is
> why Greer slowed the limo and why the WC concluded that "most" relevant
> witnesses said the final shots were closely bunched.
his foot of the gas and he didn't duck.
>
> 285 and 312 were 1.5 seconds apart. Those were the ONLY two shots that
> were loud enough to startle the limo passengers.
were shot. You can see the beginning of both of them at Z225.
>
> BTW, take a look at my question to mcadams, regarding Kellerman's
> reactions. Maybe you would like to take a shot at it.
left hand.
Ken
Anthony Marsh
Apr 24, 2012, 6:31:48 PM4/24/12
to
when he is still behind the sign?
> looking into space after she saw what John Connally did. She was trying
> to see what was wrong with her husband. That doesn't mean she was
> looking at his head. She already saw his head before she began looking
> at John Connally and again when she turned her attention back to JFK
> before she began to slowly lower her head and turns it to the right. And
And a woman sees her husband shot in the head and she's not startled by
that?
> she kept lowering it until Z313. That's not a startle reaction, it's a
> conscious decision to lower her head to inspect her husband whether you
> want to believe it or not. She turns her head away from John Connally
> very quickly and lowers her head slowly.
>
>>
>> And the fact that all of these people reacted simultaneously is what
>> settles the question. They were startled by a loud noise then, which is
>> why Greer slowed the limo and why the WC concluded that "most" relevant
>> witnesses said the final shots were closely bunched.
>
> Greer was looking back beginning at Z278 and tha't when he probably took
> his foot of the gas and he didn't duck.
>
>>
>> 285 and 312 were 1.5 seconds apart. Those were the ONLY two shots that
>> were loud enough to startle the limo passengers.
>
> The only people in the car that were startled were the two people that
> were shot. You can see the beginning of both of them at Z225.
>
>>
>> BTW, take a look at my question to mcadams, regarding Kellerman's
>> reactions. Maybe you would like to take a shot at it.
>
> Kellerman bends down to get the mike and then is speaking into it with
> his left hand.
>
> Ken
Anthony Marsh
Apr 24, 2012, 6:32:50 PM4/24/12
to
because Greer was too busy firing the fatal head shot.
>>
>> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7GH5pGQy6yI
>
> Again.... Your video is misleading because you're not showing what
> happened before or after. If you did, people would see what was really
> going on.
>
> Jackie continues to move her head down until Z313. She turns her head
> towards JFK at Z290 (at that time she had to have seen JFK) and begins
> to lower her head until Z313. She did this after she realized JBC was
> shot and knew there was something wrong with her husband. You're never
> going to get away with saying she wasn't moving to see what was wrong
> with him.
>
> There's no snipping during a serious debate Robert. Why? It's obvious to
> me that I wrote something you can't support. People can tell when you're
> going down. You start with the "LOLs," the "sigh," and last but not
> least, the snipping when things get really tough for you. Come on
does not have to respond.
> Robert. Tell me what JFK does after he is shot through the neck. He
> wasn't frozen and that ear shattering shockwave from the bullet at Z285
> must have scared the hell out of him. Yet, no reaction whatsoever.
>
> Ken
Ken McDonald
Apr 24, 2012, 6:33:29 PM4/24/12
to
news:bobharris77-7762...@70-3-168-216.pools.spcsdns.net...
Don't know how I missed this. John Connally was a poor witness. There are
two accounts from him of what happened. His second interview and WCR
testimony don't match with his first interview. As far as I'm concerned
his statements are usesless. You can see what he really does in the
Zapruder film.
>
>
>> At Z276, JBC begins to fall
>> into Nellie's lap. Jackie is still looking at JBC. At Z291, Jackie
>> quickly
>> begins to turn her head towards JFK because of JBC's reaction.
>
> And how did you determine that? She began to duck at precisely 290,
> within the same 1/6th of a second, of reactions by every other surviving
> passenger in the limousine.
>
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7GH5pGQy6yI
Your video is misleading and out of context. Why not beging at Z223? I
know why. You don't want people to piece together what really happened.
two accounts from him of what happened. His second interview and WCR
testimony don't match with his first interview. As far as I'm concerned
his statements are usesless. You can see what he really does in the
Zapruder film.
>
>
>> At Z276, JBC begins to fall
>> into Nellie's lap. Jackie is still looking at JBC. At Z291, Jackie
>> quickly
>> begins to turn her head towards JFK because of JBC's reaction.
>
> And how did you determine that? She began to duck at precisely 290,
> within the same 1/6th of a second, of reactions by every other surviving
> passenger in the limousine.
>
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7GH5pGQy6yI
know why. You don't want people to piece together what really happened.
Lt.Bullitt
Apr 24, 2012, 6:35:53 PM4/24/12
to
On Apr 24, 9:48 am, "Ken McDonald" <kRmEcMdOoVnEaJlFd...@hotmail.com>
wrote:
> "Robert Harris" <bobharri...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>
> news:bobharris77-6FE0...@70-3-168-216.pools.spcsdns.net...
>
>
>
>
>
> > In article <4f9589a...@mcadams.posc.mu.edu>,
> >> > In article <09o6p7905qe9fl30sv8o74sha4b8oq2...@4ax.com>,
> >> > John McAdams <john.mcad...@marquette.edu> wrote:
>
> >> >> On 21 Apr 2012 21:03:55 -0400, Robert Harris <bobharri...@yahoo.com>
Yes, the limo passengers were incredibly startled by a z285 shot. But
because they were all seated, they didn't show the full startle effect of
the high powered rifle shot.
However, Jean Hill and Mary Moorman, only feet away from the limo at this
point, actually physically jumped out of their shoes following this shot.
But the zapruder film(and others) don't show this huge reaction. This is
proof the zapruder film was obviously altered. They are later shown in the
Bell film seated on the ground putting their shoes back on. This is
strong evidence of Zapruder film alteration.
wrote:
> "Robert Harris" <bobharri...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>
> news:bobharris77-6FE0...@70-3-168-216.pools.spcsdns.net...
>
>
>
>
>
> > In article <4f9589a...@mcadams.posc.mu.edu>,
> >> > In article <09o6p7905qe9fl30sv8o74sha4b8oq2...@4ax.com>,
> >> > John McAdams <john.mcad...@marquette.edu> wrote:
>
> >> >> On 21 Apr 2012 21:03:55 -0400, Robert Harris <bobharri...@yahoo.com>
because they were all seated, they didn't show the full startle effect of
the high powered rifle shot.
However, Jean Hill and Mary Moorman, only feet away from the limo at this
point, actually physically jumped out of their shoes following this shot.
But the zapruder film(and others) don't show this huge reaction. This is
proof the zapruder film was obviously altered. They are later shown in the
Bell film seated on the ground putting their shoes back on. This is
strong evidence of Zapruder film alteration.
Sandy McCroskey
Apr 24, 2012, 6:37:27 PM4/24/12
to
Robert Harris wrote:
> In article <4f9589a2$1...@mcadams.posc.mu.edu>,
> Sandy McCroskey <gwmcc...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>
>>>
>> To my eye, the respective motions of the individuals in question start at
>> different points,
>
> I have all of them beginning at 290-292. What frame numbers do you see?
>
I missed this part of your reply, but I only want to point out that
> In article <4f9589a2$1...@mcadams.posc.mu.edu>,
> Sandy McCroskey <gwmcc...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>
>>>
>> To my eye, the respective motions of the individuals in question start at
>> different points,
>
> I have all of them beginning at 290-292. What frame numbers do you see?
>
we've been thru this before. We've had this entire conversation. Do you
remember me, Bob?
Right now I can't look up the frame numbers again and I see no reason to
repeat myself anyway, as you'll just be back in a few months with the
same identical question.
/sandy
Robert Harris
Apr 24, 2012, 8:32:06 PM4/24/12
to
In article <ALOdnYNb1crNtgvS...@giganews.com>,
I don't think most people I have talked to would agree with you. But at
the very least, we can see where her eyes are NOT directed.
> You
> can't have her looking at JFK because your "ducking" or 'startle reaction"
> theory won't allow it.
I don't know how to break this to you Ken, but I had nothing to do with
JFK ducking and looking down and away from her husband.
And the fact that her reaction began in the same 1/6th of a second of all
the other reactions, pretty much settles the issue.
If five of us tried to the very best of our ability, to duck within such a
miniscule time span we probably couldn't do it, at least not until after a
LOT of tries.
That was not a coincidence.
> If you watch the Zapruder film from the beginning,
> all of the reactions fall into place and there is no "ducking" or "startle
> reactions" except for JFK and JBC.
Neither JFK nor John Connally ducked.
The only ones who ducked were Jackie, Nellie and Roy Kellerman, and they
did so in perfect unison with one another.
Kellerman's reactions in particular, could only have been caused by
being startled.
> She wasn't looking into space after she
> saw what John Connally did.
I really don't understand this "looking into space" business. Are you
talking about Mrs. Kennedy or this something you're experiencing
personally:-)
> She was trying to see what was wrong with her
> husband.
Well then, she was undoubtedly delighted to learn this his feet were still
in pretty good shape.
I'm sorry to be picking on you like this, Ken. I suspect that you're
pretty new at this stuff. But you really ought to let more experienced
nutters carry the banner here.
John McAdams for example, would be a much better candidate.
Robert Harris
the very least, we can see where her eyes are NOT directed.
> You
> can't have her looking at JFK because your "ducking" or 'startle reaction"
> theory won't allow it.
JFK ducking and looking down and away from her husband.
And the fact that her reaction began in the same 1/6th of a second of all
the other reactions, pretty much settles the issue.
If five of us tried to the very best of our ability, to duck within such a
miniscule time span we probably couldn't do it, at least not until after a
LOT of tries.
That was not a coincidence.
> If you watch the Zapruder film from the beginning,
> all of the reactions fall into place and there is no "ducking" or "startle
> reactions" except for JFK and JBC.
The only ones who ducked were Jackie, Nellie and Roy Kellerman, and they
did so in perfect unison with one another.
Kellerman's reactions in particular, could only have been caused by
being startled.
> She wasn't looking into space after she
> saw what John Connally did.
talking about Mrs. Kennedy or this something you're experiencing
personally:-)
> She was trying to see what was wrong with her
> husband.
in pretty good shape.
I'm sorry to be picking on you like this, Ken. I suspect that you're
pretty new at this stuff. But you really ought to let more experienced
nutters carry the banner here.
John McAdams for example, would be a much better candidate.
Robert Harris
Robert Harris
Apr 24, 2012, 8:33:27 PM4/24/12
to
In article
<784b0bd9-aa60-45b9...@p6g2000yqi.googlegroups.com>,
Jean Davison <jean.d...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Apr 23, 8:20?pm, Robert Harris <bobharri...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > In article <4f9589a...@mcadams.posc.mu.edu>,
It doesn't matter how you "see" it Jean. What matters is reality.
Britannica says this, about "startle reactions"
"it is characterized by involuntary bending of the limbs and a spasmodic
avoidance movement of the head. Musculature returns to normal in less
than one second,"
Ducking or dropping one's head is exactly what an "avoidance movement of
the head is", and three of the limo passengers did exactly that in
almost perfect unison with one another.
Look at this video from the 1996 explosion at the Olympic village in
Atlanta. Notice all the people simultaneously dropping their heads.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gUgbuG_8dWw&feature=related
Another defining aspect of a startle reaction is, "Musculature returns
to normal in less than one second,".
Sometimes that's hard to determine, since after someone ducks, it may
well be that after regaining control of their movements, they will
decide to stay down.
But in Roy Kellerman's case, we can see exactly when his startle
reactions began and when they ended. Watch him carefully in this
animation by Robin Unger, paying particular attention to his reactions
prior to the fatal headshot.
http://jfkhistory.com/285reactions.gif
He simultaneously, dropped his head as he twisted it to his right and
simultaneously raised his left hand to his ear.
As his "musculature returns", he straightens back up, turns his head
back to a forward position, and drops his left hand from his ear - all
within a single second - just as Britannica said it would.
We probably couldn't see a better example of a startle reaction, if we
had hired someone to do it.
Robert Harris
<784b0bd9-aa60-45b9...@p6g2000yqi.googlegroups.com>,
Jean Davison <jean.d...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Apr 23, 8:20?pm, Robert Harris <bobharri...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > In article <4f9589a...@mcadams.posc.mu.edu>,
> > ?Sandy McCroskey <gwmccros...@earthlink.net> wrote:
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > > Robert Harris wrote:
> > > > In article <09o6p7905qe9fl30sv8o74sha4b8oq2...@4ax.com>,
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > > Robert Harris wrote:
> > > > In article <09o6p7905qe9fl30sv8o74sha4b8oq2...@4ax.com>,
> > > > ?John McAdams <john.mcad...@marquette.edu> wrote:
> >
> > > >> On 21 Apr 2012 21:03:55 -0400, Robert Harris <bobharri...@yahoo.com>
> > > >> wrote:
> >
> > > >>> John's statement,
> >
> > > >>> "How does one 'refute' a wacko perception that people in the limo are
> > > >>> doing something ("ducking") that they clearly aren't doing."
> >
> > > >>> For those who might be new to the subject, these are the reactions at
> > > >>> issue:
> >
> > > >>>http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7GH5pGQy6yI
> >
> > > >>> For a more detailed, slow motion view, which includes the startle
> > > >>> reactions following both 285 and 312:
> >
> > > >>>http://jfkhistory.com/285reactions.gif
> >
> > > >>> First of all John, let's define our terms. Would you agree that
> > > >>> someone
> > > >>> dropping his head forward and downward by 30 or more degrees was
> > > >>> ducking?
> >
> > > >> No, Bob. ?"Ducking" implies they were trying to get out of the line of
> >
> > > >> On 21 Apr 2012 21:03:55 -0400, Robert Harris <bobharri...@yahoo.com>
> > > >> wrote:
> >
> > > >>> John's statement,
> >
> > > >>> "How does one 'refute' a wacko perception that people in the limo are
> > > >>> doing something ("ducking") that they clearly aren't doing."
> >
> > > >>> For those who might be new to the subject, these are the reactions at
> > > >>> issue:
> >
> > > >>>http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7GH5pGQy6yI
> >
> > > >>> For a more detailed, slow motion view, which includes the startle
> > > >>> reactions following both 285 and 312:
> >
> > > >>>http://jfkhistory.com/285reactions.gif
> >
> > > >>> First of all John, let's define our terms. Would you agree that
> > > >>> someone
> > > >>> dropping his head forward and downward by 30 or more degrees was
> > > >>> ducking?
> >
Britannica says this, about "startle reactions"
"it is characterized by involuntary bending of the limbs and a spasmodic
avoidance movement of the head. Musculature returns to normal in less
than one second,"
Ducking or dropping one's head is exactly what an "avoidance movement of
the head is", and three of the limo passengers did exactly that in
almost perfect unison with one another.
Look at this video from the 1996 explosion at the Olympic village in
Atlanta. Notice all the people simultaneously dropping their heads.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gUgbuG_8dWw&feature=related
Another defining aspect of a startle reaction is, "Musculature returns
to normal in less than one second,".
Sometimes that's hard to determine, since after someone ducks, it may
well be that after regaining control of their movements, they will
decide to stay down.
But in Roy Kellerman's case, we can see exactly when his startle
reactions began and when they ended. Watch him carefully in this
animation by Robin Unger, paying particular attention to his reactions
prior to the fatal headshot.
http://jfkhistory.com/285reactions.gif
He simultaneously, dropped his head as he twisted it to his right and
simultaneously raised his left hand to his ear.
As his "musculature returns", he straightens back up, turns his head
back to a forward position, and drops his left hand from his ear - all
within a single second - just as Britannica said it would.
We probably couldn't see a better example of a startle reaction, if we
had hired someone to do it.
Robert Harris
Robert Harris
Apr 24, 2012, 8:34:17 PM4/24/12
to
In article <4f96...@mcadams.posc.mu.edu>,
This has nothing to do with my "subjective interpretation". It is based
on the following:
1. The fact that every nonvictim in the limousine reacted within the
same 1/6th of a second.
2. The analyses of Drs. Alvarez and Stroscio who both confirmed that
there was a loud noise at frame 285. Stroscio disgreed with Alvarez's
speculation that this was siren of course.
3. The overwhelming consensus of the relevant witnesses in DP that day
that there were two "closely bunched" shots at the end of the attack, as
the Warren Commission confirmed.
4. The testimonies of the limo passengers who reacted:
Greer said the last two shots he heard were nearly simultaneous.
Kellerman said that he heard two closely spaced shots at the end of the
attack, which he likened to a pair of sonic booms.
Jackie described two "terrible noises" which followed Gov Connally
beginning to shout, which we know he did in the 240's.
Mrs. Connally reported a "second shot" AFTER she looked back and saw JFK
in distress, which happened during the late 250's. She believed
(incorrectly) that that was when her husband was wounded, and we can see
her turn back to him as she reacted simultaneously with the other
surviving passengers.
5. Clint Hill testified that he jumped to the pavement in direct
reaction to a gunshot, which could only have been the one at 285. His
mistaken belief that JFK FIRST reacted at the same time that he was
jumping, confirms that he was not describing one of the early shots.
6. Charles Brehm heard the first of a series of shots when the President
was "15-20 feet" from his. At 285, Brehm was 18 feet from JFK, plus or
minus no more than a foot or two.
7. Jean Hill and Mary Moorman's statements mimicked Brehm. They both heard
a series of shots beginning as the limo approached them. Jean Hill in
fact, can be seen reacting to a shot by snapping her head to the right and
away from the president, just before the limo passed by her.
8. The 285 shot provides a perfect explanation for the missed shot which
apparently struck pavement or concrete and shattered, sending a chunk of
lead to strike the Main St. curbing and a tiny piece of debris to nick
James Tague.
While I firmly believe as you do, that there was a shot circa frame 160,
there is 20 times the evidence for a shot at 285.
And anyone trying to claim that I base this analysis on "subjective
interpretation", needs to stop employing childish insults and get serious.
This is the real thing, Sandy. This is what REALLY happened.
Robert Harris
on the following:
1. The fact that every nonvictim in the limousine reacted within the
same 1/6th of a second.
2. The analyses of Drs. Alvarez and Stroscio who both confirmed that
there was a loud noise at frame 285. Stroscio disgreed with Alvarez's
speculation that this was siren of course.
3. The overwhelming consensus of the relevant witnesses in DP that day
that there were two "closely bunched" shots at the end of the attack, as
the Warren Commission confirmed.
4. The testimonies of the limo passengers who reacted:
Greer said the last two shots he heard were nearly simultaneous.
Kellerman said that he heard two closely spaced shots at the end of the
attack, which he likened to a pair of sonic booms.
Jackie described two "terrible noises" which followed Gov Connally
beginning to shout, which we know he did in the 240's.
Mrs. Connally reported a "second shot" AFTER she looked back and saw JFK
in distress, which happened during the late 250's. She believed
(incorrectly) that that was when her husband was wounded, and we can see
her turn back to him as she reacted simultaneously with the other
surviving passengers.
5. Clint Hill testified that he jumped to the pavement in direct
reaction to a gunshot, which could only have been the one at 285. His
mistaken belief that JFK FIRST reacted at the same time that he was
jumping, confirms that he was not describing one of the early shots.
6. Charles Brehm heard the first of a series of shots when the President
was "15-20 feet" from his. At 285, Brehm was 18 feet from JFK, plus or
minus no more than a foot or two.
7. Jean Hill and Mary Moorman's statements mimicked Brehm. They both heard
a series of shots beginning as the limo approached them. Jean Hill in
fact, can be seen reacting to a shot by snapping her head to the right and
away from the president, just before the limo passed by her.
8. The 285 shot provides a perfect explanation for the missed shot which
apparently struck pavement or concrete and shattered, sending a chunk of
lead to strike the Main St. curbing and a tiny piece of debris to nick
James Tague.
While I firmly believe as you do, that there was a shot circa frame 160,
there is 20 times the evidence for a shot at 285.
And anyone trying to claim that I base this analysis on "subjective
interpretation", needs to stop employing childish insults and get serious.
This is the real thing, Sandy. This is what REALLY happened.
Robert Harris
Ken McDonald
Apr 24, 2012, 8:40:52 PM4/24/12
to
Ken McDonald
Apr 24, 2012, 8:51:50 PM4/24/12
to
at Z225 through Z262 and then try to tell me he was in no condition again.
Ken McDonald
Apr 24, 2012, 8:55:29 PM4/24/12
to
Ken McDonald
Apr 24, 2012, 11:19:31 PM4/24/12
to
news:bobharris77-D9AF...@70-3-168-216.pools.spcsdns.net...
You can't see her pupils or the whites of her eyes so you can't say what
she was looking at with certainty.
>
>
>> You
>> can't have her looking at JFK because your "ducking" or 'startle
>> reaction"
>> theory won't allow it.
>
> I don't know how to break this to you Ken, but I had nothing to do with
> JFK ducking and looking down and away from her husband.
She didn't duck and you can't see her pupils or the whites of her eyes so
you can't say she was looking down and away from JFK. She turned her head
from JBC and towards JFK and began lowering her head lower and lower until
Z313.
>
> And the fact that her reaction began in the same 1/6th of a second of all
> the other reactions, pretty much settles the issue.
That's because they all became aware that JFK and JBC were shot.
>
> If five of us tried to the very best of our ability, to duck within such a
> miniscule time span we probably couldn't do it, at least not until after a
> LOT of tries.
>
> That was not a coincidence.
>
>
>> If you watch the Zapruder film from the beginning,
>> all of the reactions fall into place and there is no "ducking" or
>> "startle
>> reactions" except for JFK and JBC.
>
>
> Neither JFK nor John Connally ducked.
That's because there wasn't a shot at Z285. That ear shattering noise at
Z285 had to scare the hell out of both of them. Yet, no reaction,
whatsoever.
> The only ones who ducked were Jackie, Nellie and Roy Kellerman, and they
> did so in perfect unison with one another.
Jackie didn't duck. She turned her head towards JFK and began to lower
little by little until Z313.
Nellie was looking at JFK and then turned her head towards Connally
beginning at Z290. She didn't duck.
Kellerman bent forward to pick up the michrophone and spoke into it.
> Kellerman's reactions in particular, could only have been caused by
> being startled.
Kellerman bent forward to pick up the michrophone and spoke into it.
>
>
>
>> She wasn't looking into space after she
>> saw what John Connally did.
>
> I really don't understand this "looking into space" business. Are you
> talking about Mrs. Kennedy or this something you're experiencing
> personally:-)
>
When I say 'looking into space" I mean looking at nothing like she doesn't
have a care in the world. She was looking at something and it wasn't JFKs
feet.
>
>> She was trying to see what was wrong with her
>> husband.
>
> Well then, she was undoubtedly delighted to learn this his feet were still
> in pretty good shape.
You can't see her pupils or the whites of her eyes so you don't know what
she's looking at. She was looking at something and it wasn't JFKs feet. I
have a better understanding of what happens in the Zapruder film than you
do. I'm not using a snippet out of context to prove a theory. If you look
at the Zapruder film from the beginning, everything falls into place.
< I'm sorry to be picking on you like this, Ken. I suspect that you're
> pretty new at this stuff. But you really ought to let more experienced
> nutters carry the banner here.
You're picking on me? I'm not the one snipping and evading questions. Tell
me Robert. What does JFK do beginning at Z225 through Z262? I know you
can't answer or don't want to, but give it a try. You're the one that
brought up "grabbing at throat or clutching at throat" in the first place.
Why do you keep snipping that part out. Eveyone reading this thread can
see what you're doing. You're not getting away with anything.
Ken
she was looking at with certainty.
>
>
>> You
>> can't have her looking at JFK because your "ducking" or 'startle
>> reaction"
>> theory won't allow it.
>
> I don't know how to break this to you Ken, but I had nothing to do with
> JFK ducking and looking down and away from her husband.
you can't say she was looking down and away from JFK. She turned her head
from JBC and towards JFK and began lowering her head lower and lower until
Z313.
>
> And the fact that her reaction began in the same 1/6th of a second of all
> the other reactions, pretty much settles the issue.
>
> If five of us tried to the very best of our ability, to duck within such a
> miniscule time span we probably couldn't do it, at least not until after a
> LOT of tries.
>
> That was not a coincidence.
>
>
>> If you watch the Zapruder film from the beginning,
>> all of the reactions fall into place and there is no "ducking" or
>> "startle
>> reactions" except for JFK and JBC.
>
>
> Neither JFK nor John Connally ducked.
Z285 had to scare the hell out of both of them. Yet, no reaction,
whatsoever.
> The only ones who ducked were Jackie, Nellie and Roy Kellerman, and they
> did so in perfect unison with one another.
little by little until Z313.
Nellie was looking at JFK and then turned her head towards Connally
beginning at Z290. She didn't duck.
Kellerman bent forward to pick up the michrophone and spoke into it.
> Kellerman's reactions in particular, could only have been caused by
> being startled.
>
>
>
>> She wasn't looking into space after she
>> saw what John Connally did.
>
> I really don't understand this "looking into space" business. Are you
> talking about Mrs. Kennedy or this something you're experiencing
> personally:-)
>
have a care in the world. She was looking at something and it wasn't JFKs
feet.
>
>> She was trying to see what was wrong with her
>> husband.
>
> Well then, she was undoubtedly delighted to learn this his feet were still
> in pretty good shape.
she's looking at. She was looking at something and it wasn't JFKs feet. I
have a better understanding of what happens in the Zapruder film than you
do. I'm not using a snippet out of context to prove a theory. If you look
at the Zapruder film from the beginning, everything falls into place.
< I'm sorry to be picking on you like this, Ken. I suspect that you're
> pretty new at this stuff. But you really ought to let more experienced
> nutters carry the banner here.
me Robert. What does JFK do beginning at Z225 through Z262? I know you
can't answer or don't want to, but give it a try. You're the one that
brought up "grabbing at throat or clutching at throat" in the first place.
Why do you keep snipping that part out. Eveyone reading this thread can
see what you're doing. You're not getting away with anything.
Ken
Robert Harris
Apr 24, 2012, 11:54:08 PM4/24/12
to
In article
<bobharris77-40EF...@70-3-168-216.pools.spcsdns.net>,
If these are not sufficient to convince you, let me give you a few more.
The best and most alert witnesses in DP that day were undoubtedly, the
Secret Service agents. And their statements become far more compelling
when they can be verfied in the films and photos.
SA Hickey riding in the followup car stated in his report that he heard
a shot, turned to the rear, then turned to check the President, after
which he heard two more shots.
In the Altgens photo taken at the equivalent of frame 255, we can see
that HIckey was still turned to the rear. He was yet to turn toward the
President and yet to hear those last two shots.
SA Taylor, riding in the VP's car said he heard one shot, stepped out of
the car and then heard two more shots.
But although his door was open in the Altgens photo, it is clear that he
has not yet stepped out and therefore, was yet to hear those last two
shots.
SA Glen Bennett was cited in "Case Closed" as a key witness for the LN
theory. Like some of the others, he heard a noise and turned to look to
his right. He said he then turned to check the President and heard the
shot that he thought, hit JFK in the back. He said it was followed
"immediately" by the fatal head shot.
But in the Altgens photo, we once again see that he was still turned to
his right at 255, and yet to turn toward the President and hear those
two shots. Like the others, he never heard the shot at 223 and
incorrectly believed that the 285 shot was the one that hit Kennedy.
To properly understand the shooting, one needs to realize that the 160
shot was heard by not very loud. The 223 shot was completely or almost
completely silent. That's why the overwhelming majority of witnesses
only heard one shot prior to the very end.
Would you like a few more?
Robert Harris
<bobharris77-40EF...@70-3-168-216.pools.spcsdns.net>,
The best and most alert witnesses in DP that day were undoubtedly, the
Secret Service agents. And their statements become far more compelling
when they can be verfied in the films and photos.
SA Hickey riding in the followup car stated in his report that he heard
a shot, turned to the rear, then turned to check the President, after
which he heard two more shots.
In the Altgens photo taken at the equivalent of frame 255, we can see
that HIckey was still turned to the rear. He was yet to turn toward the
President and yet to hear those last two shots.
SA Taylor, riding in the VP's car said he heard one shot, stepped out of
the car and then heard two more shots.
But although his door was open in the Altgens photo, it is clear that he
has not yet stepped out and therefore, was yet to hear those last two
shots.
SA Glen Bennett was cited in "Case Closed" as a key witness for the LN
theory. Like some of the others, he heard a noise and turned to look to
his right. He said he then turned to check the President and heard the
shot that he thought, hit JFK in the back. He said it was followed
"immediately" by the fatal head shot.
But in the Altgens photo, we once again see that he was still turned to
his right at 255, and yet to turn toward the President and hear those
two shots. Like the others, he never heard the shot at 223 and
incorrectly believed that the 285 shot was the one that hit Kennedy.
To properly understand the shooting, one needs to realize that the 160
shot was heard by not very loud. The 223 shot was completely or almost
completely silent. That's why the overwhelming majority of witnesses
only heard one shot prior to the very end.
Would you like a few more?
Robert Harris
Sandy McCroskey
Apr 25, 2012, 5:46:23 PM4/25/12
to
On 4/24/12 8:34 PM, Robert Harris wrote:
> In article<4f96...@mcadams.posc.mu.edu>,
This is what Bob Harris thinks happened.
Or wants to think.
Hmm... He sure seems to spend a lot of time trying to convince other people.
Is he convinced, himself?
I wonder.
Because self-doubt is often the reason for such acting out.
/sm
> In article<4f96...@mcadams.posc.mu.edu>,
Or wants to think.
Hmm... He sure seems to spend a lot of time trying to convince other people.
Is he convinced, himself?
I wonder.
Because self-doubt is often the reason for such acting out.
/sm
Anthony Marsh
Apr 25, 2012, 5:48:30 PM4/25/12
to
Sandy McCroskey
Apr 25, 2012, 5:51:24 PM4/25/12
to
I'm not buying.
End of story.
/sm
Robert Harris
Apr 25, 2012, 5:55:55 PM4/25/12
to
In article
<bobharris77-3F8F...@70-3-168-216.pools.spcsdns.net>,
In case anyone doubts my claims here, I posted this blowup from the
Altgens photo at my forum last year. In it I pointed out each of those
agents.
Robert Harris
<bobharris77-3F8F...@70-3-168-216.pools.spcsdns.net>,
Altgens photo at my forum last year. In it I pointed out each of those
agents.
Robert Harris
Robert Harris
Apr 25, 2012, 5:56:15 PM4/25/12
to
In article
<7309338c-e96c-4a9b...@w5g2000vbp.googlegroups.com>,
At 285, the loudest noise by far, was the shock wave from the passing
bullet which generated a 130 decibel level within a radius of 10 feet.
But beyond that 10 feet, the level dropped off very rapidly.
Brehm, J. Hill and Moorman were three to six times further away from the
bullet's path than the passengers were, which is why their reactions
were not nearly as dramatic and visible. At the same time the limo
passengers reacted, they were only flinching.
It requires a VERY high sound level, to provoke the kind of reactions we
see following 285 and 313.
Robert Harris
<7309338c-e96c-4a9b...@w5g2000vbp.googlegroups.com>,
bullet which generated a 130 decibel level within a radius of 10 feet.
But beyond that 10 feet, the level dropped off very rapidly.
Brehm, J. Hill and Moorman were three to six times further away from the
bullet's path than the passengers were, which is why their reactions
were not nearly as dramatic and visible. At the same time the limo
passengers reacted, they were only flinching.
It requires a VERY high sound level, to provoke the kind of reactions we
see following 285 and 313.
Robert Harris
timstter
Apr 25, 2012, 5:57:00 PM4/25/12
to
On Apr 22, 9:46 pm, Anthony Marsh <anthony.ma...@comcast.net> wrote:
> were coming from three different locations.
>
> > Jackie was looking into her husband's face.
>
> > Nellie was looking into *her* husband's face.
>
> They weren't startled by what they saw? They saw their husbands shot all
> the time like a regular routine?
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > Kellerman was leaning forward, probably (if memory serves) to get the
> > microphone in front of him.
>
> > I have answered you dozens of times in the past.
>
> > You just haven't liked the answers.
>
> > You can't badger and hector people into agreeing with you, Bob.
>
> > If you continue to demand that I see something *you want me to see*
> > (which is not in the film) you are merely harassing me.
>
> > I've given you an answer.
>
> > If you don't like the answer, tough.
>
> > You have to accept that you are *not* going to get any other answer.
>
> > .John
> > --------------
> >http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/home.htm
OIC, three different locations that shots were coming from, eh?
Any verifiable proof proof for this statement, Marsh?
Curious Regards,
Tim Brennan
Sydney, Australia
*Newsgroup(s) Commentator*
> On 4/21/2012 9:43 PM, John McAdams wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > On 21 Apr 2012 21:03:55 -0400, Robert Harris<bobharri...@yahoo.com>
> > wrote:
>
> >> John's statement,
>
> >> "How does one 'refute' a wacko perception that people in the limo are
> >> doing something ("ducking") that they clearly aren't doing."
>
> >> For those who might be new to the subject, these are the reactions at
> >> issue:
>
> >>http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7GH5pGQy6yI
>
> >> For a more detailed, slow motion view, which includes the startle
> >> reactions following both 285 and 312:
>
> >>http://jfkhistory.com/285reactions.gif
>
> >> First of all John, let's define our terms. Would you agree that someone
> >> dropping his head forward and downward by 30 or more degrees was ducking?
>
> > No, Bob. "Ducking" implies they were trying to get out of the line of
> > fire, or some such.
>
> How would they even know where the line of fire was? Especially if shots
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > On 21 Apr 2012 21:03:55 -0400, Robert Harris<bobharri...@yahoo.com>
> > wrote:
>
> >> John's statement,
>
> >> "How does one 'refute' a wacko perception that people in the limo are
> >> doing something ("ducking") that they clearly aren't doing."
>
> >> For those who might be new to the subject, these are the reactions at
> >> issue:
>
> >>http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7GH5pGQy6yI
>
> >> For a more detailed, slow motion view, which includes the startle
> >> reactions following both 285 and 312:
>
> >>http://jfkhistory.com/285reactions.gif
>
> >> First of all John, let's define our terms. Would you agree that someone
> >> dropping his head forward and downward by 30 or more degrees was ducking?
>
> > No, Bob. "Ducking" implies they were trying to get out of the line of
> > fire, or some such.
>
> were coming from three different locations.
>
>
>
> >> And would you agree that three people doing that in perfect unison with
> >> one another suggests that they were startled?
>
> > There weren't startled. It's obvious what they were doing.
>
>
> >> And would you agree that three people doing that in perfect unison with
> >> one another suggests that they were startled?
>
>
> > Jackie was looking into her husband's face.
>
> > Nellie was looking into *her* husband's face.
>
> They weren't startled by what they saw? They saw their husbands shot all
> the time like a regular routine?
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > Kellerman was leaning forward, probably (if memory serves) to get the
> > microphone in front of him.
>
> >> I really hope you don't intend to run from these issues like you have in
> >> the past, john.
>
> > that's untrue Bob, and you *know* it's untrue.
> >> I really hope you don't intend to run from these issues like you have in
> >> the past, john.
>
>
> > I have answered you dozens of times in the past.
>
> > You just haven't liked the answers.
>
> > You can't badger and hector people into agreeing with you, Bob.
>
> >> No one is demanding that you agree with me. But you do
> >> need to defend your own claims. And you need to stop pretending that you
> >> are being "harassed" when you are asked to do so.
>
> > Bob, I've stated quite clearly what the film shows.
> >> No one is demanding that you agree with me. But you do
> >> need to defend your own claims. And you need to stop pretending that you
> >> are being "harassed" when you are asked to do so.
>
>
> > If you continue to demand that I see something *you want me to see*
> > (which is not in the film) you are merely harassing me.
>
> > I've given you an answer.
>
> > If you don't like the answer, tough.
>
> > You have to accept that you are *not* going to get any other answer.
>
> > .John
> > --------------
> >http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/home.htm
OIC, three different locations that shots were coming from, eh?
Any verifiable proof proof for this statement, Marsh?
Curious Regards,
Tim Brennan
Sydney, Australia
*Newsgroup(s) Commentator*
Hank Sienzant (AKA Joe Zircon)
Apr 25, 2012, 5:57:23 PM4/25/12
to hsie...@aol.com
On Apr 21, 10:54 pm, "Ken McDonald" <kRmEcMdOoVnEaJlFd...@hotmail.com>
> news:bobharris77-7208...@70-3-168-216.pools.spcsdns.net...
> there like a statue. I know he was wearing a brace, but that wouldn't keep
> him from moving his head due to an ear shattering sound like you propose.
>
> Ken
JFK was momentarily paralyzed from a shot through the neck that caused his
elbows to splay outward and he really couldn't do much of anything. It's
called the Thorburn position and it's been written about before. If you
ever watched the path of a bullet through ballistic gelation you will get
an idea of the forces at work inside JFK's neck as the bullet passed
through - although of course it happens in a microsecond and too quickly
for the film to capture.
Here's one example:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mFvrr9s_M-4
> news:bobharris77-7208...@70-3-168-216.pools.spcsdns.net...
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > John's statement,
>
> > "How does one 'refute' a wacko perception that people in the limo are
> > doing something ("ducking") that they clearly aren't doing."
>
> > For those who might be new to the subject, these are the reactions at
> > issue:
>
> >http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7GH5pGQy6yI
>
> > For a more detailed, slow motion view, which includes the startle
> > reactions following both 285 and 312:
>
> >http://jfkhistory.com/285reactions.gif
>
> > First of all John, let's define our terms. Would you agree that someone
> > dropping his head forward and downward by 30 or more degrees was ducking?
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > John's statement,
>
> > "How does one 'refute' a wacko perception that people in the limo are
> > doing something ("ducking") that they clearly aren't doing."
>
> > For those who might be new to the subject, these are the reactions at
> > issue:
>
> >http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7GH5pGQy6yI
>
> > For a more detailed, slow motion view, which includes the startle
> > reactions following both 285 and 312:
>
> >http://jfkhistory.com/285reactions.gif
>
> > First of all John, let's define our terms. Would you agree that someone
> > dropping his head forward and downward by 30 or more degrees was ducking?
>
> > And would you agree that three people doing that in perfect unison with
> > one another suggests that they were startled?
>
> > one another suggests that they were startled?
>
> > I really hope you don't intend to run from these issues like you have in
> > the past, john. No one is demanding that you agree with me. But you do
> > need to defend your own claims. And you need to stop pretending that you
> > are being "harassed" when you are asked to do so.
>
> > are being "harassed" when you are asked to do so.
>
> > Robert Harris
>
> I know this isn't going to make any difference, but here goes. I know
> you're "stuck" on this ducking theory, but you're wrong.
>
> The videos that you show are misleading. I know why you don't show them.
> Let's go back to Z246 when Jackie places her hand on JFK's left arm and
> begins to pull it down. It looks to me like she is looking at JFK at this
> point. At Z251 she begins to turn her head towards JBC while still pulling
> JFK's left arm down. Meanwhile JBC begins to face JFK around Z256. At Z272
> he is definitely turned enough to see JFK. At Z276, JBC begins to fall
>
> I know this isn't going to make any difference, but here goes. I know
> you're "stuck" on this ducking theory, but you're wrong.
>
> The videos that you show are misleading. I know why you don't show them.
> Let's go back to Z246 when Jackie places her hand on JFK's left arm and
> begins to pull it down. It looks to me like she is looking at JFK at this
> point. At Z251 she begins to turn her head towards JBC while still pulling
> JFK's left arm down. Meanwhile JBC begins to face JFK around Z256. At Z272
> into Nellie's lap. Jackie is still looking at JBC. At Z291, Jackie quickly
> begins to turn her head towards JFK because of JBC's reaction. Jackie was
> turned towards JBC since she began at Z251. JBC knows that he has been
> shot and now knows that JFK was shot too. Hence "they're going to kill us
> all." Jackie continues to lower her head and turn it to look at JFK. She
> shot and now knows that JFK was shot too. Hence "they're going to kill us
> knows something is wrong due to JBC's actions. Don't try to tell me she's
> not looking at JBC. She isn't turned towards him and staring into space.
> After Z285, they have come to realize that both JFK and JBC have been shot
> and everyone is reacting to it. It's so easy to see if you start from the
> beginning. Why doesn't Greer Duck? Why doesn't JFK duck? He's just sitting
> and everyone is reacting to it. It's so easy to see if you start from the
> there like a statue. I know he was wearing a brace, but that wouldn't keep
> him from moving his head due to an ear shattering sound like you propose.
>
> Ken
JFK was momentarily paralyzed from a shot through the neck that caused his
elbows to splay outward and he really couldn't do much of anything. It's
called the Thorburn position and it's been written about before. If you
ever watched the path of a bullet through ballistic gelation you will get
an idea of the forces at work inside JFK's neck as the bullet passed
through - although of course it happens in a microsecond and too quickly
for the film to capture.
Here's one example:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mFvrr9s_M-4
Ken McDonald
Apr 25, 2012, 10:13:03 PM4/25/12
to
news:4f97...@mcadams.posc.mu.edu...
I have the video. I agree with you, but none of his accounts of what
happened match what happens in the Zapruder film.
happened match what happens in the Zapruder film.
Anthony Marsh
Apr 25, 2012, 10:19:21 PM4/25/12
to
sixth vertebra.
Thorburn's victim had a dislocation between the 5th and 6th cervical
vertebrae with complete paralysis of all nerves below C-5, the spinal cord
being completely destroyed "immediately below the level of origin of the
fifth cervical nerves."
In the case of JFK the spinal cord was not damaged and C5 and C6 were not
hit. The bullet hit the tip of the transverse process of T-1. Its close
passage may have excited the C9 nerve and cause the movement we see in the
arms.
Anthony Marsh
Apr 25, 2012, 10:20:44 PM4/25/12
to
Ken McDonald
Apr 25, 2012, 10:21:48 PM4/25/12
to
"Hank Sienzant (AKA Joe Zircon)" <hsie...@Aol.com> wrote in message
news:66c3fef0-5357-4d38...@h5g2000vbx.googlegroups.com...
patient whose elbows were stuck in the splayed position. Yes his elbow
came up quite high, but he did other things that were not involuntary. He
wasn't paralyzed. Not even the instant he began to bring his elbows up.
Watch the Zapruder film carefully starting at Z225 through Z255 and tell
me what he does with his hands, head and torso. Those were deliberate
movements. I recommend JFK Centered from the MPI IOAA DVD. Hopefully you
have the films and BMPs on you computer so you can study them. He also
brought his right elbow down fairly quickly. It you want to say he became
paralyzed after Z255, then we have a dilemma. I know you're quite
knowledgeable so I hope you don't take this as an insult. I'm just trying
to get us off to a good start so we can discuss this. I purchased both the
MPI IOAA VHS and DVD as soon as they came out. it was then that I
immediately noticed what JFK actually did after the neck wound and posted
about it. I was either ignored, put down or no one believed me. I cringe
when I read "He clutched at his neck or grabbed his neck." After ten years
I have noticed people are seeing what I see. Finally.
Ken
Anthony Marsh
Apr 25, 2012, 10:24:20 PM4/25/12
to
confusing the shock wave created by the bullet with the muzzle blast
created by the firing of the bullet.
Show me the equation you use.
> Brehm, J. Hill and Moorman were three to six times further away from the
> bullet's path than the passengers were, which is why their reactions
> were not nearly as dramatic and visible. At the same time the limo
> passengers reacted, they were only flinching.
>
shock wave then? What was the angle of the shock wave for that shot?
> It requires a VERY high sound level, to provoke the kind of reactions we
> see following 285 and 313.
>
>
assassination tape? Can you hear the explosions and impacts separate
from the firing of the shots?
>
>
>
> Robert Harris
>
Jason Burke
Apr 26, 2012, 10:20:20 AM4/26/12
to
>
>
>
>
> Robert Harris
>
Jason Burke
Apr 26, 2012, 10:21:18 AM4/26/12
to
Ken McDonald
Apr 26, 2012, 2:36:07 PM4/26/12
to
"Hank Sienzant (AKA Joe Zircon)" <hsie...@Aol.com> wrote in message
news:66c3fef0-5357-4d38...@h5g2000vbx.googlegroups.com...
before and have thought about it with respect to JFKs neck wound and do
believe that's why he brought his elbows up and clench his hands. How
could it not shock the nerves in his neck. The main reason I'm writing
this is to tell you that I don't indend to speculate why he did what he
did with respect to his head and hand movements.
Ken
Robert Harris
Apr 26, 2012, 8:53:31 PM4/26/12
to
In article <4f98...@mcadams.posc.mu.edu>,
Tony, this is so tiresome. Since the 1990's you've been saying the same
thing as if you were unaware that Dr. Bargar specifically stated that a
130 decibel shock wave was generated within a radius of 10 feet.
More powerful rifles generate shock waves that are more than twice that
loud.
Do you really think that anyone who has even a passing interest in this
topic is going to fall for your ridiculous denials?
Robert Harris
thing as if you were unaware that Dr. Bargar specifically stated that a
130 decibel shock wave was generated within a radius of 10 feet.
More powerful rifles generate shock waves that are more than twice that
loud.
Do you really think that anyone who has even a passing interest in this
topic is going to fall for your ridiculous denials?
Robert Harris
Anthony Marsh
Apr 26, 2012, 9:33:45 PM4/26/12
to
On 4/26/2012 8:53 PM, Robert Harris wrote:
> In article<4f98...@mcadams.posc.mu.edu>,
No, that is not what he said. He is an Egghead's Egghead. He is smart
enough to know not to use the word radius when talking about a shock wave.
HE didn't say radius.
> More powerful rifles generate shock waves that are more than twice that
> loud.
>
The shock wave is generated by the BULLET not the rifle. In one famous
test they sealed off the exit hole to eliminate the muzzle blast and
measured only the sound produced by the BULLET. In fact some suppressor
systems can almost completely silence all noises except for the passing of
the bullet. That remains very loud even for a silencer equipped rifle,
especially the faster the bullet goes. Shape may also affect the apparent
loudness.
> In article<4f98...@mcadams.posc.mu.edu>,
enough to know not to use the word radius when talking about a shock wave.
HE didn't say radius.
> More powerful rifles generate shock waves that are more than twice that
> loud.
>
test they sealed off the exit hole to eliminate the muzzle blast and
measured only the sound produced by the BULLET. In fact some suppressor
systems can almost completely silence all noises except for the passing of
the bullet. That remains very loud even for a silencer equipped rifle,
especially the faster the bullet goes. Shape may also affect the apparent
loudness.
Robert Harris
Apr 27, 2012, 3:00:27 PM4/27/12
to
In article <4f99...@mcadams.posc.mu.edu>,
This is what he said, verbatim, as I have cited him in the past for you,
"The shock wave was measured by a microphone 10 feet from the trajectory
of the bullet and the muzzle blast was measured by the same microphone
which was at the same time 30 feet from the muzzle.
All of the acoustical pressures are plotted here as a function of time
measured in milliseconds. The shock wave is a very sharp event looking
something like the letter "N," capital letter"N"and in this case, with
this weapon, the peak pressure of the shockwave is 130 decibels.
Now let me just briefly describe the decibel as a measure of acoustical
intensity. The reference pressure for the decibels that I describe is 2
times 10 to the minus 5 newtons per square meter the currently standard
reference pressure. With respect to that pressure, the shockwave has an
intensity of 130 decibels."
As I have also told you countless times, the shock wave emanates from
the path of the bullet, not from the rifle muzzle. And although he may
not have used the word "radius" per se, he made it very clear that the
130 decibel level would be heard by anyone within a 10 foot radius of
the bullet.
I think even the slowest among us can figure that out.
Robert Harris
"The shock wave was measured by a microphone 10 feet from the trajectory
of the bullet and the muzzle blast was measured by the same microphone
which was at the same time 30 feet from the muzzle.
All of the acoustical pressures are plotted here as a function of time
measured in milliseconds. The shock wave is a very sharp event looking
something like the letter "N," capital letter"N"and in this case, with
this weapon, the peak pressure of the shockwave is 130 decibels.
Now let me just briefly describe the decibel as a measure of acoustical
intensity. The reference pressure for the decibels that I describe is 2
times 10 to the minus 5 newtons per square meter the currently standard
reference pressure. With respect to that pressure, the shockwave has an
intensity of 130 decibels."
As I have also told you countless times, the shock wave emanates from
the path of the bullet, not from the rifle muzzle. And although he may
not have used the word "radius" per se, he made it very clear that the
130 decibel level would be heard by anyone within a 10 foot radius of
the bullet.
I think even the slowest among us can figure that out.
Robert Harris
Robert Harris
Apr 27, 2012, 3:00:33 PM4/27/12
to
In article <4f97...@mcadams.posc.mu.edu>,
Why are you calling this my "spiel", when you know very well that each
and every point I made was an established, verifiable fact?
This is not about badgeman and Ed Hoffman. Everything I mentioned was
either in the official records or can be confirmed in the Zapruder film.
I doesn't matter what you and I think, Sandy. What matters are the facts
and evidence, and there is a ton of it - ALL pointing to the same
conclusion.
Robert Harris
and every point I made was an established, verifiable fact?
This is not about badgeman and Ed Hoffman. Everything I mentioned was
either in the official records or can be confirmed in the Zapruder film.
I doesn't matter what you and I think, Sandy. What matters are the facts
and evidence, and there is a ton of it - ALL pointing to the same
conclusion.
Robert Harris
Sandy McCroskey
Apr 27, 2012, 5:06:23 PM4/27/12
to
On 4/27/12 3:00 PM, Robert Harris wrote:
> In article<4f97...@mcadams.posc.mu.edu>,
Isn't it funny (funny ha-ha *and* funny peculiar) how, in your world, you
are the only person to have ever figured out the "real story"?
I thought the solitary genius was supposed to be Tony Marsh.
No, wait... Now I can think of others who have a theory that no one else
accepts.
In fact... that describes virtually every CT who comes up with their own
theory.
Then there are the CTs who seemingly accept every theory, even where that
would be self-contradictory if they considered together, but who have no
special theory of their own. I guess such folks have a high tolerance for
cognitive dissonance, which may be an asset for writing poetry but
probably not for a rational investigation.
I'm very interested in how people can fervently believe things on very
flimsy evidence. It's what keeps me coming back here. The people who seem
to believe everything but are committed to nothing in particular are not
that interesting.
You're among the interesting ones, Bob.
/sandy
> In article<4f97...@mcadams.posc.mu.edu>,
are the only person to have ever figured out the "real story"?
I thought the solitary genius was supposed to be Tony Marsh.
No, wait... Now I can think of others who have a theory that no one else
accepts.
In fact... that describes virtually every CT who comes up with their own
theory.
Then there are the CTs who seemingly accept every theory, even where that
would be self-contradictory if they considered together, but who have no
special theory of their own. I guess such folks have a high tolerance for
cognitive dissonance, which may be an asset for writing poetry but
probably not for a rational investigation.
I'm very interested in how people can fervently believe things on very
flimsy evidence. It's what keeps me coming back here. The people who seem
to believe everything but are committed to nothing in particular are not
that interesting.
You're among the interesting ones, Bob.
/sandy
Jason Burke
Apr 27, 2012, 8:32:59 PM4/27/12
to
On 4/27/2012 12:00 PM, Robert Harris wrote:
> In article<4f99...@mcadams.posc.mu.edu>,
And yet *you* can't figure out that your theory of a shot at 285 is
nonsense.
>
>
>
> Robert Harris
>
> In article<4f99...@mcadams.posc.mu.edu>,
nonsense.
>
>
>
> Robert Harris
>
Jason Burke
Apr 27, 2012, 8:33:36 PM4/27/12
to
On 4/27/2012 12:00 PM, Robert Harris wrote:
> In article<4f97...@mcadams.posc.mu.edu>,
Yes, there is. And that conclusion is about 180 degrees from your fantasy.
>
>
>
> Robert Harris
>
> In article<4f97...@mcadams.posc.mu.edu>,
>
>
>
> Robert Harris
>
Robert Harris
Apr 28, 2012, 3:56:24 PM4/28/12
to
In article <4f9aef5d$1...@mcadams.posc.mu.edu>,
Sandy, do you really think this argument takes precedence over the facts
and evidence?
Dr. Alvarez beat me to this discovery by almost three decades. Stroscio
wrote a paper on the subject confirming Alvarez but disputing that the
noise was a siren, before I wrote my first article on the subject.
And the DP witnesses told us about it in 1963 and 1964. All I did was
listen and check out some of these witnesses in the films and photos.
But if you want to label that as genius, who am I to argue with such an
astute observer:-)
Getting a bit more serious however, I will take credit for collecting
the evidence and pointing out how massive and consistent it is.
I'm sorry you are so desperate that you have to reduce everything to ad
hominem insults, Sandy. This is what I hear when I debate with religious
radicals and some of the worst of the conspiracy advocates.
You can insult me to your heart's content, but that won't make the
evidence go away.
Robert Harris
and evidence?
Dr. Alvarez beat me to this discovery by almost three decades. Stroscio
wrote a paper on the subject confirming Alvarez but disputing that the
noise was a siren, before I wrote my first article on the subject.
And the DP witnesses told us about it in 1963 and 1964. All I did was
listen and check out some of these witnesses in the films and photos.
But if you want to label that as genius, who am I to argue with such an
astute observer:-)
Getting a bit more serious however, I will take credit for collecting
the evidence and pointing out how massive and consistent it is.
I'm sorry you are so desperate that you have to reduce everything to ad
hominem insults, Sandy. This is what I hear when I debate with religious
radicals and some of the worst of the conspiracy advocates.
You can insult me to your heart's content, but that won't make the
evidence go away.
Robert Harris
Anthony Marsh
Apr 28, 2012, 8:03:49 PM4/28/12
to
On 4/27/2012 3:00 PM, Robert Harris wrote:
> In article<4f99...@mcadams.posc.mu.edu>,
No, he did not use the word "radius." Only a moron would use the word
"radius" and Barger was not a moron. Radius refers to a circle.
> "The shock wave was measured by a microphone 10 feet from the trajectory
> of the bullet and the muzzle blast was measured by the same microphone
> which was at the same time 30 feet from the muzzle.
>
> All of the acoustical pressures are plotted here as a function of time
> measured in milliseconds. The shock wave is a very sharp event looking
> something like the letter "N," capital letter"N"and in this case, with
> this weapon, the peak pressure of the shockwave is 130 decibels.
>
> Now let me just briefly describe the decibel as a measure of acoustical
> intensity. The reference pressure for the decibels that I describe is 2
> times 10 to the minus 5 newtons per square meter the currently standard
> reference pressure. With respect to that pressure, the shockwave has an
> intensity of 130 decibels."
>
> As I have also told you countless times, the shock wave emanates from
> the path of the bullet, not from the rifle muzzle. And although he may
> not have used the word "radius" per se, he made it very clear that the
> 130 decibel level would be heard by anyone within a 10 foot radius of
> the bullet.
>
Per se? Then don't use the word "radius."
> I think even the slowest among us can figure that out.
>
Not you.
>
>
>
> Robert Harris
>
> In article<4f99...@mcadams.posc.mu.edu>,
"radius" and Barger was not a moron. Radius refers to a circle.
> "The shock wave was measured by a microphone 10 feet from the trajectory
> of the bullet and the muzzle blast was measured by the same microphone
> which was at the same time 30 feet from the muzzle.
>
> All of the acoustical pressures are plotted here as a function of time
> measured in milliseconds. The shock wave is a very sharp event looking
> something like the letter "N," capital letter"N"and in this case, with
> this weapon, the peak pressure of the shockwave is 130 decibels.
>
> Now let me just briefly describe the decibel as a measure of acoustical
> intensity. The reference pressure for the decibels that I describe is 2
> times 10 to the minus 5 newtons per square meter the currently standard
> reference pressure. With respect to that pressure, the shockwave has an
> intensity of 130 decibels."
>
> As I have also told you countless times, the shock wave emanates from
> the path of the bullet, not from the rifle muzzle. And although he may
> not have used the word "radius" per se, he made it very clear that the
> 130 decibel level would be heard by anyone within a 10 foot radius of
> the bullet.
>
> I think even the slowest among us can figure that out.
>
>
>
>
> Robert Harris
>
Sandy McCroskey
Apr 28, 2012, 8:07:28 PM4/28/12
to
On 4/28/12 3:56 PM, Robert Harris wrote:
> In article<4f9aef5d$1...@mcadams.posc.mu.edu>,
I think it indicates that your way of putting together the evidence and
your interpretation of what is a "fact" are not as air-tight as you would
like to believe.
/sm
k
> In article<4f9aef5d$1...@mcadams.posc.mu.edu>,
your interpretation of what is a "fact" are not as air-tight as you would
like to believe.
/sm
k
Michael O'Dell
Apr 28, 2012, 10:43:39 PM4/28/12
to
"Anthony Marsh" wrote in message news:4f9c...@mcadams.posc.mu.edu...
On 4/27/2012 3:00 PM, Robert Harris wrote:
> In article<4f99...@mcadams.posc.mu.edu>,
> Anthony Marsh<anthon...@comcast.net> wrote:
>
>> On 4/26/2012 8:53 PM, Robert Harris wrote:
>>> In article<4f98...@mcadams.posc.mu.edu>,
>>> Anthony Marsh<anthon...@comcast.net> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On 4/25/2012 5:56 PM, Robert Harris wrote:
>>>>> In article
>>>>> <7309338c-e96c-4a9b...@w5g2000vbp.googlegroups.com>,
>>>>> "Lt.Bullitt"<bull...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> On Apr 24, 9:48 am, "Ken McDonald"<kRmEcMdOoVnEaJlFd...@hotmail.com>
>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>> "Robert Harris"<bobharri...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> news:bobharris77-6FE0...@70-3-168-216.pools.spcsdns.net...
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> In article<4f9589a...@mcadams.posc.mu.edu>,
>>>>>>>> Sandy McCroskey<gwmccros...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Robert Harris wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> In article<09o6p7905qe9fl30sv8o74sha4b8oq2...@4ax.com>,
>>>>>>>>>> John McAdams<john.mcad...@marquette.edu> wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> On 21 Apr 2012 21:03:55 -0400, Robert
>>>>>>>>>>> Harris<bobharri...@yahoo.com>
>>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>
>> "The shock wave was measured by a microphone 10 feet from the trajectory
>> of the bullet and the muzzle blast was measured by the same microphone
>> which was at the same time 30 feet from the muzzle.
>>
>> All of the acoustical pressures are plotted here as a function of time
>> measured in milliseconds. The shock wave is a very sharp event looking
>> something like the letter "N," capital letter"N"and in this case, with
>> this weapon, the peak pressure of the shockwave is 130 decibels.
>>
What was the peak pressure of the shock wave at their distance?
Michael
Anthony Marsh
Apr 29, 2012, 8:28:03 PM4/29/12
to
wrote. He was including the whole section from Barger's testimony.
You are mixing up the shock wave and the muzzle blast. The muzzle blast
gets softer over distance. The shock wave does not. That's what Harris
did not understand. The shock wave loudness if a function mainly of
speed, which changes over distance.
> What was the peak pressure of the shock wave at their distance?
>
would have to assume it passes at about 250 feet from the rifle for
Harris's shot at Z-285. Then you have to assume what the muzzle velocity
was. I assume close to the average of 2165 fps. Then you have to know
how quickly the bullet slows down in flight. From the White Laboratory
tests I calculated that the average loss is 1.05 fps per foot of travel.
This is one of mistakes that your hero Sturdivan made, taking a generic
value from ballistics tables.
250 x 1.05 = 262.5 fps.
2165 fps
-262.5 fps
______
1902.5 fps near the limousine.
Speed of sound = 1123 fps
1902.5/1123 = Mach 1.69
Then we have to estimate the difference in loudness for that particular
bullet at a reduced velocity.
Again Barger gives us a clue:
A rifle firing a bigger charge is the M-l rifle. It also has a faster
round. The muzzle velocity of the Mannlicher-Carcano is about 2,000 feet
per second. The M-1 is close to 3,000. Therefore the intensity of the
shock wave radiated by the M-1 is greater--being about 140 decibels when
measured 10 feet from the flight path--is twice as loud as the
Mannlicher-Carcano shockwave.
---
But we don't know the temperature when the M-1 was tested or if that was
pulled from a reference book.
So we look for other calibers.
AMF test fired a 7.62 mm NATO bullet with a muzzle velocity of 2690 fps.
The shockwave measured at 40 feet was 153 decibels.
So we can make an estimate of how many decibels are generated per mach
number. For the M-C:
30 x 1.05 = 31.5 fps loss. So at 30 feet from the rifle the bullet would
be going 2133.5 fps. Which is Mach 1.9.
So Mach 1.9 generates 130 decibels.
That's about 68.42 decibels per Mach number.
68.42 x 1.69 = 115.6 decibels.
Given the unknowns that is the closest approximation I can give you
without more tests.
You have been schooled. Class is dismissed.
> Michael
Robert Harris
Apr 29, 2012, 8:33:16 PM4/29/12
to
In article <4f9c...@mcadams.posc.mu.edu>,
No, I will use the word "radius" because it is correct and accurate,
something which I realize, doesn't impress you very much.
Robert Harris
something which I realize, doesn't impress you very much.
Robert Harris
Robert Harris
Apr 29, 2012, 8:33:54 PM4/29/12
to
In article <4f9ca5ff$1...@mcadams.posc.mu.edu>,
The sound level of the shock wave is dependent on the velocity of the
bullet. At 150-300 feet it would have dropped off a bit, but the
difference would be negligible.
We can nitpick this issue to death, but all that really matters is that
the limo passengers were obviously startled by the shots at 285 and 312.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7GH5pGQy6yI
What is equally important is that there were no such reactions to the
earlier shots, prior to 285, which proves that they did not come from
unsuppressed, high powered rifles.
Robert Harris
>
> Michael
bullet. At 150-300 feet it would have dropped off a bit, but the
difference would be negligible.
We can nitpick this issue to death, but all that really matters is that
the limo passengers were obviously startled by the shots at 285 and 312.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7GH5pGQy6yI
What is equally important is that there were no such reactions to the
earlier shots, prior to 285, which proves that they did not come from
unsuppressed, high powered rifles.
Robert Harris
>
> Michael
Michael O'Dell
Apr 29, 2012, 10:53:48 PM4/29/12
to
the header, but I was responding to a passage you didn't write and didn't
use your name. It was a question for Robert.
>You are mixing up the shock wave and the muzzle blast.
how Robert accounts for it. Your effort below is nice, but you can't
speak for him.
Michael
Michael O'Dell
Apr 29, 2012, 10:53:58 PM4/29/12
to
"Robert Harris" wrote in message
news:bobharris77-A4E7...@70-3-168-216.pools.spcsdns.net...
I'm not certain of that.
>We can nitpick this issue to death, but all that really matters is that
It's not nitpicking. I've seen you make a big deal about the loudness of
the sound, repeatedly impressing upon people how loud 130 decibels is. But
in fact we know it wouldn't have been 130 decibels, it would have been some
number lower. So how loud was it?
>the limo passengers were obviously startled by the shots at 285 and 312.
>http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7GH5pGQy6yI
>What is equally important is that there were no such reactions to the
>earlier shots, prior to 285, which proves that they did not come from
>unsuppressed, high powered rifles.
>Robert Harris
>>
That's a different subject. Let's deal with the loudness.
Michael
news:bobharris77-A4E7...@70-3-168-216.pools.spcsdns.net...
>We can nitpick this issue to death, but all that really matters is that
the sound, repeatedly impressing upon people how loud 130 decibels is. But
in fact we know it wouldn't have been 130 decibels, it would have been some
number lower. So how loud was it?
>the limo passengers were obviously startled by the shots at 285 and 312.
>http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7GH5pGQy6yI
>What is equally important is that there were no such reactions to the
>earlier shots, prior to 285, which proves that they did not come from
>unsuppressed, high powered rifles.
>Robert Harris
>>
Michael
Robert Harris
Apr 29, 2012, 10:55:58 PM4/29/12
to
In article <UqGdnR96Fr79sgrS...@giganews.com>,
> >>> In article <WeCdnQ9NR8kiTAnS...@giganews.com>,
> >>>> >>
> >>>> news:bobharris77-7208...@70-3-168-216.pools.spcsdns.net...
> >>>> >> >
> >>>> > away from him.
> >>>> >
> >>>> > http://jfkhistory.com/312.jpg
> >>>> shock
> >>>
> >>> That is correct. Greer heard the shot at 160, and reacted by turning
> >>> around.
> >>
> >> Why didn't he duck? He was still looking back when you say everyone is
> >> ducking. How do you know he is reacting to a shot at Z160? Did he tell
> >> you?
> >>>
> >>> Well, maybe you're smarting than the neurologists:-)
> >>
> >> Those are the neurolgist's opinions, not facts. You do know the
> >> difference don't you? Yes, his elbows rose quite high, but he did other
> >> things that were not reflexive.
> >>
> >> I can see what JFK does after he is shot through the neck. Obviously you
> >> don't. You wouldn't have asked me to grab or clutch at my throat if you
> >> did. I notice that you snipped that part out. It was embarrassing for
> >> you wasn't it? Come on Robert, tell me what he does after he is shot
> >> through the neck. Once you realize what he did, you will know he wasn't
> >> frozen, but you can't admit it. His back brace may have prevented him
> >> from moving forward, but he could have moved his head. I have no doubt
> >> about that. The only reason he didn't lower his right arm down further
> >> is because it's on the side of the limo.
> >>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>> It goes down on it's own. He was able to
> >>>> move his head after the shot through his neck. He moved his body to the
> >>>> left soon after too. So don't try to tell me he was frozen.
> >>>
> >>> There was only one person in that car who didn't react in perfect unison
> >>> with the others, following the shot at 285. Maybe you have a better
> >>> explanation for that, other than that he had been shot.
> >>
> >> Greer didn't.
> >>
> >
> > Where is our kook when we need him? He would tell you the reason is
> > because Greer was too busy firing the fatal head shot.
> >
> >>>
> >>> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7GH5pGQy6yI
> >>
> >> Again.... Your video is misleading because you're not showing what
> >> happened before or after. If you did, people would see what was really
> >> going on.
> >>
> >> Jackie continues to move her head down until Z313. She turns her head
> >> towards JFK at Z290 (at that time she had to have seen JFK) and begins
> >> to lower her head until Z313. She did this after she realized JBC was
> >> shot and knew there was something wrong with her husband. You're never
> >> going to get away with saying she wasn't moving to see what was wrong
> >> with him.
> >>
> >> There's no snipping during a serious debate Robert. Why? It's obvious to
> >> me that I wrote something you can't support. People can tell when you're
> >> going down. You start with the "LOLs," the "sigh," and last but not
> >> least, the snipping when things get really tough for you. Come on
> >
> > If he snips it out then he can pretend that he never saw it and thus does
> > not have to respond.
> >
> >> Robert. Tell me what JFK does after he is shot through the neck. He
> >> wasn't frozen and that ear shattering shockwave from the bullet at Z285
> >> must have scared the hell out of him. Yet, no reaction whatsoever.
> >>
> >
> > JFK was in no condition to react after the first bullet hit him.
>
> How do you know what condition he was in" Describe what he did beginning
> at Z225 through Z262 and then try to tell me he was in no condition again.
The proof is here:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7GH5pGQy6yI
There were six people in the limousine. Five reacted in perfect unison.
One remained immobile.
Robert Harris
"Ken McDonald" <kRmEcMdOoV...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> "Anthony Marsh" <anthon...@comcast.net> wrote in message
> news:4f96...@mcadams.posc.mu.edu...
> "Anthony Marsh" <anthon...@comcast.net> wrote in message
> > On 4/23/2012 11:11 PM, Ken McDonald wrote:
> >>
> >> "Robert Harris" <bobha...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> >> news:bobharris77-726C...@70-3-168-216.pools.spcsdns.net...
> >>
> >> "Robert Harris" <bobha...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> >>> In article <WeCdnQ9NR8kiTAnS...@giganews.com>,
> >>> "Ken McDonald" <kRmEcMdOoV...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> >>>
> >>>> "Robert Harris" <bobha...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> >>>> news:bobharris77-7762...@70-3-168-216.pools.spcsdns.net...
> >>>> > In article <zo-dnXBK1Jbn7w7S...@giganews.com>,
> >>>> > "Ken McDonald" <kRmEcMdOoV...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> >>>> >
> >>>> >> "Robert Harris" <bobha...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> >>>
> >>>> "Robert Harris" <bobha...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> >>>> news:bobharris77-7762...@70-3-168-216.pools.spcsdns.net...
> >>>> > In article <zo-dnXBK1Jbn7w7S...@giganews.com>,
> >>>> > "Ken McDonald" <kRmEcMdOoV...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> >>>> >
> >>>> >>
> >>>> news:bobharris77-7208...@70-3-168-216.pools.spcsdns.net...
> >>>> >> >
> >>>> >> > John's statement,
> >>>> >> >
> >>>> >> > "How does one 'refute' a wacko perception that people in the
> >>>> limo >> > are
> >>>> >> > doing something ("ducking") that they clearly aren't doing."
> >>>> >> >
> >>>> >> > For those who might be new to the subject, these are the
> >>>> reactions >> > at
> >>>> >> > issue:
> >>>> >> >
> >>>> >> > http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7GH5pGQy6yI
> >>>> >> >
> >>>> >> > For a more detailed, slow motion view, which includes the startle
> >>>> >> > reactions following both 285 and 312:
> >>>> >> >
> >>>> >> > http://jfkhistory.com/285reactions.gif
> >>>> >> >
> >>>> >> >
> >>>> >> > First of all John, let's define our terms. Would you agree that
> >>>> >> > someone
> >>>> >> > dropping his head forward and downward by 30 or more degrees was
> >>>> >> > ducking?
> >>>> >> >
> >>>> >> >
> >>>> >> > "How does one 'refute' a wacko perception that people in the
> >>>> limo >> > are
> >>>> >> > doing something ("ducking") that they clearly aren't doing."
> >>>> >> >
> >>>> >> > For those who might be new to the subject, these are the
> >>>> reactions >> > at
> >>>> >> > issue:
> >>>> >> >
> >>>> >> > http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7GH5pGQy6yI
> >>>> >> >
> >>>> >> > For a more detailed, slow motion view, which includes the startle
> >>>> >> > reactions following both 285 and 312:
> >>>> >> >
> >>>> >> > http://jfkhistory.com/285reactions.gif
> >>>> >> >
> >>>> >> >
> >>>> >> > First of all John, let's define our terms. Would you agree that
> >>>> >> > someone
> >>>> >> > dropping his head forward and downward by 30 or more degrees was
> >>>> >> > ducking?
> >>>> >> >
> >>>> > I don't think so and neither did he, but that's not too important, in
> >>>> > the context of this discussion.
> >>>> >
> >>>> >
> >>>> > the context of this discussion.
> >>>> >
> >>>> >
> >>>> >> At Z276, JBC begins to fall
> >>>> >> into Nellie's lap. Jackie is still looking at JBC. At Z291, Jackie
> >>>> >> quickly
> >>>> >> begins to turn her head towards JFK because of JBC's reaction.
> >>>> >
> >>>> >> into Nellie's lap. Jackie is still looking at JBC. At Z291, Jackie
> >>>> >> quickly
> >>>> >> begins to turn her head towards JFK because of JBC's reaction.
> >>>> >
> >>>> > And how did you determine that? She began to duck at precisely 290,
> >>>> > within the same 1/6th of a second, of reactions by every other >
> >>>> surviving
> >>>> > passenger in the limousine.
> >>>> >
> >>>> > http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7GH5pGQy6yI
> >>>> >
> >>>> >
> >>>> > within the same 1/6th of a second, of reactions by every other >
> >>>> surviving
> >>>> > passenger in the limousine.
> >>>> >
> >>>> > http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7GH5pGQy6yI
> >>>> >
> >>>> >
> >>>> >> Jackie was
> >>>> >> turned towards JBC since she began at Z251. JBC knows that he has
> >>>> been
> >>>> >> shot and now knows that JFK was shot too. Hence "they're going to
> >>>> kill >> us
> >>>> >> all." Jackie continues to lower her head and turn it to look at JFK.
> >>>> >
> >>>> > No sir, she was not looking at her husband. She was looking down and
> >>>> >> turned towards JBC since she began at Z251. JBC knows that he has
> >>>> been
> >>>> >> shot and now knows that JFK was shot too. Hence "they're going to
> >>>> kill >> us
> >>>> >> all." Jackie continues to lower her head and turn it to look at JFK.
> >>>> >
> >>>> > away from him.
> >>>> >
> >>>> > http://jfkhistory.com/312.jpg
> >>>> >
> >>>> >
> >>>> >> She
> >>>> >> knows something is wrong due to JBC's actions. Don't try to tell
> >>>> me >> she's
> >>>> >> not looking at JBC.
> >>>> >
> >>>> >
> >>>> >> She
> >>>> >> knows something is wrong due to JBC's actions. Don't try to tell
> >>>> me >> she's
> >>>> >> not looking at JBC.
> >>>> >
> >>>> > LOL!! I've only been saying that about 16 years, so I promise not to
> >>>> > deny it:-)
> >>>> >
> >>>> >
> >>>> >
> >>>> > deny it:-)
> >>>> >
> >>>> >
> >>>> >
> >>>> >> She isn't turned towards him and staring into space.
> >>>> >
> >>>> >
> >>>> > That is correct; she is not staring into space... sigh
> >>>> >
> >>>> >
> >>>> >> After Z285, they have come to realize that both JFK and JBC have
> >>>> >> been
> >>>> >> shot
> >>>> >> and everyone is reacting to it. It's so easy to see if you start
> >>>> from >> the
> >>>> >> beginning. Why doesn't Greer Duck?
> >>>> >
> >>>> >> been
> >>>> >> shot
> >>>> >> and everyone is reacting to it. It's so easy to see if you start
> >>>> from >> the
> >>>> >> beginning. Why doesn't Greer Duck?
> >>>> >
> >>>> > Because it was not physically possible for him to immediately duck.
> >>>> > He
> >>>> > was turned to the rear then, when he felt what he described as the
> >>>> > "concussion" of the second shot he heard. Obviously, that was the
> >>>> > He
> >>>> > was turned to the rear then, when he felt what he described as the
> >>>> shock
> >>>> > wave from the passing bullet.
> >>>> >
> >>>> > Dr. Luis Alvarez concluded that the reason Greer slowed the limo was
> >>>> > that he was startled by a loud noise at precisely frame 285. Dr. >
> >>>> Michael
> >>>> > Stroscio, who also holds a Phd in Physics and has chaired
> >>>> > presidential
> >>>> > science commissions, agreed with Alvarez, although he disputed >
> >>>> Alvarez's
> >>>> > speculation that the noise was a siren.
> >>>> >
> >>>> > It is ridiculously obvious that Greer lifted his foot from the gas
> >>>> > and
> >>>> > then spun around at almost inhuman speed, because he was thoroughly
> >>>> > startled. He began his reaction in almost perfect unison with the
> >>>> > reactions of the other passengers.
> >>>>
> >>>> Greer was already turned to the rear of the limo at Z280.
> >>>> >
> >>>> > Dr. Luis Alvarez concluded that the reason Greer slowed the limo was
> >>>> > that he was startled by a loud noise at precisely frame 285. Dr. >
> >>>> Michael
> >>>> > Stroscio, who also holds a Phd in Physics and has chaired
> >>>> > presidential
> >>>> > science commissions, agreed with Alvarez, although he disputed >
> >>>> Alvarez's
> >>>> > speculation that the noise was a siren.
> >>>> >
> >>>> > It is ridiculously obvious that Greer lifted his foot from the gas
> >>>> > and
> >>>> > then spun around at almost inhuman speed, because he was thoroughly
> >>>> > startled. He began his reaction in almost perfect unison with the
> >>>> > reactions of the other passengers.
> >>>>
> >>>
> >>> That is correct. Greer heard the shot at 160, and reacted by turning
> >>> around.
> >>
> >> Why didn't he duck? He was still looking back when you say everyone is
> >> ducking. How do you know he is reacting to a shot at Z160? Did he tell
> >> you?
> >>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>>
> >>>> >
> >>>> >> Why doesn't JFK duck?
> >>>> >
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>>
> >>>> >
> >>>> >> Why doesn't JFK duck?
> >>>> >
> >>>> > Probably because he was neurologically frozen by a bullet passing
> >>>> > near
> >>>> > cervical vertebrae in which nerves are connected that permit
> >>>> motion. > For
> >>>> > example his elbow extensors connected at C7, which is undoubtedly why
> >>>> > his arms rose above his shoulders. Or at least, that is what two
> >>>> > neurologists told me many years ago.
> >>>>
> >>>> Not true. Look at his right arm.
> >>>> > near
> >>>> > cervical vertebrae in which nerves are connected that permit
> >>>> motion. > For
> >>>> > example his elbow extensors connected at C7, which is undoubtedly why
> >>>> > his arms rose above his shoulders. Or at least, that is what two
> >>>> > neurologists told me many years ago.
> >>>>
> >>>
> >>> Well, maybe you're smarting than the neurologists:-)
> >>
> >> Those are the neurolgist's opinions, not facts. You do know the
> >> difference don't you? Yes, his elbows rose quite high, but he did other
> >> things that were not reflexive.
> >>
> >> I can see what JFK does after he is shot through the neck. Obviously you
> >> don't. You wouldn't have asked me to grab or clutch at my throat if you
> >> did. I notice that you snipped that part out. It was embarrassing for
> >> you wasn't it? Come on Robert, tell me what he does after he is shot
> >> through the neck. Once you realize what he did, you will know he wasn't
> >> frozen, but you can't admit it. His back brace may have prevented him
> >> from moving forward, but he could have moved his head. I have no doubt
> >> about that. The only reason he didn't lower his right arm down further
> >> is because it's on the side of the limo.
> >>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>> It goes down on it's own. He was able to
> >>>> move his head after the shot through his neck. He moved his body to the
> >>>> left soon after too. So don't try to tell me he was frozen.
> >>>
> >>> There was only one person in that car who didn't react in perfect unison
> >>> with the others, following the shot at 285. Maybe you have a better
> >>> explanation for that, other than that he had been shot.
> >>
> >> Greer didn't.
> >>
> >
> > Where is our kook when we need him? He would tell you the reason is
> > because Greer was too busy firing the fatal head shot.
> >
> >>>
> >>> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7GH5pGQy6yI
> >>
> >> Again.... Your video is misleading because you're not showing what
> >> happened before or after. If you did, people would see what was really
> >> going on.
> >>
> >> Jackie continues to move her head down until Z313. She turns her head
> >> towards JFK at Z290 (at that time she had to have seen JFK) and begins
> >> to lower her head until Z313. She did this after she realized JBC was
> >> shot and knew there was something wrong with her husband. You're never
> >> going to get away with saying she wasn't moving to see what was wrong
> >> with him.
> >>
> >> There's no snipping during a serious debate Robert. Why? It's obvious to
> >> me that I wrote something you can't support. People can tell when you're
> >> going down. You start with the "LOLs," the "sigh," and last but not
> >> least, the snipping when things get really tough for you. Come on
> >
> > If he snips it out then he can pretend that he never saw it and thus does
> > not have to respond.
> >
> >> Robert. Tell me what JFK does after he is shot through the neck. He
> >> wasn't frozen and that ear shattering shockwave from the bullet at Z285
> >> must have scared the hell out of him. Yet, no reaction whatsoever.
> >>
> >
> > JFK was in no condition to react after the first bullet hit him.
>
> How do you know what condition he was in" Describe what he did beginning
> at Z225 through Z262 and then try to tell me he was in no condition again.
The proof is here:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7GH5pGQy6yI
There were six people in the limousine. Five reacted in perfect unison.
One remained immobile.
Robert Harris
Anthony Marsh
Apr 30, 2012, 8:10:29 AM4/30/12
to
>> We can nitpick this issue to death, but all that really matters is that
>
> It's not nitpicking. I've seen you make a big deal about the loudness of
> the sound, repeatedly impressing upon people how loud 130 decibels is.
> But in fact we know it wouldn't have been 130 decibels, it would have
> been some number lower. So how loud was it?
>
And if it turned out to be only 129 dB instead of 130 dB you'd still say
that's not nitpicking?
>> the limo passengers were obviously startled by the shots at 285 and 312.
>> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7GH5pGQy6yI
>> What is equally important is that there were no such reactions to the
>> earlier shots, prior to 285, which proves that they did not come from
>> unsuppressed, high powered rifles.
>> Robert Harris
>>>
>
> That's a different subject. Let's deal with the loudness.
>
out of their skin by 130 decibels?
Nitpicking.
> Michael
>
>
Anthony Marsh
Apr 30, 2012, 9:49:54 AM4/30/12
to
On 4/29/2012 8:33 PM, Robert Harris wrote:
> In article<4f9ca5ff$1...@mcadams.posc.mu.edu>,
So how far away from the rifle was the bullet when your witnesses heard
it whiz by?
> We can nitpick this issue to death, but all that really matters is that
> the limo passengers were obviously startled by the shots at 285 and 312.
>
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7GH5pGQy6yI
>
> What is equally important is that there were no such reactions to the
> earlier shots, prior to 285, which proves that they did not come from
> unsuppressed, high powered rifles.
>
>
I like how you cite experts to support your shot at Z-285 and then throw
them under the bus when they use the same technique to point out earlier
shots.
>
>
>
>
> Robert Harris
>
>
>
>
>
>>
>> Michael
>
> In article<4f9ca5ff$1...@mcadams.posc.mu.edu>,
it whiz by?
> We can nitpick this issue to death, but all that really matters is that
> the limo passengers were obviously startled by the shots at 285 and 312.
>
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7GH5pGQy6yI
>
> What is equally important is that there were no such reactions to the
> earlier shots, prior to 285, which proves that they did not come from
> unsuppressed, high powered rifles.
>
>
them under the bus when they use the same technique to point out earlier
shots.
>
>
>
>
> Robert Harris
>
>
>
>
>
>>
>> Michael
>
Anthony Marsh
Apr 30, 2012, 9:50:37 AM4/30/12
to
On 4/29/2012 8:33 PM, Robert Harris wrote:
> In article<4f9c...@mcadams.posc.mu.edu>,
It is not the correct word. It refers to a circle. Go ahead and try to
use the word diameter instead.
>
>
>
> Robert Harris
>
> In article<4f9c...@mcadams.posc.mu.edu>,
use the word diameter instead.
>
>
>
> Robert Harris
>
Michael O'Dell
Apr 30, 2012, 12:07:58 PM4/30/12
to
news:4f9e...@mcadams.posc.mu.edu...
Right. See, it's not my argument, it's Robert's. I'm pointing out one of
the elements he's relied upon hasn't really been established. I'm not
making an argument myself. I would have expected you to get this Tony.
> And if it turned out to be only 129 dB instead of 130 dB you'd still say
> that's not nitpicking?
>
>>> the limo passengers were obviously startled by the shots at 285 and 312.
>>> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7GH5pGQy6yI
>>> What is equally important is that there were no such reactions to the
>>> earlier shots, prior to 285, which proves that they did not come from
>>> unsuppressed, high powered rifles.
>>> Robert Harris
>>>>
>>
>> That's a different subject. Let's deal with the loudness.
>>
>
> Why? You think someone is not going to hear 120 decibels, but be shocked
> out of their skin by 130 decibels?
> Nitpicking.
>
Did you determine that it was 120 decibels? No Tony, nitpicking is what
you are doing.
Michael
the elements he's relied upon hasn't really been established. I'm not
making an argument myself. I would have expected you to get this Tony.
> And if it turned out to be only 129 dB instead of 130 dB you'd still say
> that's not nitpicking?
>
>>> the limo passengers were obviously startled by the shots at 285 and 312.
>>> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7GH5pGQy6yI
>>> What is equally important is that there were no such reactions to the
>>> earlier shots, prior to 285, which proves that they did not come from
>>> unsuppressed, high powered rifles.
>>> Robert Harris
>>>>
>>
>> That's a different subject. Let's deal with the loudness.
>>
>
> Why? You think someone is not going to hear 120 decibels, but be shocked
> out of their skin by 130 decibels?
> Nitpicking.
>
you are doing.
Michael
Robert Harris
Apr 30, 2012, 5:25:40 PM4/30/12
to
In article <4f9de22e$1...@mcadams.posc.mu.edu>,
Well then, what you CAN be certain of, is that the shots at 285 and 312
were loud enough to startle the limo passengers. That's all that really
matters - other than the fact that the shots prior to 285, were not.
Bill Greer said he felt the "concussion" of the second shot, which he
also described as being closely bunched with the third.
Now, what do you suppose caused that, if it was not the shock wave of
the passing bullet?
Robert Harris
were loud enough to startle the limo passengers. That's all that really
matters - other than the fact that the shots prior to 285, were not.
Bill Greer said he felt the "concussion" of the second shot, which he
also described as being closely bunched with the third.
Now, what do you suppose caused that, if it was not the shock wave of
the passing bullet?
Robert Harris
Anthony Marsh
Apr 30, 2012, 7:08:31 PM4/30/12
to
being evasive. You are just like Steve Barber.
> Michael
Michael O'Dell
Apr 30, 2012, 7:41:14 PM4/30/12
to
news:bobharris77-5F49...@70-3-168-216.pools.spcsdns.net...
How about not evading the question? Do you know how loud the sound from
at 285 shot would be to the limo passengers? That's the question. I'm
not debating your whole theory, I'm asking that one question.
at 285 shot would be to the limo passengers? That's the question. I'm
not debating your whole theory, I'm asking that one question.
Michael O'Dell
Apr 30, 2012, 10:38:14 PM4/30/12
to
of Robert. There is no question I need to answer.
Michael
Anthony Marsh
Apr 30, 2012, 10:48:22 PM4/30/12
to
The muzzle blast or the shock wave?
Stop evading the question.
If you mean the muzzle blast that is easy to calculate.
If the loudness of the muzzle blast was 137 decibels at 30 feet such as
the test that Barger mentioned then the loudness of the muzzle blast at
the limo 250 feet away would be 118 decibels.
I already calculated the loudness of the shock wave for you, but maybe
you haven't read that message yet.
Anything else you want to know?
Anthony Marsh
May 1, 2012, 10:48:28 AM5/1/12
to
> Michael
0 new messages