I'D LIKE TO GET OTHER LNers' OPINIONS ON THIS.....
David Von Pein
In the post I'm going to repeat below in just a minute, I realize I
could be wrong about a certain CTer named William Kelly of The
Education Forum....but I'd like to hear from other acj forum members
about this matter.
What do you think? Is this deliberate deception on Kelly's part (to
make it appear as if I am posting under multiple usernames)?
Or was Mr. Kelly just being nice when he posted a link to my JFK Blog
on The Edu. Forum?
But, then too, if the latter is correct, I need to ask myself this
question: Why on this Earth would a CTer who despises me have any
desire at all to post a link to a site (my JFK Blog) that he surely
must think is full of nothing but lies and half-truths and pro-LN
distortions, etc.?
Offhand, I cannot think of a single example in the past where a CTer
has voluntarily posted a link to my blog on any public forum. Maybe it
has happened, but right now I certainly cannot remember such an
instance.
Anyway, I just wanted some LN feedback on this matter. Thank you.
Here's the previous post to which I referred:
======================================
www.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/msg/b36952c6d1927688
REPEATED PASSAGE FROM THE ABOVE LONGER POST (JUST FOR EMPHASIS,
BECAUSE I THINK THIS IS REALLY QUITE INTERESTING):
"Seems to me as though Mr. [William] Kelly is trying to pull the
wool over somebody's eyes there at the Edu. Forum by ADDING IN
something that never appeared in the aaj posts he was quoting from,
making it look as if I (DVP), myself, had "signed" that post with my
blog address. That's pretty darn deceptive, IMO." -- DVP; 02/01/09
======================================
aeffects
> In the post I'm going to repeat below in just a minute, I realize I
> could be wrong about a certain CTer named William Kelly of The
> Education Forum....but I'd like to hear from other acj forum members
> about this matter.
look it loser, you've burned every bridge you had going for you, now
your left with this: you're a two-bit copy
& paste trolling arteeeeest, and not a damn thing to offer....
> What do you think? Is this deliberate deception on Kelly's part (to
> make it appear as if I am posting under multiple usernames)?
>
> Or was Mr. Kelly just being nice when he posted a link to my JFK Blog
> on The Edu. Forum?
>
> But, then too, if the latter is correct, I need to ask myself this
> question: Why on this Earth would a CTer who despises me have any
> desire at all to post a link to a site (my JFK Blog) that he surely
> must think is full of nothing but lies and half-truths and pro-LN
> distortions, etc.?
moron, I doubt BK gives two-shits about you... he's a published author
and newspaper man, just who the fuck are you that he should care
> Offhand, I cannot think of a single example in the past where a CTer
> has voluntarily posted a link to my blog on any public forum. Maybe it
> has happened, but right now I certainly cannot remember such an
> instance.
finally something with a ring of truth..... first step in rebuilding a
lost life, that being: knowing its your fault!
> Anyway, I just wanted some LN feedback on this matter. Thank you.
suck-it-up toots-e-roll, there's always Vinnie blog!
Bud
> In the post I'm going to repeat below in just a minute, I realize I
> could be wrong about a certain CTer named William Kelly of The
> Education Forum....but I'd like to hear from other acj forum members
> about this matter.
>
> What do you think? Is this deliberate deception on Kelly's part (to
> make it appear as if I am posting under multiple usernames)?
>
> Or was Mr. Kelly just being nice when he posted a link to my JFK Blog
> on The Edu. Forum?
>
> But, then too, if the latter is correct, I need to ask myself this
> question: Why on this Earth would a CTer who despises me have any
> desire at all to post a link to a site (my JFK Blog) that he surely
> must think is full of nothing but lies and half-truths and pro-LN
> distortions, etc.?
>
> Offhand, I cannot think of a single example in the past where a CTer
> has voluntarily posted a link to my blog on any public forum. Maybe it
> has happened, but right now I certainly cannot remember such an
> instance.
>
> Anyway, I just wanted some LN feedback on this matter. Thank you.
Well, it looks like he attributed "slats" comments to you. Hard to
say whether it was from error or deliberate. They do seem a rather
touchy, thin skinned lot over there. And if they didn`t take
information and run in the wrong direction with it, you might think
they knew what they were talking about sometimes. It`s good they keep
their kookiness in the forefront, lest we forget, and consider their
viewpoints legitimate. As far as Kelly himself goes, Duke Lane
presented a scathing and well supported demolition of Carr as a
witness, and Kelly`s response was that it was "ludacrist to call Carr
a perjurer." No real rebuttal to any of the issues Lane raised about
Carr`s credibility mind you, just a declaration that Carr should be
considered a viable witness. In other words, Kelly likes what Carr
said (apparently even the impossible parts).
David Von Pein
Thanks, Bud. I appreciate your comments (as always).
Addendum to Bud.....
What about Kelly adding in my blog link in his post? That seems mighty
odd for a CTer like Kelly to do (if, that is, it wasn't a deliberate
attempt to make it look like my "signature" at the end of a forum
post...which, granted, is something I am inclined to do quite often,
just like John McAdams and Dave Reitzes often close out their posts
with links to their websites as well).
Robert Harris
Yup, looks like he got you mixed up with somebody else.
I think death is too good for him!
Don't you just hate it when something like this interrupts all the
intense research you are doing??
Robert Harris
In article
<b0483141-f257-42ec...@g1g2000pra.googlegroups.com>,
David Von Pein
>>> "Don't you just hate it when something like this interrupts all the intense research you are doing??" <<<
There's no need for me to do any additional research in order to
arrive at the truth regarding the way JFK met his fate in 1963.
Because that particular truth was arrived at back in 1963 and
1964....and nothing that Robert "Z285" Harris has done in the interim
has undercut the LN conclusion arrived at back in '63-'64.*
* = Bob Harris' foot-stomping and subjective "Z285" nonsense
notwithstanding, of course.
>>> "Yup, looks like he [William Kelly at The Education Forum] got you mixed up with somebody else." <<<
You mean to tell me, Bob, that you actually DON'T think that I use
fake usernames on the Internet?
Gee, what kind of CT-loving kook are you anyway?
Get with the "All LNers Use Aliases" program! Okay?
Dave Reitzes
Kelly's pretty "out there," but I doubt he intended any deception.
Dave
David Von Pein
Thank you, Dave R.
tomnln
http://whokilledjfk.net/international_conspiracy.htm
"Bud" <sirs...@fast.net> wrote in message
news:4cd9a801-3bad-4e28...@r10g2000prf.googlegroups.com...
Robert Harris
<aa9fba3c-ead8-4b10...@s24g2000vbp.googlegroups.com>,
David Von Pein <davev...@aol.com> wrote:
> >>> "Don't you just hate it when something like this interrupts all the
> >>> intense research you are doing??" <<<
>
>
> There's no need for me to do any additional research in order to
> arrive at the truth regarding the way JFK met his fate in 1963.
> Because that particular truth was arrived at back in 1963 and
> 1964....
David, you have never made your fanaticism more clear.
But I wonder if you understand the fallacy of thinking that your
position was confirmed by an investigation that you have never
challenged.
Robert Harris
aeffects
> Thank you, Dave R.
do you tire talking to yourself?
David Von Pein
>>> "But I wonder if you understand the fallacy of thinking that your position was confirmed by an investigation that you have never challenged." <<<
I've never "challenged" the supposedly-true fact that our planet
revolves around the sun either. Does that mean I should stop believing
it?
INSTANT REPLAY:
>>> "But I wonder if you understand the fallacy of thinking that your position was confirmed by an investigation that you have never challenged." <<<
By "challenged", Robert Harris means this:
Looking under every rock and micro-analyzing every word in the WC's 26
volumes and the HSCA's 12 volumes, in order to find something that a
CTer can use to prop up some kind of "conspiracy" in the JFK case.
And additionally in Robert's case, "challenged" means this as well: To
micro-analyze the Zapruder Film to absurd lengths of micro-management,
until he finds something (anything!) that he THINKS he can use to
endorse a subjective and unique conspiracy theory all his own.
Via that kind of "challenging", who COULDN'T "find" something that he/
she thinks supports a conspiracy of some kind?
Like VB said:
"Refusing to accept the plain truth, and dedicating their
existence for over forty years to convincing the American public of
the truth of their own charges, the critics have journeyed to the
outer margins of their imaginations. Along the way, they have split
hairs and then proceeded to split the split hairs, drawn far-fetched
and wholly unreasonable inferences from known facts, and literally
invented bogus facts from the grist of rumor and speculation.
"With over 18,000 pages of small print in the 27 Warren
Commission volumes alone, and many millions of pages of FBI and CIA
documents, any researcher worth his salt can find a sentence here or
there to support any ludicrous conspiracy theory he might have. And
that, of course, is precisely what the conspiracy community has done."
-- VINCENT T. BUGLIOSI; Via "Reclaiming History" (c.2007)
David Von Pein
http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=13965&view=findpost&p=162374
PAM SAID (ON THE EDU. FORUM):
>>> "I feel sure John Simkin would find a way for "DVP" to post if he were to pony up bio info and photo; especially since it was John who initiated this thread." <<<
DVP SAYS:
I have no problem with revealing "bio" type info (e.g., location, age,
e-mail address). In fact, I almost always "pony up" such info on
websites where a "Profile" is made available to the world):
www.youtube.com/user/DavidVonPein
And I don't really have a problem with providing a photo either. It's
just that (in 2006) I did not have a photo available.
I have discovered, however, a very small picture that I could use as a
profile image (although it will probably show up way too blurry and
indistinct if it's blown up much at all).
But I'm certainly willing to sign up again as an active member at The
Education Forum (if John Simkin hasn't banned me completely after my
dismissal three years ago). Does he allow people to re-join after
they've been previously kicked off? I have no idea about that. ~shrug~
Anyway, I'm game.....if John S. is.
Robert Harris
<cd61c378-6b77-46c4...@t3g2000yqa.googlegroups.com>,
David Von Pein <davev...@aol.com> wrote:
> >>> "But I wonder if you understand the fallacy of thinking that your
> >>> position was confirmed by an investigation that you have never
> >>> challenged." <<<
>
> I've never "challenged" the supposedly-true fact that our planet
> revolves around the sun either. Does that mean I should stop believing
> it?
>
>
>
>
> INSTANT REPLAY:
>
>
> >>> "But I wonder if you understand the fallacy of thinking that your
> >>> position was confirmed by an investigation that you have never
> >>> challenged." <<<
>
> By "challenged", Robert Harris means this:
>
> Looking under every rock and micro-analyzing every word in the WC's 26
> volumes and the HSCA's 12 volumes, in order to find something that a
> CTer can use to prop up some kind of "conspiracy" in the JFK case.
David, I go with the consensus of the large majority of the witnesses,
and particularly the law enforcement professionals, many of these
witnesses are visible and can be easily corroborated.
You go with a theory that is denied by most of those people.
And I go with the opinions of the medical people who treated the
President, not just because they agree with me about the BOH damage and
are nearly unanimous, but because I have corroborated their recollection
with the hard evidence of the Zapruder film.
And you confirm the accuracy of my analysis of these witnesses, by
deliberately misrepresenting me and pretending that I only seek out
isolated statements.
David, it is YOU and your friends who deny the best witnesses and the
corroborating, hard evidence that proves they are right. It is you, who
can only find isolated, uncorroborated witnesses, in those rare instance
when you find anyone at all.
>
> And additionally in Robert's case, "challenged" means this as well: To
> micro-analyze the Zapruder Film to absurd lengths of micro-management,
> until he finds something (anything!) that he THINKS he can use to
> endorse a subjective and unique conspiracy theory all his own.
Tell me something, David.
If police officers examined a security tape which captured a shooting in
a convenience store, would you urge them to refrain from looking for
reactions by the victims and bystanders in order to determine when shots
were fired?
Would you tell them not to "micro-analyze" the film, in order to
corroborate the witnesses' statements??
Answer honestly, David.
And please explain why you would discourage the same kind of common
sense analysis of the Zapruder film.
Studying the relevant films and photos are standard procedure in any
criminal investigation in which they are available, David. And my
conclusions are not isolated, fringe theories. They are consistent with
the analysis of one of the most brilliant scientists of the 20th century
and consistent with the large majority of the people who witnessed this
crime.
If there was a shot at frame 285, then there was a conspiracy.
Why don't you temporarily set aside your prejudices and carefully
examine the evidence, including the reactions and the statements of the
people we see reacting? Mrs. Connally's testimony is probably the most
detailed and verifiable.
A belief untested is nothing more than self-deception, David.
You don't even have to tell us you did it, but for your own benefit, put
a little independent effort into learning what happened.
Robert Harris
David Von Pein
>>> "If police officers examined a security tape which captured a shooting in a convenience store, would you urge them to refrain from looking for reactions by the victims and bystanders in order to determine when shots were fired? Would you tell them not to "micro-analyze" the film, in order to corroborate the witnesses' statements?? Answer honestly, David." <<<
In such a "convenience store" scenario, there would probably be no
need to micro-analyze the store's security tape to determine when
shots were fired. It's not the same situation that exists in the JFK
case, where gunmen conceivably could have been hidden in tall
buildings, etc.
Did the store's shooter(s) hide themselves from the view of every
witness in the store during the shooting?
Was there a convenient 7-story building or a "grassy knoll" INSIDE the
store that the gunmen could use to hide from view?
Was there a major controversy as to the directionality of the shots
fired inside the store?
Was there a major controversy as to the inshoot/outshoot wounds of any
of the victims who might have been struck by the bullets inside the
store?
Did any witness in the store say they saw more than just ONE person
firing a gun inside the store? (And in the Kennedy case, there are
ZERO witnesses who fall into the category of "I Saw Two People Firing
Weapons At JFK". In fact, there's only one witness, period, who saw
anyone firing a weapon at JFK--and that weapon was being fired from
the TSBD's 6th Floor.)
Unless some of those above questions can be answered with a "Yes",
then I can't think of a good-enough reason for the police to scour the
videotape for signs of the gunshots. But I imagine you can think of a
few, Bob.
But, Robert, in the instance of the Kennedy Assassination, the
Zapruder Film that you rely on so heavily to prop up your double-bill
of CT nonsense (1. a missed shot occurred at Z285 and 2. JFK was hit
in the head by two bullets) HAS been micro-analyzed to death by people
who were looking for signs of potential extra gunmen.
And the end result of such analysis by the experts (such as Luis
Alvarez) is that there were three shots fired, with those shots coming
at intervals which are perfectly consistent with the one-assassin-in-
the-TSBD scenario.
You, Bob, OTOH, just simply do not like the "3 Shot" findings that
others have found in the Z-Film. And that's because, Bob, you
desperately WANT a multi-gun conspiracy to exist in this case.
You do want a conspiracy to exist, don't you Robert Harris? Answer
honestly.
>>> "You don't even have to tell us you did it, but for your own benefit, put a little independent effort into learning what happened." <<<
I have done that, Robert (whether you wish to believe it or not).
IMO, it's conspiracists such as yourself who are fooling themselves
(badly) into thinking that their "independent effort into learning
what happened" to JFK has led to some kind of conclusive PROOF that
the official version of the event (i.e., Oswald was the only gunman to
hit any victims with any bullets in Dealey Plaza) is dead-wrong.
That's called WISHFUL THINKING, Robert. And nothing else but that.
David Von Pein
www.DavidVonPein.blogspot.com
David Von Pein
>>> "You have to use your real name[,] "DVP"..." <<<
I did. (Your disbelief notwithstanding, of course.)
>>> "...and you have to provide bio information connected to it." <<<
Does such mandatory info stop at "locale, age, race, sex, favorite
cereal, and shoe size"? Or do I have to provide my blood type and last
12 employers as well in order to satisfy Mr. Simkin's hunger for
useless data?
>>> "Plus, you have to post a photo, which you refused to do." <<<
Incorrect. (As usual.)
>>> "Get real." <<<
I have.
Maybe you, though, should learn to read (and comprehend correctly),
Pam. That'd help greatly.
Plus, it would probably help if you would refrain from hanging a label
of suspicion on people when you have so little reason to do so.
But, hey, maybe I'm just being totally unreasonable to expect such
restraint from a conspiracy believer.
Robert Harris
<95325002-463e-4355...@q30g2000prq.googlegroups.com>,
David Von Pein <davev...@aol.com> wrote:
> >>> "If police officers examined a security tape which captured a shooting in
> >>> a convenience store, would you urge them to refrain from looking for
> >>> reactions by the victims and bystanders in order to determine when shots
> >>> were fired? Would you tell them not to "micro-analyze" the film, in order
> >>> to corroborate the witnesses' statements?? Answer honestly, David." <<<
>
>
> In such a "convenience store" scenario, there would probably be no
> need to micro-analyze the store's security tape to determine when
> shots were fired. It's not the same situation that exists in the JFK
> case, where gunmen conceivably could have been hidden in tall
> buildings, etc.
Why are you dodging the question David?
>
> Did the store's shooter(s) hide themselves from the view of every
> witness in the store during the shooting?
You're running David, which means that you realize as well as anyone
else, that looking for reactions is a valid procedure.
>
> Was there a convenient 7-story building or a "grassy knoll" INSIDE the
> store that the gunmen could use to hide from view?
>
> Was there a major controversy as to the directionality of the shots
> fired inside the store?
>
> Was there a major controversy as to the inshoot/outshoot wounds of any
> of the victims who might have been struck by the bullets inside the
> store?
>
> Did any witness in the store say they saw more than just ONE person
> firing a gun inside the store? (And in the Kennedy case, there are
> ZERO witnesses who fall into the category of "I Saw Two People Firing
> Weapons At JFK". In fact, there's only one witness, period, who saw
> anyone firing a weapon at JFK--and that weapon was being fired from
> the TSBD's 6th Floor.)
>
>
> Unless some of those above questions can be answered with a "Yes",
> then I can't think of a good-enough reason for the police to scour the
> videotape for signs of the gunshots. But I imagine you can think of a
> few, Bob.
David, you are asking questions that you know are irrelevant, or at
least you would if you haven't shut down all mental processes.
You need to figure out whether a shot was fired at frame 285. If you
make that effort, it will probably be the hardest thing you ever do.
But the choices you make which are based on fear, are usually bad ones.
Robert Harris
David Von Pein
<yawn>
Robert Harris
<7e1d3e51-9ddf-497b...@l39g2000yqn.googlegroups.com>,
David Von Pein <davev...@aol.com> wrote:
> Bob,
>
> Would the convenience store security tape be needed if the police had
> no valid reason to suspect that a second gunman/robber existed AND if
> one guy was captured a short distance from the scene of the crime with
> the gun in his hands that was utilized in the hold-up?
>
> The above scenario is almost identical to what we find in the JFK
> case.
>
> IOW -- How many decades should CTers continue to search for proof of a
> second gunman in Dallas who never existed in the first place?
>
> It seems to me that that last inquiry I raised is a reasonable and
> valid one. Any idea what the answer to it is, Bob?
David, your question about the details of a hypothetical situation is
not valid at all. It is purely, an evasion.
You know very well, that this is about the ridiculously obvious fact
that a video in which we see bystanders reacting to gunshots can provide
evidence of when the shots were fired.
Your question about how many years it will take for your adversaries to
realize you are right, is both presumptive and idiotic.
You need to study the question of a shot at 285, very thoroughly and
objectively. If you do that, one of two things should happen.
1. You will realize that this was indeed a conspiracy.
or
2. You will have learned how to do what no other nutter has done, in 14
years - debunk me and shut me up!
Either way, David, you win!
And no, David. I have NOT been previously outed, a fact you will confirm
by your inability to link the an article that comes even close.
Of course, your other option is to remain bigoted and closed minded,
taking no risks at all. Around here though, that's by far, the most
popular strategy.
Robert Harris
lazu...@webtv.net
put up 10 posts in a row of the same old crap.
David Von Pein
www.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/msg/81370b8a3fc5f334
>>> "David, your question about the details of a hypothetical situation is not valid at all." <<<
Yes, I know. That's why I deleted that post two minutes after I posted
it. I realized after posting it that it wasn't entirely relevant.
Of course, I only deleted it off of the Google server that I use....so
the deleted post is still out there. But you'll note that I replaced
that post at the "Google Groups" forum with a "yawn".
Anyway, Bob....keep fantasizing about a Z285 shot that none of the
experts or the Government investigations agrees is there at all. After
all, you can always have your conspiracy (in your own mind) as long as
you pretend (via pure subjectivism and nothing more) that a shot was
fired at Z285.
And since you desperately WANT a "conspiracy", it's a perfect
situation for you, Robert -- i.e., you can always have a make-believe
missed gunshot at Z285 that nobody can firmly disprove 100%. Of
course, you cannot come close to PROVING it beyond a reasonable doubt
either. So, I guess it's a stalemate.
But, based on a little something known as THE TOTALITY OF ALL THE
EVIDENCE in the JFK murder case, it's fairly obvious to anyone who has
the word "reasonable" attached to them that only THREE shots were
fired at JFK on 11/22/63, and that no shot was fired at Z285.
Now, Bob, go to work on proving that Nellie Connally and Jacqueline
Kennedy were positively NOT moving their heads and bodies in the
manner they moved them just after Z-Frame 285 because of their desire
to tend to their shot-up husbands.
Can you, Bob, prove the ladies weren't merely "leaning in" toward
their injured husbands at the exact same time merely out of concern
over their spouses' injuries -- versus your theory of the two women
reacting to the sound of a gunshot instead?
After all, since all reasonable people know without a speck of a doubt
that the Single-Bullet Theory is true, it would make perfect sense to
have both Nellie and Jackie reacting in the manner they each did on
the Zapruder Film based ONLY on the fact that each of their husbands
was hit by Oswald's CE399 bullet at the EXACT SAME TIME. Therefore,
why couldn't the women be reacting in such a fashion at the EXACT SAME
TIME as well?
Good luck disproving my last paragraph above.
Robert Harris
<cf99ff36-9e20-4f2b...@v18g2000pro.googlegroups.com>,
David Von Pein <davev...@aol.com> wrote:
> www.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/msg/81370b8a3fc5f334
>
>
>
> >>> "David, your question about the details of a hypothetical situation is
> >>> not valid at all." <<<
>
> Yes, I know. That's why I deleted that post two minutes after I posted
> it. I realized after posting it that it wasn't entirely relevant.
>
> Of course, I only deleted it off of the Google server that I use....so
> the deleted post is still out there. But you'll note that I replaced
> that post at the "Google Groups" forum with a "yawn".
>
> Anyway, Bob....keep fantasizing about a Z285 shot that none of the
> experts or the Government investigations agrees is there at all.
David, which "experts" have disagreed?
Dr. Michael Stroscio, phd Physics, who wrote an extensive article about
Alvarez's analysis of the Zapruder film, expressed full agreement with
me, way back in '95.
Larry Sturdevan, fully acknowledged the reactions, although like most
nutters in the pre-see-no-evil days, he argued that they must have been
reacting to something other than a gunshot. The problem was, that he
couldn't think of any alternatives and shortly thereafter, disappeared
from the newsgroup.
> After
> all, you can always have your conspiracy (in your own mind) as long as
> you pretend (via pure subjectivism and nothing more) that a shot was
> fired at Z285.
David, honest people prove their points before asserting them. Was it
just an honest mistake that you skipped over step one?
>
> And since you desperately WANT a "conspiracy",
Why do you rely so heavily on ad hominem insults, David?
I spent considerable time last week, arguing that there is no known
evidence that government people were involved in the assassination.
Are you suggesting that I have some kind of mental disorder that starts
me drooling over the possibility of a mafia hit??
Deal with the facts and evidence, David.
> it's a perfect
> situation for you, Robert -- i.e., you can always have a make-believe
> missed gunshot at Z285 that nobody can firmly disprove 100%. Of
> course, you cannot come close to PROVING it beyond a reasonable doubt
> either. So, I guess it's a stalemate.
Why do you continue to assert things that you could not prove to save
your life, David??
Do you really think that will convince anyone??
>
> But, based on a little something known as THE TOTALITY OF ALL THE
> EVIDENCE in the JFK murder case, it's fairly obvious to anyone who has
> the word "reasonable" attached to them that only THREE shots were
> fired at JFK on 11/22/63, and that no shot was fired at Z285.
David, are you trying to set a record for the most wild, unsupported
claims ever made in a single post??
You need to PROVE your claims, David. Anybody can make up stories.
>
> Now, Bob, go to work on proving that Nellie Connally and Jacqueline
> Kennedy were positively NOT moving their heads and bodies in the
> manner they moved them just after Z-Frame 285 because of their desire
> to tend to their shot-up husbands.
>
> Can you, Bob, prove the ladies weren't merely "leaning in" toward
> their injured husbands at the exact same time merely out of concern
> over their spouses' injuries -- versus your theory of the two women
> reacting to the sound of a gunshot instead?
Yes, I can prove that beyond reasonable doubt, David.
First, they reacted within the same 1/6th of a second. You can confirm
that yourself, because it is quite easy to see when those reactions
began.
The odds against them randomly deciding to inspect their husbands at the
same instant are staggering, David, and the odds against them reacting
within the same time period, to reactions by Zapruder, Kellerman and
Greer, would require a 12 digit calculator.
But simultaneous reactions are EXACTLY what we expect when people are
startled by loud noises. Shrinks have proven that, countless times.
The other proof, which confirms that enormous probability is the simple
fact that both of the ladies described a sequence of events in which
they heard a shot at precisely the time that we see them react.
Jackie for example, said she thought her husband was "receiving a
bullet" then. She also said her original recollection was that she felt
badly because Gov Connally drew her attention when he began to shout,
which is why she was not looking at JFK when the first of two shots were
fired. We can see exactly when Gov Connally began to shout, David, which
was well after he was wounded.
Nellie mistakenly believed that her husband was hit by that same shot
and that she never again looked back at JFK after that shot was fired.
She didn't realize that he was hit when JFK was, because his back was
turned toward her. It's easy to see in the film, that she is mostly
focused on JFK and unaware of her husband's distress.
You can easily see her react to that shot, and turn to attend to her
husband, David. Her testimony reads like a narration.
Now, before you go off again, calling me a psychopath or whatever, spend
a little time watching those reactions. Read Nellie's testimony as you
do.
But be careful David. If you study this stuff honestly, the lights will
eventually start to come on.
>
> After all, since all reasonable people know without a speck of a doubt
> that the Single-Bullet Theory is true, it would make perfect sense to
> have both Nellie and Jackie reacting in the manner they each did on
> the Zapruder Film based ONLY on the fact that each of their husbands
> was hit by Oswald's CE399 bullet at the EXACT SAME TIME. Therefore,
> why couldn't the women be reacting in such a fashion at the EXACT SAME
> TIME as well?
OK, I'm glad I actually read this paragraph, because the question you
ask, is important.
Psychologists have proven over and over again, and Alvarez confirmed in
his paper to the Journal of Physics, that startle reactions begin with
no more than 1/3rd of a second following the stimulus.
Beyond that point, reactions will be all over the place, because they
are the result of people consciously deciding to react. For example,
look at the reactions to the early shot circa 160. Nellie, Jackie,
Kellerman and Greer all react but their reactions are seperated by up 60
or so frames.
Those were *voluntary* reactions, David. And the nature of the reactions
is MUCH different than what we see following 285 and 312.
But the fact that all four nonvictims in the limo, and Zapruder reacted
in almost perfect unison, is what defines them as startle reactions,
which means that the stimulus could be no more than 1/3rd of a second
earlier.
They all began to react at 290-291 (possibly 292 at the most), which
means that shot was fired no earlier than 285, David.
Robert Harris
David Von Pein
>>> "Why do you continue to assert things that you could not prove to save your life, David??" <<<
Incredibly, Bob apparently fails to see the built-in Pot/Kettle irony
in his question above.
Bob, of course, cannot PROVE a Z285 missed shot if his life depended
upon it.
Why?
Because his Z285 missed shot is a total fantasy. Always has been.
Always will be.
David Von Pein
>>> "They reacted within the same 1/6th of a second. You can confirm that yourself, because it is quite easy to see when those reactions began. .... They all began to react at 290-291 (possibly 292 at the most), which means that shot was fired no earlier than 285." <<<
Your main problem, Bob, is trying to PROVE that the "reactions" on the
part of Nellie, Jackie, Kellerman, and Greer (which could more
accurately be referred to as "movements") are as a result of hearing a
gunshot.
Naturally, you cannot come anywhere close to proving that the
movements of those 4 people in the limousine are occurring as the
result of each of them hearing a shot at Z285. You THINK you've
"proven" it, but of course you haven't.
For one (very big!) thing, the limo occupants' "reactions" that you
attribute to a gunshot are not SHARP or SUDDEN or JERKY in any way
whatsoever. The "reactions" (i.e., movements) are perfectly SMOOTH and
NON-JERKY (unlike John Connally's head snap to his right after he
heard the first shot at circa Z160).
When watching Nellie and Jackie "leaning in" toward their husbands,
they are SMOOTHLY leaning in toward each man. There's nothing unusual
or out of the ordinary about Nellie's and Jackie's movements at all.
In short -- There's nothing at all on the Z-Film that could possibly
prove that a shot was fired at circa Z285. But that won't stop Robert
Harris from imagining that he has discovered proof-positive of just
such a gunshot.
THE ZAPRUDER FILM (STABILIZED VERSION; SLIGHTLY SLOWED DOWN):
Robert Harris
<37e3e445-2746-4813...@41g2000yqf.googlegroups.com>,
David Von Pein <davev...@aol.com> wrote:
> >>> "They reacted within the same 1/6th of a second. You can confirm that
> >>> yourself, because it is quite easy to see when those reactions began.
> >>> .... They all began to react at 290-291 (possibly 292 at the most), which
> >>> means that shot was fired no earlier than 285." <<<
>
>
> Your main problem, Bob, is trying to PROVE that the "reactions" on the
> part of Nellie, Jackie, Kellerman, and Greer (which could more
> accurately be referred to as "movements") are as a result of hearing a
> gunshot.
I don't know how you can say that. Three of the four nonvictims dropped
their heads by roughly 30 or more degrees. Greer did not, probably
because he was facing the rear then.
But the *type* of reactions were very similar to those following 312.
There was one major difference though, and it was VERY significant.
The reactions were not as pronounced as those following 312. Kellerman
for example, dropped his head much further down, following 312 than
following 285.
But that makes perfect sense, since Alvarez concluded in his paper that
Zapruder's reaction was also, not as pronounced as the one in reaction
to the 312 shot. And based on his presumption that all shots came from
the same place, he used that fact to support his argument that the 285
noise was therefore, not a gunshot.
But this strongly suggests, that the limo passengers were startled by
the same thing Zapruder was. So, we have to come to two conclusions:
1. The four passengers reacted in perfect unison with Zapruder's
reactions following 285 and 312.
2. They reacted in the same *degree* as Zapruder's reactions following
those two apparent shots.
>
> Naturally, you cannot come anywhere close to proving that the
> movements of those 4 people in the limousine are occurring as the
> result of each of them hearing a shot at Z285. You THINK you've
> "proven" it, but of course you haven't.
Well, I think I have proven that like Zapruder, they were at least
reacting to a loud noise. What are the alternatives?
And there is certainly no doubt that they thought they were hearing a
gunshot then, rather than a siren or anything else.
BTW, did you ever look closely at Zapruder's original statements on
11/22/63?
"as the president was coming down from Houston Street making his turn,
it was about a HALF-WAY down there, I heard a shot, and he slumped to
the side, like this. "
and he told the WC,
"Well, as the car came in line almost--I believe it was almost in line.
I was standing up here and I was shooting through a telephoto lens,
which is a zoom lens and as it reached about--I imagine it was around
here--I heard the first shot.."
Look at a DP diagram, David.
There is no way he would have thought the limo was "halfway" or "in
line" with him, at 160 or 223.
But at 285, the limo was almost dead-on, due north of his position.
LOTS of people failed to notice the shot at 160, including Clint Hill,
Charles Brehm, J. Hill, Mary Moorman, Chief Currey, and many others. And
no-one heard the shot at 223, even Gov. Connally.
>
> For one (very big!) thing, the limo occupants' "reactions" that you
> attribute to a gunshot are not SHARP or SUDDEN or JERKY in any way
> whatsoever. The "reactions" (i.e., movements) are perfectly SMOOTH and
> NON-JERKY (unlike John Connally's head snap to his right after he
> heard the first shot at circa Z160).
You are probably looking at a video that's in slow motion. Calibrate it
to a real-world 18fps and take another look.
>
> When watching Nellie and Jackie "leaning in" toward their husbands,
> they are SMOOTHLY leaning in toward each man. There's nothing unusual
> or out of the ordinary about Nellie's and Jackie's movements at all.
Jackie never looked at JFK's neck. She was looking down and away from
him at 312.
http://jfkhistory.com/pix/jackie312.jpg
>
> In short -- There's nothing at all on the Z-Film that could possibly
> prove that a shot was fired at circa Z285. But that won't stop Robert
> Harris from imagining that there he has discovered proof-positive of
> just such a gunshot.
>
> THE ZAPRUDER FILM (STABILIZED VERSION; SLIGHTLY SLOWED DOWN):
I have a quicktime video of that same one at my website, although the
resolution isn't very good.
http://www.jfkhistory.com/zapruderstable/zapruderstable.mov
You can see a lot more detail here,
http://www.jfkhistory.com/Extremecloseup.mp4
Also, one of the great things about Quicktime is that you can pause the
video and then move forward or back, one frame-at-a-time, using your
left and right arrows keys.
Robert Harris
>
> http://reclaiming-history.googlegroups.com/web/THE+ZAPRUDER+FILM+(STABILIZED+V
> ERSION).mov?gda=bGCHFGAAAAAVlk2Xfx8sVjADRR-uPdeJqDbDJwW6UIouCyCGiULtJk7M4UfakG
> fQkeP8lzs5xjq-8E7CUXyJo09RCDD78XAbE-UNtHX_4btfeYyY783Zxm3FU91bWBii3KPv5fvAM40
Robert Harris
<reharris1-AD9A3...@70-3-168-216.pools.spcsdns.net>,
Robert Harris <reha...@yahoo.com> wrote:
Err... that was south, duh.