Why Did Greer Slow the Limo?
Robert Harris
In his paper to the Journal of American Physicists, Dr. Luis Alvarez
reported that a loud noise at precisely frame 285, startled both Abraham
Zapruder and Bill Greer, the driver of the President's limousine,
causing Greer to lift his foot from the gas and slow the heavy vehicle.
Alvarez also calculated the speed of the limousine from frame to frame
and determined that the deceleration began at Zapruder frame 300.
That fact is further corroborated by Greer's visible reaction in the
Zapruder film, spinning from front to back so rapidly that some
theorists (mistakenly) thought it was physically impossible and evidence
that the film was altered.
But as a staunch WC defender, Greer would not conclude that the noise
was a gunshot, mainly because it occurred a scant 1.5 seconds before the
explosive headshot at frame 312, which didn't leave nearly enough time
for Oswald to have fired both shots. Instead, he speculated that it was
a siren, in spite of the fact that no witnesses reported hearing sirens
until after the shooting had ended.
Looking at black and white stills, Alvarez didn't notice that Zapruder
and Greer were not the only ones to be startled by that noise. In fact,
it is easy to see in the film that Mrs. Kennedy, Mrs. Connally and SA
Roy Kellerman also reacted quite dramatically to it, in almost perfect
unison with the reactions by Greer and Zapruder. All five of those
people began to react within the same 1/6th of a second.
And each of those witnesses were quite explicit about the noise they
heard then. It was not a siren as Alvarez had speculated. It was
instead, a very loud and startling gunshot - in fact, the first noise
they heard that day that was anywhere near that loud. This video
explains what happened, in detail.
http://www.jfkhistory.com/Nellie2/Nellie2.mov
Robert Harris
Robert Harris
<reharris1-B0A24...@70-3-168-216.pools.spcsdns.net>,
Robert Harris <reha...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> In his paper to the Journal of American Physicists, Dr. Luis Alvarez
> reported that a loud noise at precisely frame 285, startled both Abraham
> Zapruder and Bill Greer, the driver of the President's limousine,
> causing Greer to lift his foot from the gas and slow the heavy vehicle.
> Alvarez also calculated the speed of the limousine from frame to frame
> and determined that the deceleration began at Zapruder frame 300.
>
> That fact is further corroborated by Greer's visible reaction in the
> Zapruder film, spinning from front to back so rapidly that some
> theorists (mistakenly) thought it was physically impossible and evidence
> that the film was altered.
>
> But as a staunch WC defender, Greer would not conclude that the noise
> was a gunshot,
Duh... Alvarez would not conclude....
Someday I will learn to proofread.
cdddraftsman
Wy don't you ask Greer ?
tl
Sam McClung
Ben Holmes
>
>because lodge was his lord and master?
No, because he was a Boy Scout, and loyal to the Scouts.
--
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ben Holmes
Learn to Make Money with a Website - http://www.burningknife.com
WhiskyJoe
> That fact is further corroborated by
> Greer's visible reaction in the Zapruder
> film, spinning from front to back so
> rapidly that some theorists (mistakenly)
> thought it was physically impossible and
> evidence that the film was altered.
Greer did not turn from front to back during
Z291-295 as a result of a gunshot. Indeed,
he did not turn from front to back at all
during Z291-295 at all.
If one studies the Zapruder film at:
http://www.assassinationresearch.com/zfilm/
(and, by the way, one can download the entire
Zapruder film, unzip it and look at the
individual frames in Paint)
one will find that:
Up until Z282, one can't tell too well which
direction Greer is facing because of the visor.
Z283-291: Greer is looking back
Z292-294: Greer turns from back to front
Z295-300: Greer faces forward
Z301-303: Greer turns from front to back
Z304-316: Greer is looking back
Z317-319: Greer turns from back to front
Z320-...: Greer faces forward
If Greer reacted to a shot at Z285, he likely
would have started to react perhaps as soon
as Z291, which is when Zapruder jiggled his
camera. So, I suppose one can say that Greer
was looking back at JFK at Z285, heard a shot
and then immediately reacted by turning to
look forward.
But during this time, Greer is looking
forward, then back, then forward, then
back, then forward again, you can always
find some movement of his a say this is
a reaction to a gunshot. You could just
as easily make the case that Greer was
reacting to a shot:
at: Z 285
or: Z 294
or: Z 310
since Greer starts a head turn 6 frames
later after each of these frames. And if
one postulates a reaction of 6 to 10
frames after a gunshot, one can say
one of Greer's head turns correspond
to a shot at frame:
281, 282, 283, 284, 285
290, 291, 292, 293, 294
306, 307, 308, 309, 310
almost any frame one wants it to
correspond to.
Likely, Greer just looked back twice because
he couldn't quite believe that he could see
that JFK was wounded.
Question:
Why should Greer head turn forward at Z292-204
be considered an indication of a shot?
Why shouldn't his head turns at Z301-303
be considered an indication of a shot?
**************************************************
Another point I would like to make involves
camera jiggles. Of course, it was impossible
for Zapruder to hold the camera rock steady,
it was always jiggling. After 318 the camera
jiggled a lot, probably because Zapruder was
upset about seeing JFK killed.
In 1978, Dr. William Hartmann did a study
for the HSCA of the camera jiggles. A table
of his results can be seen in Sturdivan's
"The JFK Myths" in Appendix E, Table E1,
page 305.
Before Z319, the largest camera jiggles
in order of magnitude are:
01: Z 318 3.7 % *** certain gunshot at Z312
02: Z 197 3.4 % *** sign ?
03: Z 227 2.6 % *** gunshot at Z221 (Z222)
04: Z 191 2.5 % *** sign ?
05: Z 210 2.5 % *** sign ?
06: Z 158 2.4 % *** possible gunshot at Z152
07: Z 182 2.1 %
08: Z 291 2.1 % *** frame 285
09: Z 221 2.1 %
10: Z 313 2.0 %
11: Z 241 1.9 %
12: Z 154 1.7 %
13: Z 296 1.7 %
14: Z 204 1.6 %
15: Z 263 1.6 %
16: Z 279 1.6 %
17: Z 143 1.5 %
18: Z 171 1.5 %
19: Z 265 1.5 %
20: Z 302 1.5 %
21: Z 148 1.4 %
22: Z 177 1.4 %
23: Z 233 1.3 %
24: Z 165 1.2 %
25: Z 271 1.2 %
Ignoring the camera jiggle at Z221, the
camera jiggle at Z291 is only the eighth
strongest.
Three of the strong camera jiggles, at:
Z191, Z197 and Z210
which correspond to possible gunshots at:
Z185, Z191 and Z204
could be caused by gunshots but could also
be caused by the limousine going behind the
freeway sign. Tests have shown that when
people film moving objects that go behind
another object, they tend to jiggle the
camera.
The strong jiggles not associated with the
freeway sign are at:
Z158, Z227 and Z318
which corresponds to, roughly:
Z152, Z221 and Z312.
Each of these are likely frames that a gunshot
occurred, give or take a frame. The Z291
camera jiggle is weaker than any of these
candidates. The weakness of the Z291 camera
jiggle mean that frame Z285 is not a
particularly strong candidate for a gunshot.
**************************************************
As far as why Greer slowed the limousine
around Z300, Greer was slowing down the
limousine starting around Z170. He slowed
from 14 MPH to 9 MPH between Z150 and Z312.
Likely, he slowed down not with the brake
but by leaving his foot off the accelerator.
The observed slow down that Alvarez noted
starting at Z300 corresponds with Greer
looking backwards and just means that
while he was looking backwards, he kept
his foot off the accelerator, as is
expected.
Robert Harris
<0fe6916e-0f7e-4d75...@w19g2000pre.googlegroups.com>,
WhiskyJoe <jr...@pacbell.net> wrote:
> > That fact is further corroborated by
> > Greer's visible reaction in the Zapruder
> > film, spinning from front to back so
> > rapidly that some theorists (mistakenly)
> > thought it was physically impossible and
> > evidence that the film was altered.
>
> Greer did not turn from front to back during
> Z291-295 as a result of a gunshot. Indeed,
> he did not turn from front to back at all
> during Z291-295 at all.
Yup, that was back-to-front, beginning at 291. My bad.
>
> If one studies the Zapruder film at:
>
> http://www.assassinationresearch.com/zfilm/
>
> (and, by the way, one can download the entire
> Zapruder film, unzip it and look at the
> individual frames in Paint)
>
> one will find that:
>
> Up until Z282, one can't tell too well which
> direction Greer is facing because of the visor.
>
> Z283-291: Greer is looking back
> Z292-294: Greer turns from back to front
He actually started at 291, and of course, that was the reaction.
And yes, there were other turns, but there was only one that startled
him enough to accidentally slow the limo, which he did immediately after
that turn. And then, there is this,
"The second one didn't sound any different much than the first one but I
kind of got, by turning around, I don't know whether I got a little
concussion of it, maybe when it hit something or not, I may have gotten
a little concussion that made me think there was something different to
it."
If Oswald fired that bullet, it generated a shock wave of about 130
decibels and would indeed, have generated the tactile "concussion" that he
felt on his face as he was turned to the rear.
And finally, Alvarez also concluded that Greer was startled by the shot at
285.
Nice try though. At least you had the courage to take a shot at it.
Robert Harris
WhiskyJoe
>> Greer did not turn from front to back during
>> Z291-295 as a result of a gunshot. Indeed,
>> he did not turn from front to back at all
>> during Z291-295 at all.
> Yup, that was back-to-front, beginning at 291.
> My bad.
But that is a significant change. Greer did not
hear a shot and looked back to see what was
going on. Instead, he was looking back and
then looked forward. Possibly as a reaction
to a shot but more probably he was just
starting to look where he was driving
which is what he should do.
In any case, if a turn forward is to be considered
a possible significant event like a turn back,
then any of the following times could be considered
a good candidate for a shot, correct?
281, 282, 283, 284, 285
290, 291, 292, 293, 294
306, 307, 308, 309, 310
If so, it doesn't sound like much of a coincidence
that one of Greer's head turns could be associated
with a randomly chosen frame. You have a 50-50
chance for any frame between Z281-310. He was
turning his head back and forward well before
Z285 and well afterwards.
> And yes, there were other turns, but there
> was only one that startled him enough to
> accidentally slow the limo, which he did
> immediately after that turn.
The only slow down? Greer slowed from around
14 MPH to 7 MPH between Z170 and Z330.
There were several small slow downs.
The one after Z300 was not the only one.
There were multiple times he took his foot
off the accelerator. I'm certain that both
times he looked back he took his foot of the
accelerator. So it's natural that he would
slow down around Z300, when he starts to
look back a second time.
> And finally, Alvarez also concluded that
> Greer was startled by the shot at 285.
There is no way Alvarez concluded that Greer
was startled by a shot at Z285. Nor did Alvarez
conclude that there was a shot at Z285.
He noted the jiggle at Z291. He noted it was
a rather weak jiggle, weaker than any jiggle
associated with a definite shot. He speculated
that it may have been associated with something
less startling, like the start of a siren.
But that was just a guess on his part.
No one knows. Although I believe one driver
claimed he turned on his siren during the
shooting to try to get Greer to get going.
If so, that may have been at Z285.
Did Greer slow down as a result of a siren
starting at Z285? It's possible. But he slowed
down so many other times before that there is
no compelling reason to believe so. He probably
slowed down at Z300 for the same reason he
did the other times. He was trying to figure
out if shots were being fired, if so if they
were from the front and trying to decide what
to do.
Not only did Alvarez not conclude that there
was a shot at Z285, no one on this board,
that I have heard from, supports your belief
that a shot at Z285 is well supported.
No even from any of the CTers. I do not
know of anyone but you who supports a shot
at Z285, after all these years.
Greer's reaction at Z291 is just his usual action
he was doing well before and well after Z291.
Turning around to look back. Turning around to
look forward. Turning around to look back.
Turning around to look forward. We should have
had Linda Blair driving. Just kidding. People
often act with disbelief went sudden danger
occurs.
Jackie's reaction at Z291 was just part of her
usual actions. Looking at Connally. Looking at
JFK. Looking at a second time Connally. Looking
at a second time JFK. Then looking at JFK more
intently, bring her head forward to see his
face better, which of course bobs her head
down very slightly, looking down with her
eyes for the first time to look at the blood
at his throat, which you interpret as her
ducking. "Yes, I'll duck my head about one inch.
That should be good enough."
You are the only one I know of who thinks Jackie
is ducking. To everyone else it looks like she
is just looking at JFK. Looking at his profile.
Bringing her head forward and since she does
not have an extendible neck, yes, brings her
head down a bit. Now she can look at his face.
And then his throat.
Jean Hill takes her eyes off the Presidential
limousine to look for her friend who was one
of the four motorcycle policemen riding just
behind the Presidential limousine. Another
reaction to the Z285 shot.
Any kind of movement by any of the limousine
occupants is a reaction to the Z285 shot.
**************************************************
For comparison, compare the multiple actions
that support a different theory:
http://users.skynet.be/mar/Eng/SBT/SBT-eng.htm#sommet
* Connally right shoulder seems to be pushed
forward and down
Consistent with a bullet pushing his torso.
* Connally's coat moves.
Consistent with a bullet and perhaps debris
pushing his coat.
* Connally's right hand flies up in front
of his chin.
Consistent with Connally being wounded in
the right wrist.
Right or wrong, these observations support a
coherent theory.
********************
It's not:
Connally shot at Z222 because:
* Greer slows the limousine
* Jackie looks to her right
* Jean Hill scratches her nose.
That would not be observations that support a
coherent theory. That would be just random
actions used to support a supposed shot.
********************
The actions of the people you site
has no obvious connection to a shot.
* Greer turns his head, which he did a total
of 4 times, one time before Z285 and three
times afterwards.
* Greer slows the limousine at Z300, which he
did multiple times before.
* Jackie looks at JFK's face and throat, a natural
thing for her to do, trying to figure out what is
wrong with her husband. All part of her actions
during those 5 seconds, looking at Connally,
looking at JFK, trying to figure out what is
going on.
* Jean Hill looks away from the limousine,
a natural reaction is she wanted to catch
a glimpse of her friend escorting the
President.
Any kind of movement is interpreted by you
as a reaction to a shot. And if anyone froze,
you could say they froze because of the shot.
**************************************************
> Nice try though. At least you had the courage
> to take a shot at it.
Finding the courage to argue against this theory
is not hard. Heck, I've ridden bicycles.
But finding the courage to believe this
theory and admit to believing it, that is
something else. We will see if anyone else has
that much courage. But so far, no one else has.
Raymond
>
> - Show quoted text -
Mr. Greer.
It was starting to go down--gradually going down toward this
underpass. It was a down grade.
Mr. Specter.
Now, would you tell us just what occurred as you were proceeding down
Elm Street at that time?
Mr. Greer.
Well, when we were going down Elm Street, I heard a noise that I
thought was a backfire of one of the motorcycle policemen. And I
didn't--it did not affect me like anything else. I just thought that
it is what it was. We had had so many motorcycles around us. So I
heard this noise. And I thought that is what it was. And then I heard
it again. And I glanced over my shoulder. And I saw Governor Connally
like he was starting to fall. Then I realized there was something
wrong. I tramped on the accelerator, and at the same time Mr.
Kellerman said to me, "Get out of here fast." And I cannot remember
even the other shots or noises that was. I cannot quite remember any
more. I did not see anything happen behind me any more, because I was
occupied with getting away.
Mr. Specter.
Now, how many shots, or how many noises have you just described that
you heard?
Mr. Greer.
I know there was three that I heard--three. But I cannot remember any
more than probably three. I know there was three anyway that I heard.
Mr. Specter.
Do you have an independent recollection at this moment of having heard
three shots at that time?
Mr. Greer.
I knew that after I heard the second one, that is when I looked over
my shoulder, and I was conscious that there was something wrong,
because that is when I saw Governor Connally. And when I turned around
again, to the best of my recollection there was another one, right
immediately after.
Mr. Specter.
To the best of your ability to recollect and estimate, how much time
elapsed from the first noise which you have described as being similar
to the backfire of a motor vehicle until you heard the second noise?
Mr. Greer.
It seems a matter of seconds, I really couldn't say. Three or four
seconds.
Mr. Specter.
How much time elapsed, to the best of your ability to estimate and
recollect, between the time of the second noise and the time of the
third noise?
Mr. Greer.
The last two seemed to be just simultaneously, one behind the other,
but I don't recollect just how much, how many seconds were between the
two. I couldn't really say.
Mr. Specter.
Describe as best you can the types of sound of the second report, as
distinguished from the first noise which you said was similar to a
motorcycle backfire?
Mr. Greer.
The second one didn't sound any different much than the first one but
I kind of got, by turning around, I don't know whether I got a little
concussion of it, maybe when it hit something or not, I may have
gotten a little concussion that made me think there was something
different to it. But so far as the noise is concerned, I haven't got
any memory of any difference in them at all.
Mr. Specter.
Describe as best you can the sound of the third noise.
Mr. Greer.
Just, to me it was similar, to the first two. They all sounded
practically the same to me.
Mr. Specter.
You testified that at the second noise you glanced over your
shoulder.
Mr. Greer.
Yes, sir.
Mr. Specter.
Which shoulder did you glance over?
Mr. Greer.
Right shoulder.
Mr. Specter.
And describe or indicate how far you turned your head to the right at
that time?
Mr. Greer.
Just so that my eyes over, caught the Governor, I could see, I
couldn't see the President. I just could see the Governor. I made a
quick glance and back again.
Mr. Specter.
Was the movement of your head just then approximately the same?
Mr. Greer.
Yes, sir.
Mr. Specter.
As the time?
Mr. Greer.
Yes, sir.
Mr. Specter.
You just indicated the turn of your head slightly to the right.
Mr. Greer.
My eyes slightly more than my head. My eyes went more than my head
around. I had vision real quick of it.
Mr. Specter.
Exactly where was Governor Connally when you first caught him out of
the corner of your eye?
Mr. Greer.
He was--he seemed to be falling a little bit toward Mrs. Connally, to
the left. He started to go over a little bit to the left.
Mr. Specter.
And how far did you catch his movement during the time you were able
to observe him?
Mr. Greer.
Just a second. He probably hadn't gotten his shoulder, he hadn't fell
down or anything. He probably was in a position such as I am now.
Mr. Specter.
Did he fall to the rear or to the side or how?
Mr. Greer.
In my opinion, he fell toward Mrs. Connally which would be to his left
or to his side.
MORE?
SEE
http://www.jfk-assassination.de/warren/wch/vol2/page118.php
Nobody
> In article
> <0fe6916e-0f7e-4d75-be64-3b7a6f6c6...@w19g2000pre.googlegroups.com>,
Sorry to inform you Robert but the limo was driven by a guy dressed in
military clothes through dealeyand the ss car was driven by DPD. Look
close
Nobody
Greer wasn't driving the limo. It was driven by a guy in a military
cunt cap. Go back to square one
Robert Harris
<66e37d55-d2b6-422f...@a10g2000pre.googlegroups.com>,
WhiskyJoe <jr...@pacbell.net> wrote:
> >> Greer did not turn from front to back during
> >> Z291-295 as a result of a gunshot. Indeed,
> >> he did not turn from front to back at all
> >> during Z291-295 at all.
>
> > Yup, that was back-to-front, beginning at 291.
> > My bad.
>
> But that is a significant change. Greer did not
> hear a shot and looked back to see what was
> going on.
Well, actually he did. He looked back because he heard the first shot.
Then he heard and felt the concussion of the shot at 285 which caused him
to panic and make that extremely rapid turn to the front, and then lifted
his foot off the gas.
I don't think you understand that an involuntary startle reaction does not
usually involve purpose. There was no purpose in turning to the front or
rear, just as there was no reason to slow the limo.
BTW, he also described the second and third shots as nearly simultaneous.
> Instead, he was looking back and
> then looked forward. Possibly as a reaction
> to a shot but more probably he was just
> starting to look where he was driving
> which is what he should do.
Well, everyone has a right to an opinion I guess.
But the evidence and Dr. Alvarez prove you are wrong.
Robert Harris
Robert Harris
<66e37d55-d2b6-422f...@a10g2000pre.googlegroups.com>,
WhiskyJoe <jr...@pacbell.net> wrote:
> >> Greer did not turn from front to back during
> >> Z291-295 as a result of a gunshot. Indeed,
> >> he did not turn from front to back at all
> >> during Z291-295 at all.
>
> > Yup, that was back-to-front, beginning at 291.
> > My bad.
>
> But that is a significant change. Greer did not
> hear a shot and looked back to see what was
> going on. Instead, he was looking back and
> then looked forward. Possibly as a reaction
> to a shot but more probably he was just
> starting to look where he was driving
> which is what he should do.
>
> In any case, if a turn forward is to be considered
> a possible significant event like a turn back,
> then any of the following times could be considered
> a good candidate for a shot, correct?
OH, and one other thing.
You seem to think that the evidence for the shot was Greer turning to the
front, but of course it was not.
The evidence was that he panicked after being hit by the shock wave of the
shot, and then slowed the limo.
Robert Harris
WhiskyJoe
> Well, everyone has a right to an opinion
> I guess.
> But the evidence and Dr. Alvarez prove
> you are wrong.
OK, where is your evidence that Dr. Alvarez
thought that there was a shot at frame 285?
Can you site a quote from him?
The most I heard, he thought the small jiggle
at Z291 may indicate a siren starting at
Z285.
And a second question is can you site a quote
from anyone, besides yourself, that says they
believe there was a shot at frame 285?
This can be a quote from a serious researcher
or anyone.
Robert Harris
<a29afe5c-bbc5-4716...@a10g2000pre.googlegroups.com>,
WhiskyJoe <jr...@pacbell.net> wrote:
> > Well, everyone has a right to an opinion
> > I guess.
>
> > But the evidence and Dr. Alvarez prove
> > you are wrong.
>
> OK, where is your evidence that Dr. Alvarez
> thought that there was a shot at frame 285?
Why are you asking me to prove something I never said? Please reread my
article at the top of the thread.
"In his paper to the Journal of American Physicists, Dr. Luis Alvarez
reported that a loud noise at precisely frame 285, startled both Abraham
Zapruder and Bill Greer.."
We all know that Alvarez speculated that the noise was a siren. He was
very specific in his article, that the main reason he rejected the
notion of a gunshot, was that there was not enough time for Oswald to
have fired the headshot at 312.
His other reason was that Zapruder's reaction to 312 seemed stronger
than to 285. You see the same thing btw, in the reactions by the limo
passengers. But his reasoning would only be valid if all shots came from
the same location, and were from the same rifle.
Obviously, that was not the case.
But not only were there no witness who reported sirens prior to the end
of the attack, but the people we see reacting in the limo, were very
specific about what they heard then.
And so were the large majority of other witnesses who reported that the
final shots were closely bunched, as even the WC admitted.
> Can you site a quote from him?
Yes, but I prefer to only cite things he actually said.
>
> The most I heard, he thought the small jiggle
> at Z291 may indicate a siren starting at
> Z285.
He did not "think" that. He speculated that a siren might have been the
cause, for the reasons I just explained. Alvarez stated very clearly,
that his paper was based on the assumption that all shots were fired by
Oswald. And he set as a "boundary condition" that all gunshots had to be
at least 2.3 seconds apart.
>
> And a second question is can you site a quote
> from anyone, besides yourself, that says they
> believe there was a shot at frame 285?
Of course I can. I don't believe you will find a single critic in ACJ
who disagrees with me about the shot at 285.
And after over 42 thousand views on Youtube, my Z285 video has almost
unanimous five star ratings.
Can you show me a LN video that has done as well??
But let's get your views on some of these things. Why do you think Greer
slowed the limo, lifting his foot from the gas, 2-3 eighteenths of a
second after every nonvictim in the limo reacted?
Why do you think he felt the "concussion" of that shot, as he was turned
to the rear??
Robert Harris
Nobody
front seats of the limo were filled with two guys wearing military
"cunt"caps. The ss car was driven by two Dallas policemen. And Nellie
Connally wasn't even in the car. Jfk was already dead(dan rather said
when he first seen the gil that JFK was thrown "violently" forward.
That is because when the military guy driving the limo braked for the
head shot in the "faked" Zapruder jfk being already dead had no
muscles to hold him back as would normally occur. I say again"all
films are hugely altered and that is the best evidence of conspiracy.
They tortured JFK to death right on Houston street to a totally secure
dealey plaza crowd, then allowed the Mary moormans, jean hills, and
others to come into dealey, set up a faked motorcade while at dealey,
put a Dallas cop on the limo back bumper to hold JFK a head up for the
filming and stopped in front of the grassy knoll, blower the top of
JFKs head off a second time( they had done tried to fake it once at
the side of the limo with jfk dead on his butt with his body held by
two women holding jfk by the arms) and drove on to parkland. Now
that's the truth but believe just whatever you friggin want to. Jfk
was shot in the throat at love field and that is the reason for the
faked ss (standdown) it's all faked from there. In the standdown film
why do you think the drivers are hidden by a bright flash? Because it
wasn't ss any more.at least one ss was killed at love field.!!!!! Stan
ShutterBun
Pretty amazing this post passed muster.
John McAdams
wrote:
We moderators don't reject posts for being ridiculous.
If we did, how many of our regular posters would we have to ban?
.John
--------------
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/home.htm
WhiskyJoe
>>> But the evidence and Dr. Alvarez prove
>>> you are wrong.
>> OK, where is your evidence that Dr. Alvarez
>> thought that there was a shot at frame 285?
> Why are you asking me to prove something
> I never said? Please reread my article at
> the top of the thread.
Saying "... the evidence and Dr. Alvarez
prove you are wrong." strongly implies
that Dr. Alvarez agrees with you, that
clearly there was a gunshot at Z285.
If I was to say "... the evidence and Oliver
Stone proves it was only Oswald." That would
be very misleading. It would sound like Oliver
Stone has changed his mind and supports the
Oswald Alone theory. Even if I could come up
with arguments to justify it like "the Zapruder
film shows JFK and Connally reacting together
and JFK's initial head movement is forward and
this because obvious because Oliver Stone showed
it on the big screen", still, my statement
"... the evidence and Oliver Stone proves ..."
would still be very misleading.
Instead of saying "... the evidence and
Dr. Alvarez prove you are wrong." it would
be better and much less misleading if you say
"... the evidence, including the evidence
uncovered by Dr. Alvarez, which,
unfortunately, he misinterpreted, prove
a shot at Z285." Yes, a bit cumbersome,
but you must not give the impression
that Dr. Alvarez believed in a shot
at Z285, which he clearly did not.
>> The most I heard, he thought the small
>> jiggle at Z291 may indicate a siren
>> starting at Z285.
> He did not "think" that. He speculated
> that a siren might have been the cause,
> for the reasons I just explained.
I repeat what I said, Alvarez thought the
small jiggle at Z291 may indicate a siren
starting at Z285.
>> And a second question is can you site a quote
>> from anyone, besides yourself, that says they
>> believe there was a shot at frame 285?
> Of course I can. I don't believe you will
> find a single critic in ACJ who disagrees
> with me about the shot at 285.
There are plenty of people here at ACJ who
disagree with you about the Z285 shot.
Today I searched through old posts and did
find some who support your theory. But, for
the most part, the CTers have not rallied
to this Z285 theory.
Not getting any LN support isn't a problem,
since LNers may be too biased to see the
truth. But not getting overwhelming support
from the CT side is a problem. Of course,
you have received some support, but some
CTers will support any pro CT argument be
it from Jim Garrison or Judith Baker.
A possibly valid LN theory will probably
receive little support from CTers but it
should get the support of the vast majority
of the LNers. The fact that Max Holland's
pre Z133 shot did not get support from CTers
is not a bad sign. But his failure to
convince a majority of LNers is a bad sign.
But my impression is that the majority of
the CTers have not rallied around the Z285
theory, which they should, if it was at
all compelling.
ShutterBun
> On 25 Nov 2009 23:47:34 -0500, ShutterBun <shutter...@gmail.com>
Fair enough. Though, in the spirit of this newsgroup, he might have
chosen the more palatble term "Garrison Cap"
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Garrison_cap
to describe the non-existent headgear (not) worn by Greer and Kellerman.
Nobody
> On 25 Nov 2009 23:47:34 -0500, ShutterBun <shutter...@gmail.com>
To not know the truth can be blamed on ignorance or instructors and is
excusable, but to know the truth and deny it is unforgiveable. I'm just
trying to correct the first group. Stan
Robert Harris
<830c0adf-b129-46e7...@z10g2000prh.googlegroups.com>,
WhiskyJoe <jr...@pacbell.net> wrote:
> >>> But the evidence and Dr. Alvarez prove
> >>> you are wrong.
>
> >> OK, where is your evidence that Dr. Alvarez
> >> thought that there was a shot at frame 285?
>
> > Why are you asking me to prove something
> > I never said? Please reread my article at
> > the top of the thread.
>
> Saying "... the evidence and Dr. Alvarez
> prove you are wrong." strongly implies
> that Dr. Alvarez agrees with you, that
> clearly there was a gunshot at Z285.
Bullshit! Why did you snip your own statement that I was responding to???
YOU:
> Instead, he was looking back and
> then looked forward. Possibly as a reaction
> to a shot but more probably he was just
> starting to look where he was driving
> which is what he should do.
ME:
Well, everyone has a right to an opinion I guess.
But the evidence and Dr. Alvarez prove you are wrong.
YOU:
> OK, where is your evidence that Dr. Alvarez
> thought that there was a shot at frame 285?
(unquote)
You know damned good and well that my response was to your claim that
Greer probably turned to the front, merely to "look where he was
driving".
I mean, that IS why you just snipped it, isn't it?
Since you knew you couldn't defend such a ludicrous position, you then
pretended that I said something entirely different, right?
Isn't that why you continually snip my comments? You certainly can't leave
them on the screen as you distort them.
And speaking of snipping, why did you delete the questions I asked you?
There was only two of them. Surely, you can think up some kind of answer,
or just pretend I asked you something easier!
But here they are again. Let's hold the presses and give you another
chance:
WhiskyJoe
> You know damned good and well that my
> response was to your claim that
> Greer probably turned to the front,
> merely to "look where he was driving".
> I mean, that IS why you just snipped it,
> isn't it?
This is nonsense. I properly pointed out
that you have made statements that imply
Alvarez endorsed the theory that there
was a Z285 shot. Yes, there are times you
say he only thought the jiggle at Z285 was
caused by a some other noise, but at other
times you seem to claim he thought there
was a shot at Z285.
In your posts of:
********************
Post by Robert Harris Nov 23, 7:03 pm
> And finally, Alvarez also concluded that
> Greer was startled by the shot at 285.
Clearly a claim the Alvarez thought there
was a shot at Z285. People can go back
and read your entire post to see if I
misrepresented what you were claiming.
********************
Post by Robert Harris Nov 24, 6:52 pm
> But the evidence and Dr. Alvarez prove
> you are wrong.
You concluded the camera jiggle and Greer's
head turn was caused by a shot. I disagreed.
You said the evidence and Dr. Alvarez prove
I was wrong. That strongly implies
Dr. Alvarez endorsed the shot at
Z285 theory.
Again, people can go back and read your
entire post to see if I misrepresented
what you were claiming.
********************
> I mean, that IS why you just snipped it,
> isn't it?
No.
> Since you knew you couldn't defend such
> a ludicrous position, you then pretended
> that I said something entirely different,
> right?
No.
I snipped it because I saw no need to
paste in your entire post. But, if anyone
wants to check and judge from themselves,
they should go back to your posts of
Nov 23, 7:03 pm and Nov 24, 6:52 pm to
see if you implied that Dr. Alvarez
agreed with you about a shot at Z285.
********************
> And speaking of snipping, why did you
> delete the questions I asked you?
> There was only two of them. Surely,
> you can think up some kind of answer,
> or just pretend I asked you something
> easier!
> But here they are again. Let's hold the
> presses and give you another chance:
I didn't answer them because I didn't think
they were worth responding to. But, as
requested, here are my answers.
********************
> Why do you think Greer slowed the limo,
> lifting his foot from the gas, 2-3
> eighteenths of a second after every
> nonvictim in the limo reacted?
First, I dispute that every non victim in
the limousine was reacting. People in the
limousine were constantly moving. What you
site as a reaction to a shot at Z285 was
people doing what they were continuously
after JFK and Connally were wounded.
* Greer turning his head back, then forward,
then back, then forward.
* Jackie looking at Connally, then JFK,
then Connally, then JFK, finally looking
at JFK more closely, bringing her head
forward to see his face and neck more
clearly. I don't think there is one person
in one hundred, who knows nothing of the
case and studies the Zapruder film for the
first time, who would conclude that
Jackie was ducking after Z285 and not
looking at JFK more intently.
* And for a non rider in the limousine,
Jean Hill appears to track JFK, then
abruptly shift her gaze to track one of
the motorcycle officers, one of whom
she knew. She can be seen in the following
film:
http://jfkmurdersolved.com/film/Zapruderstable.mov
Nothing in her reaction is what I would
expect from someone startled by a shot,
unless the shot was fired by one of the
motorcycle riders and so she tracked and
watched him.
And as far as Greer slowing the limousine
down, I think that would be a natural
response to his looking backwards.
Since he started to look backwards at Z300,
is any slow down then really that
mysterious?
********************
> Why do you think he felt the "concussion"
> of that shot, as he was turned to the rear?
I have never heard of anyone feeling the
concussion of a shot, even a near miss.
Hearing the crack as the supersonic bullet
goes by? Yes. Hearing the thump of the
muzzle blast? Yes. Feeling the concussion
from a bullet weighing a third of an ounce?
No.
As always, I don't think eyewitness accounts
are the last word. Even if they report
something plausible. Like they heard a
shot just as they turned their head.
But feeling the concussion from the shot?
That is doubly unreliable.
Robert Harris
<b0c26e55-a7bb-4d0a...@u8g2000prd.googlegroups.com>,
WhiskyJoe <jr...@pacbell.net> wrote:
> > You know damned good and well that my
> > response was to your claim that
> > Greer probably turned to the front,
> > merely to "look where he was driving".
> > I mean, that IS why you just snipped it,
> > isn't it?
>
> This is nonsense. I properly pointed out
> that you have made statements that imply
> Alvarez endorsed the theory that there
> was a Z285 shot. Yes, there are times you
> say he only thought the jiggle at Z285 was
> caused by a some other noise, but at other
> times you seem to claim he thought there
> was a shot at Z285.
>
> In your posts of:
>
> ********************
>
> Post by Robert Harris Nov 23, 7:03 pm
>
> > And finally, Alvarez also concluded that
> > Greer was startled by the shot at 285.
Obviously, that was a mistake and the only time in 14 years that I ever
said such a thing. I also called Alvarez, Greer the other day. You seem
to have missed that opportunity to accuse me of deception.
I have always stated that Alvarez rejected the idea that the noise was a
gunshot and I have explained exactly why believed that, based on the
statements in his paper.
>
> Clearly a claim the Alvarez thought there
> was a shot at Z285. People can go back
> and read your entire post to see if I
> misrepresented what you were claiming.
>
> ********************
> Post by Robert Harris Nov 24, 6:52 pm
>
> > But the evidence and Dr. Alvarez prove
> > you are wrong.
>
> You concluded the camera jiggle and Greer's
> head turn was caused by a shot. I disagreed.
> You said the evidence and Dr. Alvarez prove
> I was wrong. That strongly implies
> Dr. Alvarez endorsed the shot at
> Z285 theory.
Whiskey, one of the good things about usenet is that it is easy to reply
to individual sentences and statements. And it is easy to see exactly
what comment is being responded to.
Obviously, you realize that because you continue to delete our verbatim
statements which includes the sequence in which they were posted. Once
again, this is our exchange - verbatim:
****************************************************************
> Instead, he was looking back and
> then looked forward. Possibly as a reaction
> to a shot but more probably he was just
> starting to look where he was driving
> which is what he should do.
Well, everyone has a right to an opinion I guess.
But the evidence and Dr. Alvarez prove you are wrong.
****************************************************************
As anyone can easily see, my reply was to your claim that Greer probably
turned to the front for normal reasons.
That argument was absurd, because that was precisely when he panicked
and slowed the limousine.
It is also at the point in time in which Greer described hearing a
gunshot and feeling the "concussion" of what could only have been, the
shockwave of the passing bullet.
And that, as you know all too well, is the reason I said that the
evidence and Alvarez prove you wrong. Alvarez stated very clearly, that
the reason Greer turned then, was in reaction to the loud noise at frame
285.
>
> Again, people can go back and read your
> entire post to see if I misrepresented
> what you were claiming.
And they will undoubtedly need to, since you delete nearly everything we
said, at every opportunity.
>
> ********************
>
> > I mean, that IS why you just snipped it,
> > isn't it?
>
> No.
LOL! Of course you did, just like you deleted everything that
contradicted your misrepresentation of my statements, in this latest
post.
>
> > Since you knew you couldn't defend such
> > a ludicrous position, you then pretended
> > that I said something entirely different,
> > right?
>
> No.
Yes you did. And you just now did the same thing, trying to conceal the
context of my response to your claim about why Greer turned to the front.
>
> I snipped it because I saw no need to
> paste in your entire post.
You don't even have to do that. You only need to leave in your own
statement to which I replied.
But then you won't be able to claim I was responding to something else,
will you-)
.. But, if anyone
> wants to check and judge from themselves,
> they should go back to your posts of
> Nov 23, 7:03 pm and Nov 24, 6:52 pm to
> see if you implied that Dr. Alvarez
> agreed with you about a shot at Z285.
>
> ********************
>
> > And speaking of snipping, why did you
> > delete the questions I asked you?
> > There was only two of them. Surely,
> > you can think up some kind of answer,
> > or just pretend I asked you something
> > easier!
>
> > But here they are again. Let's hold the
> > presses and give you another chance:
>
> I didn't answer them because I didn't think
> they were worth responding to. But, as
> requested, here are my answers.
>
> ********************
>
> > Why do you think Greer slowed the limo,
> > lifting his foot from the gas, 2-3
> > eighteenths of a second after every
> > nonvictim in the limo reacted?
>
> First, I dispute that every non victim in
> the limousine was reacting.
ROFLMAO!
Unbelievable.
Interested lurker might want to examine this video and decide for
themselves:
http://www.jfkhistory.com/Nellie2/Nellie2.mov
There is also a Youtube version here:
http://www.youtube.com/user/bobharris77#p/u/20/Ql6VqZDiC6s
Robert Harris