Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.
Dismiss
A contender for Blurtation of the month!
91 views
Skip to first unread message
Robert Harris
Aug 11, 2014, 10:08:06 PM8/11/14
to
By the end of this month, it's gonna be a really tough call.
This one, from "Bigdog" will undoubtedly, be in the top two or three.
"What most of us see is the passengers continuing to do what they had
been doing prior to Z285. You are the one claiming there was an event at
Z285 that triggered a reaction immediately afterward."
The first sentence is preposterous, since the overwhelming majority of
those who rated my presentations on 285, with a thumbs up, proves that
people in the real world are nearly unanimous in agreement with me.
The second, is just flatly false, since I am hardly the "one" who made
this claim. Dr. Luis Alvarez discovered that there was a loud and
startling noise at 285. And Dr. Michael Stroscio, realized that that
noise was a gunshot, before I knew anything about it. And he fully
endorsed my paper, which corroborated his findings.
I used to think that people like Bigdog were liars, but I think I was
wrong. Like those who believe that God created the universe in 7 days,
285 deniers are so passionate in their beliefs, that they just cannot
bring themselves to honestly evaluate the facts and evidence.
Robert Harris
This one, from "Bigdog" will undoubtedly, be in the top two or three.
"What most of us see is the passengers continuing to do what they had
been doing prior to Z285. You are the one claiming there was an event at
Z285 that triggered a reaction immediately afterward."
The first sentence is preposterous, since the overwhelming majority of
those who rated my presentations on 285, with a thumbs up, proves that
people in the real world are nearly unanimous in agreement with me.
The second, is just flatly false, since I am hardly the "one" who made
this claim. Dr. Luis Alvarez discovered that there was a loud and
startling noise at 285. And Dr. Michael Stroscio, realized that that
noise was a gunshot, before I knew anything about it. And he fully
endorsed my paper, which corroborated his findings.
I used to think that people like Bigdog were liars, but I think I was
wrong. Like those who believe that God created the universe in 7 days,
285 deniers are so passionate in their beliefs, that they just cannot
bring themselves to honestly evaluate the facts and evidence.
Robert Harris
Jason Burke
Aug 12, 2014, 7:52:05 PM8/12/14
to
On 8/11/2014 7:08 PM, Robert Harris wrote:
> By the end of this month, it's gonna be a really tough call.
>
> This one, from "Bigdog" will undoubtedly, be in the top two or three.
>
> "What most of us see is the passengers continuing to do what they had
> been doing prior to Z285. You are the one claiming there was an event at
> Z285 that triggered a reaction immediately afterward."
>
> The first sentence is preposterous, since the overwhelming majority of
> those who rated my presentations on 285, with a thumbs up, proves that
> people in the real world are nearly unanimous in agreement with me.
Or, Option B: They're clueless.
> By the end of this month, it's gonna be a really tough call.
>
> This one, from "Bigdog" will undoubtedly, be in the top two or three.
>
> "What most of us see is the passengers continuing to do what they had
> been doing prior to Z285. You are the one claiming there was an event at
> Z285 that triggered a reaction immediately afterward."
>
> The first sentence is preposterous, since the overwhelming majority of
> those who rated my presentations on 285, with a thumbs up, proves that
> people in the real world are nearly unanimous in agreement with me.
Of course, Option B is the correct option.
>
> The second, is just flatly false, since I am hardly the "one" who made
> this claim. Dr. Luis Alvarez discovered that there was a loud and
> startling noise at 285. And Dr. Michael Stroscio, realized that that
> noise was a gunshot, before I knew anything about it. And he fully
> endorsed my paper, which corroborated his findings.
>
> I used to think that people like Bigdog were liars, but I think I was
> wrong. Like those who believe that God created the universe in 7 days,
> 285 deniers are so passionate in their beliefs, that they just cannot
> bring themselves to honestly evaluate the facts and evidence.
>
the galaxy who believes this 285 nonsense.
>
>
>
> Robert Harris
>
>
Ever realize that no one here seems to care what your fantasy of the day
is, Harris?
Oh, wait. My bad. You've had the same fantasy for what, 15 years running
now, eh, Harris?
bigdog
Aug 13, 2014, 12:15:57 AM8/13/14
to
On Monday, August 11, 2014 10:08:06 PM UTC-4, Robert Harris wrote:
> By the end of this month, it's gonna be a really tough call.
>
> This one, from "Bigdog" will undoubtedly, be in the top two or three.
>
> "What most of us see is the passengers continuing to do what they had
> been doing prior to Z285. You are the one claiming there was an event at
> Z285 that triggered a reaction immediately afterward."
>
> The first sentence is preposterous, since the overwhelming majority of
> those who rated my presentations on 285, with a thumbs up, proves that
> people in the real world are nearly unanimous in agreement with me.
>
You are preaching to the choir, Bob. Those who want to see evidence of a
> By the end of this month, it's gonna be a really tough call.
>
> This one, from "Bigdog" will undoubtedly, be in the top two or three.
>
> "What most of us see is the passengers continuing to do what they had
> been doing prior to Z285. You are the one claiming there was an event at
> Z285 that triggered a reaction immediately afterward."
>
> The first sentence is preposterous, since the overwhelming majority of
> those who rated my presentations on 285, with a thumbs up, proves that
> people in the real world are nearly unanimous in agreement with me.
>
conspiracy will see evidence of a conspiracy, especially if they are give
a suggestion of such.
>
> The second, is just flatly false, since I am hardly the "one" who made
> this claim. Dr. Luis Alvarez discovered that there was a loud and
> startling noise at 285.
gunshot.
As I have pointed out to you before:
If Alvarez is right, you are wrong.
If Alvarez is wrong, you are wrong.
> And Dr. Michael Stroscio, realized that that
> noise was a gunshot, before I knew anything about it. And he fully
> endorsed my paper, which corroborated his findings.
>
>
> I used to think that people like Bigdog were liars, but I think I was
> wrong. Like those who believe that God created the universe in 7 days,
> 285 deniers are so passionate in their beliefs, that they just cannot
> bring themselves to honestly evaluate the facts and evidence.
>
Sandy McCroskey
Aug 13, 2014, 12:16:32 AM8/13/14
to
are infinitely variable.
(Obsessions, though... that's something else.(
Mitch Todd
Aug 13, 2014, 12:26:29 AM8/13/14
to
"Robert Harris" wrote:
>The second, is just flatly false, since I am hardly the "one" who made
>this claim. Dr. Luis Alvarez discovered that there was a loud and
>startling noise at 285.
Alvarez *speculated* that there was a loud noise. You could at least
>The second, is just flatly false, since I am hardly the "one" who made
>this claim. Dr. Luis Alvarez discovered that there was a loud and
>startling noise at 285.
get the foundation of your story straight.
>And Dr. Michael Stroscio, realized that that
>noise was a gunshot, before I knew anything about it. And he fully
>endorsed my paper, which corroborated his findings.
neurobiology on which this "realization" is based?
Robert Harris
Aug 13, 2014, 11:12:08 AM8/13/14
to
Jason Burke wrote:
> On 8/11/2014 7:08 PM, Robert Harris wrote:
>> By the end of this month, it's gonna be a really tough call.
>>
>> This one, from "Bigdog" will undoubtedly, be in the top two or three.
>>
>> "What most of us see is the passengers continuing to do what they had
>> been doing prior to Z285. You are the one claiming there was an event at
>> Z285 that triggered a reaction immediately afterward."
>>
>> The first sentence is preposterous, since the overwhelming majority of
>> those who rated my presentations on 285, with a thumbs up, proves that
>> people in the real world are nearly unanimous in agreement with me.
>
> Or, Option B: They're clueless.
> Of course, Option B is the correct option.
Why do you believe that?
> On 8/11/2014 7:08 PM, Robert Harris wrote:
>> By the end of this month, it's gonna be a really tough call.
>>
>> This one, from "Bigdog" will undoubtedly, be in the top two or three.
>>
>> "What most of us see is the passengers continuing to do what they had
>> been doing prior to Z285. You are the one claiming there was an event at
>> Z285 that triggered a reaction immediately afterward."
>>
>> The first sentence is preposterous, since the overwhelming majority of
>> those who rated my presentations on 285, with a thumbs up, proves that
>> people in the real world are nearly unanimous in agreement with me.
>
> Or, Option B: They're clueless.
> Of course, Option B is the correct option.
And if they were not knowledgeable about the case, how would that impair
them in determining whether the limo passengers were startled?
The simple fact is, that Bigdog was dead wrong when he claimed,
"What most of us see is the passengers continuing to do what they had
been doing prior to Z285."
this what *YOU* see the passengers doing, prior to 285?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7GH5pGQy6yI
>
>>
>> The second, is just flatly false, since I am hardly the "one" who made
>> this claim. Dr. Luis Alvarez discovered that there was a loud and
>> startling noise at 285. And Dr. Michael Stroscio, realized that that
>> noise was a gunshot, before I knew anything about it. And he fully
>> endorsed my paper, which corroborated his findings.
>>
>
> Oh, here we go again. Alvarez was right, except where he was wrong.
But do you believe a siren startled those people?
Do you believe there were shots at 177 and 217?
Or do you agree with me on those issues?
>
>> I used to think that people like Bigdog were liars, but I think I was
>> wrong. Like those who believe that God created the universe in 7 days,
>> 285 deniers are so passionate in their beliefs, that they just cannot
>> bring themselves to honestly evaluate the facts and evidence.
>>
>
> Uh, Harris... As Mr. Marsh said, there's no one else in this quadrant of
> the galaxy who believes this 285 nonsense.
millions who do, are all idiots.
Am I reading you correctly?
>
>>
>>
>>
>> Robert Harris
>>
>>
>
> Ever realize that no one here seems to care what your fantasy of the day
> is, Harris?
obsessed with me:-)
>
> Oh, wait. My bad. You've had the same fantasy for what, 15 years running
> now, eh, Harris?
Jodie Foster:-)
Jason, you need to work on your insults. You're supposed to be making me
feel bad. But you're only providing entertainment.
Robert Harris
Anthony Marsh
Aug 13, 2014, 2:21:28 PM8/13/14
to
On 8/13/2014 11:12 AM, Robert Harris wrote:
> Jason Burke wrote:
>> On 8/11/2014 7:08 PM, Robert Harris wrote:
>>> By the end of this month, it's gonna be a really tough call.
>>>
>>> This one, from "Bigdog" will undoubtedly, be in the top two or three.
>>>
>>> "What most of us see is the passengers continuing to do what they had
>>> been doing prior to Z285. You are the one claiming there was an event at
>>> Z285 that triggered a reaction immediately afterward."
>>>
>>> The first sentence is preposterous, since the overwhelming majority of
>>> those who rated my presentations on 285, with a thumbs up, proves that
>>> people in the real world are nearly unanimous in agreement with me.
>>
>> Or, Option B: They're clueless.
>> Of course, Option B is the correct option.
>
> Why do you believe that?
>
> And if they were not knowledgeable about the case, how would that impair
> them in determining whether the limo passengers were startled?
>
> The simple fact is, that Bigdog was dead wrong when he claimed,
>
> "What most of us see is the passengers continuing to do what they had
> been doing prior to Z285."
>
> But Jason, as an honest, objective young man, why don't you tell us if
> this what *YOU* see the passengers doing, prior to 285?
>
Reacting to the sound of gunshots. Reacting to being shot.
> Jason Burke wrote:
>> On 8/11/2014 7:08 PM, Robert Harris wrote:
>>> By the end of this month, it's gonna be a really tough call.
>>>
>>> This one, from "Bigdog" will undoubtedly, be in the top two or three.
>>>
>>> "What most of us see is the passengers continuing to do what they had
>>> been doing prior to Z285. You are the one claiming there was an event at
>>> Z285 that triggered a reaction immediately afterward."
>>>
>>> The first sentence is preposterous, since the overwhelming majority of
>>> those who rated my presentations on 285, with a thumbs up, proves that
>>> people in the real world are nearly unanimous in agreement with me.
>>
>> Or, Option B: They're clueless.
>> Of course, Option B is the correct option.
>
> Why do you believe that?
>
> And if they were not knowledgeable about the case, how would that impair
> them in determining whether the limo passengers were startled?
>
> The simple fact is, that Bigdog was dead wrong when he claimed,
>
> "What most of us see is the passengers continuing to do what they had
> been doing prior to Z285."
>
> But Jason, as an honest, objective young man, why don't you tell us if
> this what *YOU* see the passengers doing, prior to 285?
>
Reacting to SEEING someone else shot.
Jason Burke
Aug 13, 2014, 3:53:21 PM8/13/14
to
Jason Burke
Aug 13, 2014, 3:54:20 PM8/13/14
to
On 8/13/2014 8:12 AM, Robert Harris wrote:
>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Robert Harris
>>>
>>>
>>
>> Ever realize that no one here seems to care what your fantasy of the day
>> is, Harris?
>
> Strange, that the people who claim to care least, seem to be totally
> obsessed with me:-)
>
>>
>> Oh, wait. My bad. You've had the same fantasy for what, 15 years running
>> now, eh, Harris?
>
> Actually, I've had several, but they usually include Meryl Streep or
> Jodie Foster:-)
>
> Jason, you need to work on your insults. You're supposed to be making me
> feel bad. But you're only providing entertainment.
>
can not think of any other way I would feel.
And your ability to provide entertainment on this matter, paisan,
expired about ten thousand posts ago.
>
>
>
> Robert Harris
>
>
Robert Harris
Aug 14, 2014, 6:25:27 PM8/14/14
to
bigdog wrote:
> On Monday, August 11, 2014 10:08:06 PM UTC-4, Robert Harris wrote:
>> By the end of this month, it's gonna be a really tough call.
>>
>> This one, from "Bigdog" will undoubtedly, be in the top two or three.
>>
>> "What most of us see is the passengers continuing to do what they had
>> been doing prior to Z285. You are the one claiming there was an event at
>> Z285 that triggered a reaction immediately afterward."
>>
>> The first sentence is preposterous, since the overwhelming majority of
>> those who rated my presentations on 285, with a thumbs up, proves that
>> people in the real world are nearly unanimous in agreement with me.
>>
>
> You are preaching to the choir, Bob. Those who want to see evidence of a
> conspiracy will see evidence of a conspiracy, especially if they are give
> a suggestion of such.
Interesting, one day you claim that, even conspiracy buffs don't agree
> On Monday, August 11, 2014 10:08:06 PM UTC-4, Robert Harris wrote:
>> By the end of this month, it's gonna be a really tough call.
>>
>> This one, from "Bigdog" will undoubtedly, be in the top two or three.
>>
>> "What most of us see is the passengers continuing to do what they had
>> been doing prior to Z285. You are the one claiming there was an event at
>> Z285 that triggered a reaction immediately afterward."
>>
>> The first sentence is preposterous, since the overwhelming majority of
>> those who rated my presentations on 285, with a thumbs up, proves that
>> people in the real world are nearly unanimous in agreement with me.
>>
>
> You are preaching to the choir, Bob. Those who want to see evidence of a
> conspiracy will see evidence of a conspiracy, especially if they are give
> a suggestion of such.
with you and the next day, you're claiming that all those millions agree
with me only because they're conspiracy buffs:-)
And you would be amazed to know how many of those people don't believe
the LN theory anymore.
Your pretense that being in a newsgroup somehow makes you more capable
of spotting startle reactions, is idiotic. Normal people have no problem
at all, in determining what is going on here.
Try an experiment. Show this to non-JFK people and ask them if they see
anyone being startled.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7GH5pGQy6yI
>
>>
>> The second, is just flatly false, since I am hardly the "one" who made
>> this claim. Dr. Luis Alvarez discovered that there was a loud and
>> startling noise at 285.
>
> Alvarez postulated that there was a loud noise at Z285 that was not a
> gunshot.
We all know that this was not a siren, including you. It just doesn't
get any more disingenuous than this.
>
> As I have pointed out to you before:
>
> If Alvarez is right, you are wrong.
>
> If Alvarez is wrong, you are wrong.
INCLUDING YOU, agrees that this was not a siren and that there were no
shots at 177 and 217.
Alvarez got the first two wrong and the last two right.
And those facts are corroborated by the limo passengers, who clearly
reacted to the last two and didn't react to the first two that Alvarez
described.
Don't you get tired of getting beat up every time you post this
ludicrous argument?
>
>> And Dr. Michael Stroscio, realized that that
>> noise was a gunshot, before I knew anything about it. And he fully
>> endorsed my paper, which corroborated his findings.
>>
>
> Two people presenting the same hypothesis is not proof a the hypothesis.
Surely, you have a ton of evidence and analysis or you wouldn't make
such a claim.
>
>>
>> I used to think that people like Bigdog were liars, but I think I was
>> wrong. Like those who believe that God created the universe in 7 days,
>> 285 deniers are so passionate in their beliefs, that they just cannot
>> bring themselves to honestly evaluate the facts and evidence.
>>
>
> Sounds like you are describing the guy in your mirror, Bob.
measurements, scientific analysis, and the testimonies of the same
people who reacted to those shots, and your arguments which contain zero
evidence, zero analysis and zero testimony?
If you haven't, you can be sure that everyone else has:-)
Robert Harris
Robert Harris
Aug 14, 2014, 6:26:15 PM8/14/14
to
Mitch Todd wrote:
> "Robert Harris" wrote:
>
>> The second, is just flatly false, since I am hardly the "one" who made
>> this claim. Dr. Luis Alvarez discovered that there was a loud and
>> startling noise at 285.
>
> Alvarez *speculated* that there was a loud noise. You could at least
> get the foundation of your story straight.
I don't recall him saying that. He was very clear that his "siren"
> "Robert Harris" wrote:
>
>> The second, is just flatly false, since I am hardly the "one" who made
>> this claim. Dr. Luis Alvarez discovered that there was a loud and
>> startling noise at 285.
>
> Alvarez *speculated* that there was a loud noise. You could at least
> get the foundation of your story straight.
theory was nothing more than a speculation, but when did he say he was
speculating about the existence of some kind of noise at 285?
>
>
>> And Dr. Michael Stroscio, realized that that noise was a gunshot,
>> before I knew anything about it. And he fully endorsed my paper, which
>> corroborated his findings.
>
> And where is the corpus of Stroscio's work on gunshots and
> neurobiology on which this "realization" is based?
Todd:-)
I have no idea, what if anything, he ever did in those areas. But an
understanding of Physics and the mindset of a highly qualified
scientist, makes his opinions about a thousand times more valuable than
ours.
And the fact that he and Alvarez were in complete agreement, except for
the siren thing, makes the presence of a loud noise at 285, a slam dunk.
But if you aren't concerned about the science, then let's talk about the
fact that the Physicists determined that Zapruder reacted at 290-291,
and that every surviving passenger in the limo began to drop their heads
or spin around in the same 1/6th of a second, at 290-292.
Would you like to dispute that, or do you suppose that is all just
random coincidence:-)
Robert Harris
bigdog
Aug 14, 2014, 10:44:40 PM8/14/14
to
On Thursday, August 14, 2014 6:25:27 PM UTC-4, Robert Harris wrote:
theories. It would be hard for anything the CTs come up with to amaze me.
>
> Your pretense that being in a newsgroup somehow makes you more capable
> of spotting startle reactions, is idiotic. Normal people have no problem
> at all, in determining what is going on here.
>
I don't remember writing that. I don't remember thinking that.
>
> Try an experiment. Show this to non-JFK people and ask them if they see
> anyone being startled.
>
Oh, you mean the people in the limo were startled that they were being
shot at. There's a revelation.
>
> >> The second, is just flatly false, since I am hardly the "one" who made
> >> this claim. Dr. Luis Alvarez discovered that there was a loud and
> >> startling noise at 285.
>
> > Alvarez postulated that there was a loud noise at Z285 that was not a
> > gunshot.
>
> Here we go again.
>
> We all know that this was not a siren, including you. It just doesn't
> get any more disingenuous than this.
>
So if there wasn't a siren at Z285, there must have been a gunshot.
There's a fine piece of logical thinking.
>
> > As I have pointed out to you before:
>
> > If Alvarez is right, you are wrong.
>
> > If Alvarez is wrong, you are wrong.
>
> But you forget to mention that almost EVERYONE in this newsgroup,
> INCLUDING YOU, agrees that this was not a siren and that there were no
> shots at 177 and 217.
>
And so you leap, make that a triple jump, to the conclusion that there
must have been a gunshot at Z285 because there wasn't a siren then and
there weren't shots at Z177 or Z217
> Alvarez got the first two wrong and the last two right.
>
That is what you must assume to fit your theory. Couldn't be that your
theory is FUBAR.
>
> And those facts are corroborated by the limo passengers, who clearly
> reacted to the last two and didn't react to the first two that Alvarez
> described.
>
Clear in your imagination.
>
> Don't you get tired of getting beat up every time you post this
> ludicrous argument?
>
Apparently you don't.
> bigdog wrote:
>
>
> Interesting, one day you claim that, even conspiracy buffs don't agree
> with you and the next day, you're claiming that all those millions agree
> with me only because they're conspiracy buffs:-)
>
> And you would be amazed to know how many of those people don't believe
> the LN theory anymore.
>
No, I wouldn't be amazed at all. I've spent decades listening to crazy
>
>
> Interesting, one day you claim that, even conspiracy buffs don't agree
> with you and the next day, you're claiming that all those millions agree
> with me only because they're conspiracy buffs:-)
>
> And you would be amazed to know how many of those people don't believe
> the LN theory anymore.
>
theories. It would be hard for anything the CTs come up with to amaze me.
>
> Your pretense that being in a newsgroup somehow makes you more capable
> of spotting startle reactions, is idiotic. Normal people have no problem
> at all, in determining what is going on here.
>
>
> Try an experiment. Show this to non-JFK people and ask them if they see
> anyone being startled.
>
shot at. There's a revelation.
>
> >> The second, is just flatly false, since I am hardly the "one" who made
> >> this claim. Dr. Luis Alvarez discovered that there was a loud and
> >> startling noise at 285.
>
> > Alvarez postulated that there was a loud noise at Z285 that was not a
> > gunshot.
>
> Here we go again.
>
> We all know that this was not a siren, including you. It just doesn't
> get any more disingenuous than this.
>
There's a fine piece of logical thinking.
>
> > As I have pointed out to you before:
>
> > If Alvarez is right, you are wrong.
>
> > If Alvarez is wrong, you are wrong.
>
> But you forget to mention that almost EVERYONE in this newsgroup,
> INCLUDING YOU, agrees that this was not a siren and that there were no
> shots at 177 and 217.
>
must have been a gunshot at Z285 because there wasn't a siren then and
there weren't shots at Z177 or Z217
> Alvarez got the first two wrong and the last two right.
>
theory is FUBAR.
>
> And those facts are corroborated by the limo passengers, who clearly
> reacted to the last two and didn't react to the first two that Alvarez
> described.
>
>
> Don't you get tired of getting beat up every time you post this
> ludicrous argument?
>
Robert Harris
Aug 16, 2014, 2:18:43 PM8/16/14
to
Robert Harris
BT George
Aug 18, 2014, 9:23:32 PM8/18/14
to
the UNFOLDING ASSASSINATION ATTEMPT that has----by most reasonable persons
standards----already been going on for approximately 85% of its length.
...or as I put it in another representative post to our viewers and
lurkers that you somehow "failed" to respond to:
Bob Harris had said:
"So, I guess it's just a coincidence that Jackie reacted in the same
1/6th of a second of the other passengers as well as Abraham Zapruder.
Is that *REALLY* a position you want to take, BT?"
To which BT George answered:
"Well yes folks. The attack has already been going on for about 85% of its
length if we assume a shot at least as early as Z155-160ish. What *would*
be utterly "shocking" is if they all were NOT starting to do *lots* of
things "simultaneously" in reaction to the ongoing assault.
Bob seems to believe if he can find several actions related to being under
attack going on at once in the film---even those as divergent as the ones
I just mentioned---he has "somehow" magically "proved" something profound.
*YOU* will have to be the judge of whether you *really* believe that he
has.
I only know his harping on several related (but *un*identical) things
starting to happen within a fraction of a second as being somehow grossly
improbable is not a belief he holds when it comes to other scenarios.
He himself believes that within approximately 1/3 of a second, an
unnecessary insurance pistol shot, fired by a person in a storm drain (who
would himself have only had a split second to aim and fire) somehow
"luckily" managed one in a million strike on JFK's head as it was still
exploding in the aftermath of the fatal rifle strike at Z312/313.
Considering all the facts and circumstances I will leave it to *you* to
judge whether *Bob's* scenario is any more likely to have successfully
played out in such a minuscule measure of time than what he decries that
others believe."
OK Bob. Now tell our viewers and lurkers *all about* why the
improbabilities for your storm drain shooter are somehow irrelevant, yet
others are supposed to somehow "blush" at the alleged "improbability" of
various persons FINALLY beginning to react all at the same time to an
attack that is by that point nearing its terrible end?
BT George
Mitch Todd
Aug 18, 2014, 11:04:19 PM8/18/14
to
"Robert Harris" wrote:
>Mitch Todd wrote:
>> "Robert Harris" wrote:
>>
>>> The second, is just flatly false, since I am hardly the "one" who made
>>> this claim. Dr. Luis Alvarez discovered that there was a loud and
>>> startling noise at 285.
>>
>> Alvarez *speculated* that there was a loud noise. You could at least
>> get the foundation of your story straight.
>
>I don't recall him saying that. He was very clear that his "siren"
>theory was nothing more than a speculation, but when did he say he was
>speculating about the existence of some kind of noise at 285?
tagged as speculation? Are there other rules for it? Do the letters have
to be the same size? Are there special capitalization rules? DOES IT HAVE
TO BE IN ROSSLEYESQE ALLCAPS? Are anagrams, cryptograms, O.T. engrams, or
the Spanish Inquisition allowed?
In reality, Alvarez' analysis is both informal and largely speculative. He
flatly admits the former, and the latter comes with reading the paper.
It's certainly reasonable that a loud noise like a gunshot could cause
someone to jerk a camera, and Alvarez presents some evidence that this is
so. The problem is that it's also quite reasonable that there are any
number of other causes of panning errors, and Alvarez never tested any
alternative hypotheses to rule them out. Alvarez likely understood this,
pointing out that "a physicist makes many mistakes, and backs up to
correct them one by one," but wasn't going to spend any more on the
problem than he did on formalizing the paper's language.
Alvarez came to the siren theory differently than you seem to think.
Alvarez ruled out your pet blips as gunshots, because the sequence of
blips didn't fit his model of how they occurred. He associated those
particular panning errors with the deceleration of the limousine, which is
why he waits until he discusses the deceleration of the limo to bring up
his siren hypothesis. Only then did he reach the point of assuming that
Greer must have instinctively taken his foot off the gas as the result of
hearing a police siren being turned on, but that was just his speculation,
as everyone agrees. It could just as easily been the equally instinctive,
yet less startling, result of Greer turning around to look behind him and
taking his foot off of the gas.
BTW, Alvarez put his three shots at frames 176, 215, and 312. We both
agree the he was wrong on the first two counts, and he could only miss the
third by trying very, very, very, hard. It seems that Alvarez'
understanding of the underlying mechanism was faulty. There is, of course,
the matter of the shot that you and I both agree happens between frames
220 and 223. If the numbers Alvarez use as latency between stimulus and
startle response are correct, then we should expect to see some kind of
panning error between frame 225 and 229. Indeed, there is such a creature
right in the expected range. So, if that is a reaction to a gunshot, then
we have a pattern to use while looking for other shots in the panning
error data.
>>> And Dr. Michael Stroscio, realized that that noise was a gunshot,
>>> before I knew anything about it. And he fully endorsed my paper, which
>>> corroborated his findings.
>>
>> And where is the corpus of Stroscio's work on gunshots and
>> neurobiology on which this "realization" is based?
>
>So, you misrepresent Alvarez and then attack Stroscio. Great strategy,
>Todd:-)
chosen field when he feels free to wander outside the physical yard and
into the neurological one. I'm not sure why you would call it an attack.
>I have no idea, what if anything, he ever did in those areas. But an
>understanding of Physics and the mindset of a highly qualified
>scientist, makes his opinions about a thousand times more valuable than
>ours.
time, and from someone who would normally claim to know so much better.
The funny bit is that you're appealing to Stroscio's authority in
neurology, which is no authority at all.
>And the fact that he and Alvarez were in complete agreement, except for
>the siren thing, makes the presence of a loud noise at 285, a slam dunk.
of Rembrandt's brush strokes.
>But if you aren't concerned about the science, then let's talk about the
>fact that the Physicists determined that Zapruder reacted at 290-291,
*any* of the panning errors. He could just be taking a half-step in order
to keep tracking the limo, or his vertigo might have picked that instance
to kick in, affecting his tracking. Or, Sitzman might have jostled him at
that point...and there are any number of other possibilities. Neither
Alvarez nor Stroscio were able to identify or rule out any other
alternative possibility. Neither really tried. While Alvarez ruled out the
z290 errors as not being a caused by a gunshot, that's not quite the same
thing.
>and that every surviving passenger in the limo began to drop their heads
>or spin around in the same 1/6th of a second, at 290-292.
husband's noggin, which is falling rapidly towards her face. Her husband's
is falling backwards because she's pulling him down and towards her.
Neither looks anything like a startle response. Jackie looks like she's
trying to peer around JFK's elbow, and look him in the face to see what is
wrong. She doesn't look startled, either.
The only real commonality in the movement of the limousine passengers at
this time is that their heads suddenly towards the front of the limousine.
That's true whether the passengers are facing forwards (Greer and
Kellerman) or facing sideways (the Connallys) or somewhere in between
(Jackie). Nothing that would be expected from a startle response, but
exactly the expected result if the limousine suddenly slowed. And, by some
Jovian coincidence, the limo does indeed suddenly decelerate at about that
time.
>Would you like to dispute that, or do you suppose that is all just
>random coincidence:-)
Robert Harris
Aug 19, 2014, 1:20:05 PM8/19/14
to
Mitch Todd wrote:
>
> "Robert Harris" wrote:
>
>> Mitch Todd wrote:
>>> "Robert Harris" wrote:
>>>
>>>> The second, is just flatly false, since I am hardly the "one" who made
>>>> this claim. Dr. Luis Alvarez discovered that there was a loud and
>>>> startling noise at 285.
>>>
>>> Alvarez *speculated* that there was a loud noise. You could at least
>>> get the foundation of your story straight.
>>
>> I don't recall him saying that. He was very clear that his "siren"
>> theory was nothing more than a speculation, but when did he say he was
>> speculating about the existence of some kind of noise at 285?
>
> Wait. You're claiming that speculation is only speculation when it's
> tagged as speculation? Are there other rules for it? Do the letters have
> to be the same size? Are there special capitalization rules? DOES IT
> HAVE TO BE IN ROSSLEYESQE ALLCAPS? Are anagrams, cryptograms, O.T.
> engrams, or the Spanish Inquisition allowed?
You seem to have all this reversed, Mitch.
>
> "Robert Harris" wrote:
>
>> Mitch Todd wrote:
>>> "Robert Harris" wrote:
>>>
>>>> The second, is just flatly false, since I am hardly the "one" who made
>>>> this claim. Dr. Luis Alvarez discovered that there was a loud and
>>>> startling noise at 285.
>>>
>>> Alvarez *speculated* that there was a loud noise. You could at least
>>> get the foundation of your story straight.
>>
>> I don't recall him saying that. He was very clear that his "siren"
>> theory was nothing more than a speculation, but when did he say he was
>> speculating about the existence of some kind of noise at 285?
>
> Wait. You're claiming that speculation is only speculation when it's
> tagged as speculation? Are there other rules for it? Do the letters have
> to be the same size? Are there special capitalization rules? DOES IT
> HAVE TO BE IN ROSSLEYESQE ALLCAPS? Are anagrams, cryptograms, O.T.
> engrams, or the Spanish Inquisition allowed?
YOU are the one who asserted that Alvarez was only speculating about the
loud noise at 285. Instead of attacking me, don't you think you need to
be supporting YOUR assertion?
Tell us exactly how you came to conclude that Alvarez was only
speculating about that noise.
>
> In reality, Alvarez' analysis is both informal and largely speculative.
speculating about.
It is equally easy to determine which conclusions were the result of his
Physics and experience with camera operators in the field.
> He flatly admits the former, and the latter comes with reading the
> paper.
loud noise? Would you cite it verbatim please?
> It's certainly reasonable that a loud noise like a gunshot could
> cause someone to jerk a camera, and Alvarez presents some evidence that
> this is so. The problem is that it's also quite reasonable that there
> are any number of other causes of panning errors, and Alvarez never
> tested any alternative hypotheses to rule them out.
We know that he determined that Zapruder reacted at precisely, 290-291,
which matches perfectly with three limo passengers dropping their heads
and two spinning around at almost inhuman speed, at 290-292. Did you see
this very short segment from the Zapruder film?
http://jfkhistory.com/simultaneous.gif
In fact, let's hold the presses. I will respond to the rest of your post
after you address this issue.
Robert Harri
Mitch Todd
Aug 23, 2014, 2:29:20 PM8/23/14
to
"Robert Harris" wrote:
>Mitch Todd wrote:
>> "Robert Harris" wrote:
>>> Mitch Todd wrote:
>>>> "Robert Harris" wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> The second, is just flatly false, since I am hardly the "one" who made
>>>>> this claim. Dr. Luis Alvarez discovered that there was a loud and
>>>>> startling noise at 285.
>>>>
>>>> Alvarez *speculated* that there was a loud noise. You could at least
>>>> get the foundation of your story straight.
>>>
>>> I don't recall him saying that. He was very clear that his "siren"
>>> theory was nothing more than a speculation, but when did he say he was
>>> speculating about the existence of some kind of noise at 285?
>>
>> Wait. You're claiming that speculation is only speculation when it's
>> tagged as speculation? Are there other rules for it? Do the letters have
>> to be the same size? Are there special capitalization rules? DOES IT
>> HAVE TO BE IN ROSSLEYESQE ALLCAPS? Are anagrams, cryptograms, O.T.
>> engrams, or the Spanish Inquisition allowed?
>
>You seem to have all this reversed, Mitch.
>
>YOU are the one who asserted that Alvarez was only speculating about the
>loud noise at 285. Instead of attacking me, don't you think you need to be
>supporting YOUR assertion?
>
>Tell us exactly how you came to conclude that Alvarez was only speculating
>about that noise.
Alvarez never calls it a "loud noise". He's very specific
>Mitch Todd wrote:
>> "Robert Harris" wrote:
>>> Mitch Todd wrote:
>>>> "Robert Harris" wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> The second, is just flatly false, since I am hardly the "one" who made
>>>>> this claim. Dr. Luis Alvarez discovered that there was a loud and
>>>>> startling noise at 285.
>>>>
>>>> Alvarez *speculated* that there was a loud noise. You could at least
>>>> get the foundation of your story straight.
>>>
>>> I don't recall him saying that. He was very clear that his "siren"
>>> theory was nothing more than a speculation, but when did he say he was
>>> speculating about the existence of some kind of noise at 285?
>>
>> Wait. You're claiming that speculation is only speculation when it's
>> tagged as speculation? Are there other rules for it? Do the letters have
>> to be the same size? Are there special capitalization rules? DOES IT
>> HAVE TO BE IN ROSSLEYESQE ALLCAPS? Are anagrams, cryptograms, O.T.
>> engrams, or the Spanish Inquisition allowed?
>
>You seem to have all this reversed, Mitch.
>
>YOU are the one who asserted that Alvarez was only speculating about the
>loud noise at 285. Instead of attacking me, don't you think you need to be
>supporting YOUR assertion?
>
>Tell us exactly how you came to conclude that Alvarez was only speculating
>about that noise.
that it's a siren. Alvarez himself got to the siren by:
1.) ruling out a gunshot as the source of the panning
errors starting at frame 290 were the result of a
gunshot. Yes, he ruled that out at the very beginning.
2.) noticing that the z290 errors occurred at about the same
time that the limousine began to decelerate.
3.) remembering reading something about a police motorcyclist
switching on his siren
4.) concluding that the siren could have caused Greer to have
let his foot off the accelerator.
Take the siren away from Alvarez' deductions, you don't wind up
with a generic "loud noise", you'll be left with nothing back at
square one. you definitely don't come off with the sound of a
gunshot.
>> In reality, Alvarez' analysis is both informal and largely speculative.
>
>That is true, but he was quite clear about which issues he was speculating
>about.
>
>It is equally easy to determine which conclusions were the result of his
>Physics and experience with camera operators in the field.
by startle reactions? He doesn't. There's a reason for that.
>> He flatly admits the former, and the latter comes with reading the
>> paper.
>
>Which part of his paper convinced you that he only speculated about the
>loud noise? Would you cite it verbatim please?
testimony to try and determine where and when the siren actually happened
in order to test his hypothesis. He remembers reading about the siren,
notes that Greer's recollection of what he did with his go foot was not
completely correct, then posits that the policeman who mentioned turning
on his siren might have been wrong, too. He leaves it at that, and doesn't
follow through. Speculation, pure and simple.
>> It's certainly reasonable that a loud noise like a gunshot could
>> cause someone to jerk a camera, and Alvarez presents some evidence that
>> this is so. The problem is that it's also quite reasonable that there
>> are any number of other causes of panning errors, and Alvarez never
>> tested any alternative hypotheses to rule them out.
>
>Yes, but we have, haven't we Mitch?
>
>We know that he determined that Zapruder reacted at precisely, 290-291,
>which matches perfectly with three limo passengers dropping their heads and
>two spinning around at almost inhuman speed, at 290-292. Did you see this
>very short segment from the Zapruder film?
>
>http://jfkhistory.com/simultaneous.gif
>
>In fact, let's hold the presses. I will respond to the rest of your post
>after you address this issue.
the effort to post the reply to your post, and I expect you to return the
favor without trying to drag the thread off on some obfuscatory tangent.
You could also be so kind as to reply to my last post on the back wound
thread.
By the way, Bob, how long have you known that Alvarez ruled out a z285
shot?
Anthony Marsh
Aug 23, 2014, 11:18:29 PM8/23/14
to
impossibly close to the head shot for the TSBD shooter to fire.
> 2.) noticing that the z290 errors occurred at about the same
> time that the limousine began to decelerate.
>
the slowdown which centered at about frame 300. After Greer is startled by
the loud sound it still takes a few more frames for him to take his foot
off the pedal and look back.
> 3.) remembering reading something about a police motorcyclist
> switching on his siren
>
sped out of Dealey Plaza. The films show that he was lying.
> 4.) concluding that the siren could have caused Greer to have
> let his foot off the accelerator.
>
> Take the siren away from Alvarez' deductions, you don't wind up
> with a generic "loud noise", you'll be left with nothing back at
> square one. you definitely don't come off with the sound of a
> gunshot.
>
>
>>> In reality, Alvarez' analysis is both informal and largely speculative.
>>
>> That is true, but he was quite clear about which issues he was
>> speculating about.
>>
>> It is equally easy to determine which conclusions were the result of
>> his Physics and experience with camera operators in the field.
>
> Where does he say that he ever worked with panning error caused
> by startle reactions? He doesn't. There's a reason for that.
for the CBS show 48 Hours:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=16ChphyKaE0
>
>
>>> He flatly admits the former, and the latter comes with reading the
>>> paper.
>>
>> Which part of his paper convinced you that he only speculated about
>> the loud noise? Would you cite it verbatim please?
>
> The big tipoff is that he doesn't go back to the film or the other
> testimony to try and determine where and when the siren actually
> happened in order to test his hypothesis. He remembers reading about the
> siren, notes that Greer's recollection of what he did with his go foot
> was not completely correct, then posits that the policeman who mentioned
> turning on his siren might have been wrong, too. He leaves it at that,
> and doesn't follow through. Speculation, pure and simple.
>
a shot frame 295 caused the slowdown around frame 300. Remember that I am
not defending Alvarez, just correcting your explanations.
>
>>> It's certainly reasonable that a loud noise like a gunshot could
>>> cause someone to jerk a camera, and Alvarez presents some evidence that
>>> this is so. The problem is that it's also quite reasonable that there
>>> are any number of other causes of panning errors, and Alvarez never
>>> tested any alternative hypotheses to rule them out.
>>
>> Yes, but we have, haven't we Mitch?
>>
>> We know that he determined that Zapruder reacted at precisely,
>> 290-291, which matches perfectly with three limo passengers dropping
>> their heads and two spinning around at almost inhuman speed, at
>> 290-292. Did you see this very short segment from the Zapruder film?
>>
>> http://jfkhistory.com/simultaneous.gif
>>
>> In fact, let's hold the presses. I will respond to the rest of your
>> post after you address this issue.
>
> Bob, I'm afraid I'm not going to accept a rain check on this one. I put
> in the effort to post the reply to your post, and I expect you to return
> the favor without trying to drag the thread off on some obfuscatory
> tangent. You could also be so kind as to reply to my last post on the
> back wound thread.
>
> By the way, Bob, how long have you known that Alvarez ruled out a z285
> shot?
>
>
fire both shots. Begging the question.
Mitch Todd
Aug 25, 2014, 10:56:32 PM8/25/14
to
"Anthony Marsh" wrote in message news:53f8f9f3$1...@mcadams.posc.mu.edu...
Alvarez explicitly states his reasons for this, and, no, timing wasn't the
issue. Of course, you have this compulsive need to call him a liar, and
one charge is as good as any other for that purpose. I'll bet you're
really upset that he's just too damned dead for you to call him a "liar to
his face," as is your wont. I'll bet you can fix the problem easily enough
with a common shovel and a good full moon to work by.
If you haven't already.
>> 2.) noticing that the z290 errors occurred at about the same
>> time that the limousine began to decelerate.
>>
>
>Sloppy language. You didn't even read his article. The jiggles are BEFORE
>the slowdown which centered at about frame 300. After Greer is startled by
>the loud sound it still takes a few more frames for him to take his foot
>off the pedal and look back.
"Centered about frame 299", as Alvarez said. If you're going to be a
pedantic bore, you need to get the pedantic bits right. BTW, if you
interpret Alvarez strictly on the deceleration, it began during frame
294, about a quarter second after z290. That is, about the same time.
>> 3.) remembering reading something about a police motorcyclist
>> switching on his siren
>
>Something like that. McLain said he turned on his siren and immediately
>sped out of Dealey Plaza. The films show that he was lying.
No he didn't He said that he took off at high speed only after he
heard Curry's order to go to Parkland over the radio. That happened
after the last shot, so McLain in immaterial here. BTW, I haven't
seen a statement by him saying when he turned on his siren, either.
>> 4.) concluding that the siren could have caused Greer to have
>> let his foot off the accelerator.
>>
>> Take the siren away from Alvarez' deductions, you don't wind up
>> with a generic "loud noise", you'll be left with nothing back at
>> square one. You definitely don't come off with the sound of a
>> gunshot.
>
>Or someone shouting.
Which still isn't a gunshot.
>>>> In reality, Alvarez' analysis is both informal and largely speculative.
>>>
>>> That is true, but he was quite clear about which issues he was
>>> speculating about.
>>>
>>> It is equally easy to determine which conclusions were the result of
>>> his Physics and experience with camera operators in the field.
>>
>> Where does he say that he ever worked with panning error caused
>> by startle reactions? He doesn't. There's a reason for that.
>
>He did not say he did the tests. They were done by his friends at EG&G for
>the CBS show 48 Hours:
>
>https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=16ChphyKaE0
He said he worked with Bell and Howell on developing what would become
known as a steadicam. That didn't include testing for startle reactions;
otherwise he would have brought it up explicitly in his paper. The CBS
experiments only appear to have been proof-of-concept tests. I've never
seen any sort of tracking error diagram for them.
>>>> He flatly admits the former, and the latter comes with reading the
>>>> paper.
>>>
>>> Which part of his paper convinced you that he only speculated about
>>> the loud noise? Would you cite it verbatim please?
>>
>> The big tipoff is that he doesn't go back to the film or the other
>> testimony to try and determine where and when the siren actually
>> happened in order to test his hypothesis. He remembers reading about the
>> siren, notes that Greer's recollection of what he did with his go foot
>> was not completely correct, then posits that the policeman who mentioned
>> turning on his siren might have been wrong, too. He leaves it at that,
>> and doesn't follow through. Speculation, pure and simple.
>>
>
>He assumes that it must be a siren because he does not want to admit that a
>shot frame 295 caused the slowdown around frame 300. Remember that I am not
>defending Alvarez, just correcting your explanations.
Your proof of this is noting more than you wish that it were so. In the
real world, Alvarez gave his reasons. And you need to bone up on what
begging the question is.
>>>> It's certainly reasonable that a loud noise like a gunshot could
>>>> cause someone to jerk a camera, and Alvarez presents some evidence that
>>>> this is so. The problem is that it's also quite reasonable that there
>>>> are any number of other causes of panning errors, and Alvarez never
>>>> tested any alternative hypotheses to rule them out.
>>>
>>> Yes, but we have, haven't we Mitch?
>>>
>>> We know that he determined that Zapruder reacted at precisely,
>>> 290-291, which matches perfectly with three limo passengers dropping
>>> their heads and two spinning around at almost inhuman speed, at
>>> 290-292. Did you see this very short segment from the Zapruder film?
>>>
>>> http://jfkhistory.com/simultaneous.gif
>>>
>>> In fact, let's hold the presses. I will respond to the rest of your
>>> post after you address this issue.
>>
>> Bob, I'm afraid I'm not going to accept a rain check on this one. I put
>> in the effort to post the reply to your post, and I expect you to return
>> the favor without trying to drag the thread off on some obfuscatory
>> tangent. You could also be so kind as to reply to my last post on the
>> back wound thread.
>>
>> By the way, Bob, how long have you known that Alvarez ruled out a z285
>> shot?
>
>Only because it would be too close to the head shot for one rifle to fire
>both shots. Begging the question.
So you keep saying. And the evidence for this opinion is nothing
but your own spite. Go figure.
issue. Of course, you have this compulsive need to call him a liar, and
one charge is as good as any other for that purpose. I'll bet you're
really upset that he's just too damned dead for you to call him a "liar to
his face," as is your wont. I'll bet you can fix the problem easily enough
with a common shovel and a good full moon to work by.
If you haven't already.
>> 2.) noticing that the z290 errors occurred at about the same
>> time that the limousine began to decelerate.
>>
>
>Sloppy language. You didn't even read his article. The jiggles are BEFORE
>the slowdown which centered at about frame 300. After Greer is startled by
>the loud sound it still takes a few more frames for him to take his foot
>off the pedal and look back.
pedantic bore, you need to get the pedantic bits right. BTW, if you
interpret Alvarez strictly on the deceleration, it began during frame
294, about a quarter second after z290. That is, about the same time.
>> 3.) remembering reading something about a police motorcyclist
>> switching on his siren
>
>Something like that. McLain said he turned on his siren and immediately
>sped out of Dealey Plaza. The films show that he was lying.
heard Curry's order to go to Parkland over the radio. That happened
after the last shot, so McLain in immaterial here. BTW, I haven't
seen a statement by him saying when he turned on his siren, either.
>> 4.) concluding that the siren could have caused Greer to have
>> let his foot off the accelerator.
>>
>> Take the siren away from Alvarez' deductions, you don't wind up
>> with a generic "loud noise", you'll be left with nothing back at
>> gunshot.
>
>Or someone shouting.
Which still isn't a gunshot.
>>>> In reality, Alvarez' analysis is both informal and largely speculative.
>>>
>>> That is true, but he was quite clear about which issues he was
>>> speculating about.
>>>
>>> It is equally easy to determine which conclusions were the result of
>>> his Physics and experience with camera operators in the field.
>>
>> Where does he say that he ever worked with panning error caused
>> by startle reactions? He doesn't. There's a reason for that.
>
>He did not say he did the tests. They were done by his friends at EG&G for
>the CBS show 48 Hours:
>
>https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=16ChphyKaE0
known as a steadicam. That didn't include testing for startle reactions;
otherwise he would have brought it up explicitly in his paper. The CBS
experiments only appear to have been proof-of-concept tests. I've never
seen any sort of tracking error diagram for them.
>>>> He flatly admits the former, and the latter comes with reading the
>>>> paper.
>>>
>>> Which part of his paper convinced you that he only speculated about
>>> the loud noise? Would you cite it verbatim please?
>>
>> The big tipoff is that he doesn't go back to the film or the other
>> testimony to try and determine where and when the siren actually
>> happened in order to test his hypothesis. He remembers reading about the
>> siren, notes that Greer's recollection of what he did with his go foot
>> was not completely correct, then posits that the policeman who mentioned
>> turning on his siren might have been wrong, too. He leaves it at that,
>> and doesn't follow through. Speculation, pure and simple.
>>
>
>He assumes that it must be a siren because he does not want to admit that a
>shot frame 295 caused the slowdown around frame 300. Remember that I am not
>defending Alvarez, just correcting your explanations.
real world, Alvarez gave his reasons. And you need to bone up on what
begging the question is.
>>>> It's certainly reasonable that a loud noise like a gunshot could
>>>> cause someone to jerk a camera, and Alvarez presents some evidence that
>>>> this is so. The problem is that it's also quite reasonable that there
>>>> are any number of other causes of panning errors, and Alvarez never
>>>> tested any alternative hypotheses to rule them out.
>>>
>>> Yes, but we have, haven't we Mitch?
>>>
>>> We know that he determined that Zapruder reacted at precisely,
>>> 290-291, which matches perfectly with three limo passengers dropping
>>> their heads and two spinning around at almost inhuman speed, at
>>> 290-292. Did you see this very short segment from the Zapruder film?
>>>
>>> http://jfkhistory.com/simultaneous.gif
>>>
>>> In fact, let's hold the presses. I will respond to the rest of your
>>> post after you address this issue.
>>
>> Bob, I'm afraid I'm not going to accept a rain check on this one. I put
>> in the effort to post the reply to your post, and I expect you to return
>> the favor without trying to drag the thread off on some obfuscatory
>> tangent. You could also be so kind as to reply to my last post on the
>> back wound thread.
>>
>> By the way, Bob, how long have you known that Alvarez ruled out a z285
>> shot?
>
>Only because it would be too close to the head shot for one rifle to fire
>both shots. Begging the question.
but your own spite. Go figure.
Anthony Marsh
Aug 26, 2014, 8:25:17 PM8/26/14
to
51
These findings were presented at public hearing before the
Committee on December 29, 1978. At that hearing, Officer H.B. McLain of
the DPD testified that he had been riding his motorcycle on the left-hand
side of Houston St., approaching Elm St. when he heard a single shot.
After the hearing, he said that he remembered that he had turned on his
siren shortly after the assassination and moved with the motorcade to the
hospital. However, the appearance of McLain in photographs taken in Dealey
Plaza Just after the assassination suggests he did not leave the area with
the motorcade. Unless McLain turned on his own siren, the absence of the
siren sound on the tape is consistent with McLain's behavior as documented
in photographs and it may have been his motorcycle.
BTW< if his microphone is stuck open he can't hear Curry's order on
channel 1.
>
>>> 4.) concluding that the siren could have caused Greer to have
>>> let his foot off the accelerator.
>>>
>>> Take the siren away from Alvarez' deductions, you don't wind up
>>> with a generic "loud noise", you'll be left with nothing back at
>>> square one. You definitely don't come off with the sound of a
>>> gunshot.
>>
>> Or someone shouting.
>
> Which still isn't a gunshot.
>
must agree with his theory.
>
>>>>> In reality, Alvarez' analysis is both informal and largely
>>>>> speculative.
>>>>
>>>> That is true, but he was quite clear about which issues he was
>>>> speculating about.
>>>>
>>>> It is equally easy to determine which conclusions were the result of
>>>> his Physics and experience with camera operators in the field.
>>>
>>> Where does he say that he ever worked with panning error caused
>>> by startle reactions? He doesn't. There's a reason for that.
>>
>> He did not say he did the tests. They were done by his friends at EG&G
>> for the CBS show 48 Hours:
>>
>> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=16ChphyKaE0
>
> He said he worked with Bell and Howell on developing what would become
> known as a steadicam. That didn't include testing for startle reactions;
> otherwise he would have brought it up explicitly in his paper. The CBS
> experiments only appear to have been proof-of-concept tests. I've never
> seen any sort of tracking error diagram for them.
>
>
>>>>> He flatly admits the former, and the latter comes with reading the
>>>>> paper.
>>>>
>>>> Which part of his paper convinced you that he only speculated about
>>>> the loud noise? Would you cite it verbatim please?
>>>
>>> The big tipoff is that he doesn't go back to the film or the other
>>> testimony to try and determine where and when the siren actually
>>> happened in order to test his hypothesis. He remembers reading about the
>>> siren, notes that Greer's recollection of what he did with his go foot
>>> was not completely correct, then posits that the policeman who mentioned
>>> turning on his siren might have been wrong, too. He leaves it at that,
>>> and doesn't follow through. Speculation, pure and simple.
>>>
>>
>> He assumes that it must be a siren because he does not want to admit
>> that a shot frame 295 caused the slowdown around frame 300. Remember
>> that I am not defending Alvarez, just correcting your explanations.
>
> Your proof of this is noting more than you wish that it were so. In the
> real world, Alvarez gave his reasons. And you need to bone up on what
> begging the question is.
>
Mitch Todd
Aug 27, 2014, 11:25:20 PM8/27/14
to
"Anthony Marsh" wrote in message news:53fc...@mcadams.posc.mu.edu...
"A statement by McLain" refers to something that McLain actually said.
Not what someone said he said:
http://jfkassassination.net/russ/jfkinfo2/jfk5/hscamcla.htm
Find the siren in there, if you can. Also, McClain's testimony was
a couple of years after Alvarez' paper was published. How could
McLain be the source of Alvarez' siren hypothesis?
>BTW< if his microphone is stuck open he can't hear Curry's order on channel
>1.
Precisely ;->
>>>> 4.) concluding that the siren could have caused Greer to have
>>>> let his foot off the accelerator.
>>>>
>>>> Take the siren away from Alvarez' deductions, you don't wind up
>>>> with a generic "loud noise", you'll be left with nothing back at
>>>> square one. You definitely don't come off with the sound of a
>>>> gunshot.
>>>
>>> Or someone shouting.
>>
>> Which still isn't a gunshot.
>
>You seem to have this crazy idea that because I am attacking Harris I must
>agree with his theory.
Just keeping things on the original topic.
>>>>>> In reality, Alvarez' analysis is both informal and largely
>>>>>> speculative.
>>>>>
>>>>> That is true, but he was quite clear about which issues he was
>>>>> speculating about.
>>>>>
>>>>> It is equally easy to determine which conclusions were the result of
>>>>> his Physics and experience with camera operators in the field.
>>>>
>>>> Where does he say that he ever worked with panning error caused
>>>> by startle reactions? He doesn't. There's a reason for that.
>>>
>>> He did not say he did the tests. They were done by his friends at EG&G
>>> for the CBS show 48 Hours:
>>>
>>> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=16ChphyKaE0
>>
>> He said he worked with Bell and Howell on developing what would become
>> known as a steadicam. That didn't include testing for startle reactions;
>> otherwise he would have brought it up explicitly in his paper. The CBS
>> experiments only appear to have been proof-of-concept tests. I've never
>> seen any sort of tracking error diagram for them.
>
>Don't you have an inside source at CBS?
Not one that ever saw an Alvarezesque EG&G analysis of their test footage.
>>>>>> He flatly admits the former, and the latter comes with reading the
>>>>>> paper.
>>>>>
>>>>> Which part of his paper convinced you that he only speculated about
>>>>> the loud noise? Would you cite it verbatim please?
>>>>
>>>> The big tipoff is that he doesn't go back to the film or the other
>>>> testimony to try and determine where and when the siren actually
>>>> happened in order to test his hypothesis. He remembers reading about
>>>> the
>>>> siren, notes that Greer's recollection of what he did with his go foot
>>>> was not completely correct, then posits that the policeman who
>>>> mentioned
>>>> turning on his siren might have been wrong, too. He leaves it at that,
>>>> and doesn't follow through. Speculation, pure and simple.
>>>>
>>>
>>> He assumes that it must be a siren because he does not want to admit
>>> that a shot frame 295 caused the slowdown around frame 300. Remember
>>> that I am not defending Alvarez, just correcting your explanations.
>>
>> Your proof of this is noting more than you wish that it were so. In the
>> real world, Alvarez gave his reasons. And you need to bone up on what
>> begging the question is.
>
>You need to actually read his article and look at the interviews.
Alvarez gave his reasons in his paper.
Not what someone said he said:
http://jfkassassination.net/russ/jfkinfo2/jfk5/hscamcla.htm
Find the siren in there, if you can. Also, McClain's testimony was
a couple of years after Alvarez' paper was published. How could
McLain be the source of Alvarez' siren hypothesis?
>BTW< if his microphone is stuck open he can't hear Curry's order on channel
>1.
>>>> 4.) concluding that the siren could have caused Greer to have
>>>> let his foot off the accelerator.
>>>>
>>>> Take the siren away from Alvarez' deductions, you don't wind up
>>>> with a generic "loud noise", you'll be left with nothing back at
>>>> square one. You definitely don't come off with the sound of a
>>>> gunshot.
>>>
>>> Or someone shouting.
>>
>> Which still isn't a gunshot.
>
>You seem to have this crazy idea that because I am attacking Harris I must
>agree with his theory.
>>>>>> In reality, Alvarez' analysis is both informal and largely
>>>>>> speculative.
>>>>>
>>>>> That is true, but he was quite clear about which issues he was
>>>>> speculating about.
>>>>>
>>>>> It is equally easy to determine which conclusions were the result of
>>>>> his Physics and experience with camera operators in the field.
>>>>
>>>> Where does he say that he ever worked with panning error caused
>>>> by startle reactions? He doesn't. There's a reason for that.
>>>
>>> He did not say he did the tests. They were done by his friends at EG&G
>>> for the CBS show 48 Hours:
>>>
>>> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=16ChphyKaE0
>>
>> He said he worked with Bell and Howell on developing what would become
>> known as a steadicam. That didn't include testing for startle reactions;
>> otherwise he would have brought it up explicitly in his paper. The CBS
>> experiments only appear to have been proof-of-concept tests. I've never
>> seen any sort of tracking error diagram for them.
>
>Don't you have an inside source at CBS?
>>>>>> He flatly admits the former, and the latter comes with reading the
>>>>>> paper.
>>>>>
>>>>> Which part of his paper convinced you that he only speculated about
>>>>> the loud noise? Would you cite it verbatim please?
>>>>
>>>> The big tipoff is that he doesn't go back to the film or the other
>>>> testimony to try and determine where and when the siren actually
>>>> happened in order to test his hypothesis. He remembers reading about
>>>> the
>>>> siren, notes that Greer's recollection of what he did with his go foot
>>>> was not completely correct, then posits that the policeman who
>>>> mentioned
>>>> turning on his siren might have been wrong, too. He leaves it at that,
>>>> and doesn't follow through. Speculation, pure and simple.
>>>>
>>>
>>> He assumes that it must be a siren because he does not want to admit
>>> that a shot frame 295 caused the slowdown around frame 300. Remember
>>> that I am not defending Alvarez, just correcting your explanations.
>>
>> Your proof of this is noting more than you wish that it were so. In the
>> real world, Alvarez gave his reasons. And you need to bone up on what
>> begging the question is.
>
>You need to actually read his article and look at the interviews.
0 new messages