John - forget about 285

[Robert Harris]

John, I know that 285 is not your favorite topic, probably because you
have refuted it so many times in the past. So let's forget about that
for the moment, as well as Nellie turning to look back at JFK at 258.

Would you be kind enough to answer a different question for me?

This is from Nellie's notes, written down on 11/22/63 when she
apparently had a lot of time on her hands, waiting at the hospital for
her husband to recover from surgery.


"Then I heard a loud, terrifying noise. It came from the back. I turned
and looked at the President just in time to see him clutch his neck and
sink down in the seat. There was no utterance of any kind from him.
There was no grimace and I had no sure knowledge as to what the noise
was. I felt it was a gunshot and I had a horrifying feeling that the
President had not only been shot but could be dead.

Quickly there was a second shot ... I reached over and pulled [John] to
me and tried to get us both down in the car. Then came a third shot.."

So, my question is this - when was it that she "reached over and pulled"
her husband to her?

What frame number was that?

You might wish to use this slow motion segment from the Zapruder film,
to help you make the determination.

http://jfkhistory.com/nellie2.gif



Thanks in advance, John
Robert Harris

[Jason Burke]

Man, you just don't realize that no one wants to play with you.

[BT George]

Oh John! I have stopped corresponding with Bob on this, but if YOU choose
to engage him, you should point out a couple of things to him in Nellie's
testimony.

See she seems to be describing a loud noise in association with Kennedy's
wounding at Bob's 2nd most favorite :-) Z frame 226. You see a certain
theorist around here can't accept that straight-forward explanation
without abandoning his theories about that shot being silent.

Well there is ONE way. He may very well want to counter that she is
conflating the sound of circa Z150-160 with the sights she sees at about
226. But REALLY. Wouldn't that really just be her mind filling in the
details of a shot she didn't actually hear to go with his reactions that
she clearly saw as being related to a shot?

If so, then that certain theorist might also have to face the reality that
Nellie evidently believed at this point in her testimony that JBC was
actually hit by this "2nd shot" since she didn't believe he was wounded by
the same shot that 1st injured JFK. How then can said theorist refute the
assertion that Nellie's mind must have again inserted a "needed sound" to
go with the movements of JBC at the very point where his actions led her
to believe (falsely) that he had just been hit by a 2nd bullet?

Just a few musings in case you choose to answer him at some point!

BT

[Ott Rovgeisha]

So, you think it's a came? There are people who earn their living
promoting the lone nut theory at any cost, I wouldn't call it a game. I
would call this lack of honesty, lack on integrity, pettiness, but
certainly, this is no game.

What matters is, is the truth. That is actually the single most important
thing here.

[elpdr...@gmail.com]

Nellie's first mistake, at only inches from what she is describing: JFK
NEVER "clutched his neck". It just shows how unreliable people are when
describing something.

[Robert Harris]

In article <3f46ae58-61d4-44e1...@googlegroups.com>,

BT George <brockg...@gmail.com> wrote:

> Oh John! I have stopped corresponding with Bob on this, but if YOU choose
> to engage him, you should point out a couple of things to him in Nellie's
> testimony.
>
> See she seems to be describing a loud noise in association with Kennedy's
> wounding at Bob's 2nd most favorite :-) Z frame 226.

Perhaps John has a clue about what you are talking about. I don't.

I never mentioned 226. Connally and JFK were hit at 223, or at least
Connally was and JFK - probably.

> You see a certain
> theorist around here can't accept that straight-forward explanation
> without abandoning his theories about that shot being silent.

That's nonsense.

The overwhelming majority of witnesses, including ALL surviving limo
passengers only reported hearing one shot, prior to events that we know
were after 223.

>
> Well there is ONE way. He may very well want to counter that she is
> conflating the sound of circa Z150-160 with the sights she sees at about
> 226.

Where are you getting this 226 business?

Mrs. Connally turns to the rear and sees JFK in distress, exactly as she
testified. But she was not able to see him until the late 250's -
probably about 258. This animation makes it easy to see when this
happened,

http://jfkhistory.com/nellie2.gif

"Then I heard a loud, terrifying noise. It came from the back. I turned

and looked at the President just in time to see him clutch his neck and
sink down in the seat."

So by 258, she has heard a grand total of ONE gunshot, although she
didn't recognize it as such at the time.

Are you following me here BT?

So, what happened next?

"Quickly there was a second shot ... I reached over and pulled [John] to
me and tried to get us both down in the car. Then came a third shot.."

Any arguments BT?

> But REALLY. Wouldn't that really just be her mind filling in the
> details of a shot she didn't actually hear to go with his reactions that
> she clearly saw as being related to a shot?

No, she heard the shot at 160 and then turned around to check JFK.

This is NOT complicated my friend:-)

>
> If so, then that certain theorist might also have to face the reality that
> Nellie evidently believed at this point in her testimony that JBC was
> actually hit by this "2nd shot"

Yes, she absolutely believed he was hit by that "2nd shot".

> since she didn't believe he was wounded by
> the same shot that 1st injured JFK. How then can said theorist refute the
> assertion that Nellie's mind must have again inserted a "needed sound"

What do you mean "again"? She said she turned around and saw JFK in
distress, and connected it to the ambiguous noise she had just heard.

> to
> go with the movements of JBC at the very point where his actions led her
> to believe (falsely) that he had just been hit by a 2nd bullet?

LOL!! So this was just a sonic delusion?

Strange isn't it that most other witnesses in DP suffered that same
delusion??

The WC had this right and so did the witnesses,

"..a substantial majority of the witnesses stated that the shots were
not evenly spaced. Most witnesses recalled that the second and third
shots were bunched together"

ONE early shot, a delay and then closely bunched shots at the end.

That's what Nellie's testimony boils down to. The witnesses
recollections were not just amazingly consistent - they also matched
perfectly with the reactions and lack of reactions during the Zapruder
film.

Those people are not the ones who are deluded, my friend.





Robert Harris

[Sandy McCroskey]

On 8/14/13 9:33 AM, Ott Rovgeisha wrote:

And who would they be?

Not Bugliosi. His book was not a big seller. Of course an author wants a
hit, but VB doesn't need the money. Big-time lawyer for decades, you know.
Hmm... I really don't know anybody riding any WC-defender gravy train.

Unless it's all us CIA agents who pay for our European vacations by
posting here, of course.

[Anthony Marsh]

That's why no one from either side of the debate should ever rely on
witnesses, no matter how famous or honest they are.

[stevemg...@yahoo.com]

Otto, yes it's a game for some - repeat some - folks, mostly those among
the conspiracists. They spend their time studying films or pictures of
statements until they find an "odd" result. They then take that oddity and
weave some giant story out out if.

Yeah, it's a game for them. Not all, some are sincere. But not, in my
view, the majority.

Look, there are lone nutters who refuse to consider any new questions. For
them, everything is settled. And for the conspiracists, nothing is settled
except that Oswald didn't do it. Or he didn't do it alone. They don't ask
questions in good faith.

It's been 50 years. Oswald shot the president. And killed Tippit. If there
was a conspiracy - and I'm open to the possibility - it was on a small
scale.

Claiming that there was a larger conspiracy means that dozens, if not
hundreds, of people were involved. It wasn't simply a matter of a handful
of people. Orders were given, assignments handled out, arrangements made.
All of these people had to act in cohesion. And all had to agree to such a
treasonous act.

I believe, obviously, that there were - and are - bad people in
government. But I also believe that there are good people too. And the
good people simply wouldn't go along quietly with murdering the
president.

They simply wouldn't.

[BT George]

On Wednesday, August 14, 2013 11:50:56 AM UTC-5, Robert Harris wrote:
> In article <3f46ae58-61d4-44e1...@googlegroups.com>,
>
> BT George <brockg...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> > Oh John! I have stopped corresponding with Bob on this, but if YOU choose
>
> > to engage him, you should point out a couple of things to him in Nellie's
>
> > testimony.
>
> >
>
> > See she seems to be describing a loud noise in association with Kennedy's
>
> > wounding at Bob's 2nd most favorite :-) Z frame 226.
>
>
>
> Perhaps John has a clue about what you are talking about. I don't.
>
>

Well Bob never does. But for the lurkers out there, Z226 corresponds to
when JFK begin to bring his hands up to his neck and corresponds the
earliest Nellie could have been saying:

"I turned and looked at the President just in time to see him clutch his

neck..."

>
> I never mentioned 226. Connally and JFK were hit at 223, or at least
>
> Connally was and JFK - probably.
>
>

**Lurkers that's not the point.** The point was that's the *earliest*
Nellie could see what she begins to describe in her testimony --- and
NOTHING in what she said indicates she thought she turned around
substantially after hearing the loud terrifying noise she said just a few
sentences later was a gunshot. I repost the relevant part here:

"Then I heard a loud, terrifying noise. It came from the back. I turned
and looked at the President just in time to see him clutch his neck and

sink down in the seat. There was no utterance of any kind from him.
There was no grimace and I had no sure knowledge as to what the noise
was. I felt it was a gunshot and I had a horrifying feeling that the
President had not only been shot but could be dead.

You be the judge as to whether her testimony gives the very *clear*
impression that she heard a loud audible shot and then turned around
promptly in response and saw JFK's post Z226 movements that came in
response to his wounding around 223/224. If so, she is saying quite
*plainly* that she HEARD the shot that wounded JFK almost immediately
before she turned to see him clutching his throat area.

>
> > You see a certain
>
> > theorist around here can't accept that straight-forward explanation
>
> > without abandoning his theories about that shot being silent.
>
>
>
> That's nonsense.
>

So Bob claims.

>
>
> The overwhelming majority of witnesses, including ALL surviving limo
>
> passengers only reported hearing one shot, prior to events that we know
>
> were after 223.
>
>
>

Says Bob based on his review of witness testimonies. Yet right here an
unbiased personc can see clearly that SOME (like Nellie) at least
initially thought the only prior shot they heard was the one that struck
Kennedy around 223/224.

**Lurkers you judge if you believe that a MINIMUM of 3.5 to 4 second gap
between the *sound* of Z150-160 and the sights of circa Z226, makes any
sense with Nellie Connally's testimony. 'Cause that's the only way Bob's
silence-suppressed shot can co-exist with her testimony.**

>
>
> >
>
> > Well there is ONE way. He may very well want to counter that she is
>
> > conflating the sound of circa Z150-160 with the sights she sees at about
>
> > 226.
>
>
>
> Where are you getting this 226 business?
>

Yep. Hear no evil, see no evil, speak no evil regarding Z226. I LOVE it!
:-)

>
>
> Mrs. Connally turns to the rear and sees JFK in distress, exactly as she
>
> testified. But she was not able to see him until the late 250's -
>
> probably about 258. This animation makes it easy to see when this
>
> happened,
>
>
>
> http://jfkhistory.com/nellie2.gif
>
>
>
> "Then I heard a loud, terrifying noise. It came from the back. I turned
>
> and looked at the President just in time to see him clutch his neck and
>
> sink down in the seat."
>
>
>
> So by 258, she has heard a grand total of ONE gunshot, although she
>
> didn't recognize it as such at the time.
>
>
>
> Are you following me here BT?
>

More importantly lurkers, are *YOU* following him in trying to contort his
way out of the "theory" delimma Nellie's testimony just spelled out for
him.

>
>
> So, what happened next?
>
>
>
> "Quickly there was a second shot ... I reached over and pulled [John] to
>
> me and tried to get us both down in the car. Then came a third shot.."
>
>
>
> Any arguments BT?
>
>

Lurkers, he asks for arguments. How about reposting the one he seems to
have no credible answer for. This time I'll put *** brackets*** around a
certain relevant part:

"Well there is ONE way. He may very well want to counter that she is
conflating the sound of circa Z150-160 with the sights she sees at about

226. But REALLY. Wouldn't that really just be her mind filling in the

details of a shot she didn't actually hear to go with his reactions that
she clearly saw as being related to a shot?

If so, then that certain theorist might also have to face the reality that
Nellie evidently believed at this point in her testimony that JBC was

actually hit by this "2nd shot" since she didn't believe he was wounded by
the same shot that 1st injured JFK. ***How then can said theorist refute

the assertion that Nellie's mind must have again inserted a "needed sound"

to go with the movements of JBC at the very point where his actions led

her to believe (falsely) that he had just been hit by a 2nd bullet?" ***

So far I don't see the credible refutation of that final statement, given
that he is stuck with making Nellie's mind supply virtually NO gap between
the shot at Z150-160 and the (63-73 frames later) shot she sees JFK
reacting to.

...I'm know I'm not buying it. Are YOU?

>
>
>
> > But REALLY. Wouldn't that really just be her mind filling in the
>
> > details of a shot she didn't actually hear to go with his reactions that
>
> > she clearly saw as being related to a shot?
>
>
>
> No, she heard the shot at 160 and then turned around to check JFK.
>
>
>
> This is NOT complicated my friend:-)
>
>

Nope. I suppose it does get rather simple when one doesn't mind Bob
selectively parsing the same witnesses statement wherby whatever supports
his beliefs is to be regarded as near gospel and whatever doesn't can be
conveniently ignored ro supplied a rather "strained" explanation to make
it go away. Easy indeed! :-)

> > > > > > If so, then that certain theorist might also have to

face the reality t hat > > > Nellie evidently believed at this

point in her testimony that JBC was > > > actually hit by this
"2nd shot" > > > > Yes, she absolutely believed he was hit by

that "2nd shot". > > Indeed she did lurkers. Perhaps to the point
of her mind supply the sound of a shot to go with what she heard/saw JBC
doing that made her think he was wounded at this point --- even when we
KNOW he wasn't. Bob strenously rejects that theory, yet has not problem
letting Nellie's mind remove 3-4 second gaps between sounds and sights in
order to defend his "silencer suppression theory."

But what am I whining about? It's often said that "consistency is the
hobgoblin of little minds" so I suppose we should all give it up and
convert to the "The Gospel of JFK's Assassination According to Robert
Harris" and just be done with it.

>
> > since she didn't believe he was wounded by
>
> > the same shot that 1st injured JFK. How then can said theorist refute the
>
> > assertion that Nellie's mind must have again inserted a "needed sound"
>
>
>
> What do you mean "again"? She said she turned around and saw JFK in
>
> distress, and connected it to the ambiguous noise she had just heard.
>
>
>
> > to
>
> > go with the movements of JBC at the very point where his actions led her
>
> > to believe (falsely) that he had just been hit by a 2nd bullet?
>
>
>
> LOL!! So this was just a sonic delusion?
>

Note that when someone points out clear evidence that he cannot be right
about one theory without the witness' mind playing some form of
sound/sight trick on them, Bob pretends not to notice that "in effect"
that witness has had a form of "sonic delusion" that he is perfectly OK
with.

Consistent and honest application of logic or no? Lurkers YOU decide.

>
>
> Strange isn't it that most other witnesses in DP suffered that same
>
> delusion??
>
>

Lurkers:

Given that Bob has trotted out Nellie's testimony that requires some time
contortions to square with his theories and that he did the EXACT SAME
thing in this thread
(https://groups.google.com/forum/?fromgroups#!topic/alt.
assassination.jfk/BxH-rD6v0V8) with Sam Holland's testimony, are *you*
willing to trust his characterization of just how much harmony all these
witness testimonies are?

Also, I think it *monumentally comical* that Bob has both Nellie and Sam
have the the EXACT SAME Z150-160 sound = Z226 sight "disconnect" in
order to save his silencer suppressed shot theories. So in effect Bob is
saying they suffered the SAME sound and sight telescoping "delusion" AT
THE SAME TIME.

**You decided just WHO is positing the greater "delusions" around here.
:-) **

>
> The WC had this right and so did the witnesses,
>
>
>
> "..a substantial majority of the witnesses stated that the shots were
>
> not evenly spaced. Most witnesses recalled that the second and third
>
> shots were bunched together"
>
>
>
> ONE early shot, a delay and then closely bunched shots at the end.
>
>
>
> That's what Nellie's testimony boils down to. The witnesses
>
> recollections were not just amazingly consistent - they also matched
>
> perfectly with the reactions and lack of reactions during the Zapruder
>
> film.
>
>
>
> Those people are not the ones who are deluded, my friend.
>
>

No. But they were often honestly mistaken about certain events just as the
physical and photographic evidence show.

OTOH, for Bob Harris' theories to survive, I do hope it's becoming evident
that some witnesses not only need to be mistaken, but need to having
exactly MATCHING site/sound telescoping "delusions" at the SAME TIME.
...And that despite one being located in the limo and the other way down
on the triple overpass, making such "magically" consistent mis-perceptions
all the more mind-boggling!

But have no fear lurkers. You have Bob's word that all his testimony
parsing is justifiable and has yielded an inerrant JFK Gospel which is
totally consistent with all his various assassination theories.

...You bethcha'. I'd stake *his* life on it. :-)

BT

[Robert Harris]

In article <5b2e6432-5cb9-4ee1...@googlegroups.com>,

You are correct about that.

But there are several very good reasons why we can be sure that she was
correct about that next shot.

First, her recollection of two shots after 258 is consistent with
statements by Mrs. Kennedy, Kellerman and Greer.

Second, her statement is consistent with the large majority of other
witnesses in DP that day.

Third, her statement is consistent with the three Secret Service agents
I cited in my article about the Altgens photo. Each of those guys
clearly heard a single report and then a pair of shots after 255, which
matches perfectly with Nellie hearing two shots after 258.

Fourth, her statement is consistent with the conclusions of Drs. Alvarez
and Stroscio, that there was a loud, startling noise at 285, which we
all know, was not a siren:-)

Fifth, we can see exactly when she reacted as she claimed - "I reached
over and pulled [John] to me and tried to get us both down in the car.".
She began to turn toward him and drop her head, at frame 291 - EXACTLY
the same frame which convinced the two Physicists that Zapruder was
startled, and in perfect unison with reactions by every other surviving
passenger in the car.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7GH5pGQy6yI

That was the question that I asked Mr. Mcadams about, which we all know
he will.. um do what I am not allowed to say he will do:-)

And speaking of that taboo verb, I do hope you will choose to respond to
my arguments. In spite of our battles over the years, I do respect the
fact that you have put a lot of study into the Zapruder film. So, I
listen to your opinions.

Tell me very specifically if you think I got something wrong in those
five arguments.




Robert Harris

[tray...@gmail.com]

I just finished reading part 1 of a blistering attack on Professor McAdams, Robert:

http://www.ctka.net/2013/mcadams.html


Big Jim DiEugenio beats up McAdams pretty badly. Part 2 promises to intensify the online whipping (scroll down to the very end of the article). Not too worry Robert, Jim was nice to you (even quoted you a couple of times).

His loyalists will have to defend him here.

[Robert Harris]

In article <7fae1bec-8091-474e...@googlegroups.com>,

BT George <brockg...@gmail.com> wrote:

> On Wednesday, August 14, 2013 11:50:56 AM UTC-5, Robert Harris wrote:
> > In article <3f46ae58-61d4-44e1...@googlegroups.com>,
> >
> > BT George <brockg...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> >
> >
> > > Oh John! I have stopped corresponding with Bob on this, but if YOU
> > > choose
> >
> > > to engage him, you should point out a couple of things to him in Nellie's
> >
> > > testimony.
> >
> > >
> >
> > > See she seems to be describing a loud noise in association with Kennedy's
> >
> > > wounding at Bob's 2nd most favorite :-) Z frame 226.
> >
> >
> >
> > Perhaps John has a clue about what you are talking about. I don't.
> >
> >
>
> Well Bob never does. But for the lurkers out there, Z226 corresponds to
> when JFK begin to bring his hands up to his neck and corresponds the
> earliest Nellie could have been saying:
>
> "I turned and looked at the President just in time to see him clutch his
> neck..."

LOL!! I love how you pretend to be above speaking to me directly:-)

It is beyond ridiculous to claim that this was the earliest point at
which she could have seen his hands raised or rising to his neck. Have
you even bothered to study her movements in the Zapruder film?

At 226, Nellie was still turned almost completely to the front. True, it
is difficult to see her orientation in that particular frame, but you
can confirm that she was facing forward by examining the frames
immediately following 226.

And as she turned, she briefly stopped to check her husband at
approximately 240. Notice that she remains fixed him until about 249,
when she resumes her turn to the rear. She could have seen the
President's condition by about 258.

It is IMPORTANT to get this stuff right, BT and it requires some serious
focus and effort. You need to study this ONE FRAME AT A TIME and then
put yourself in the witness's shoes.

Because the more you understand this, the closer you will come to
realizing that she heard that shot at 285, just like everyone else in DP
did.

http://jfkhistory.com/nellie2.gif

To single step the way I described, download Quicktime from Apple, if
you don't already have it. Then download some of the videos from my
website. Most of them have been setup to run at one Zframe per Quicktime
frame. So it is easy to use the arrow keys to single step backward and
forward.

http://jfkhistory.com/zfilms.html

You cannot understand this shooting without the right tools. Once you
have them, study Mrs. Connally and the other witnesses to the point that
you thoroughly understand their motions.

Then match those motions up with their testimonies. They certainly made
mistakes, but mostly about conclusions they deduced from what they saw
and heard. However, they were almost flawless in their recollections
about their own movements and reactions.

Once you understand that, you will stop arguing with me about the
shooting, you will stop arguing with me about that shot:-)

>
>
> >
> > I never mentioned 226. Connally and JFK were hit at 223, or at least
> >
> > Connally was and JFK - probably.
> >
> >
>
> **Lurkers that's not the point.** The point was that's the *earliest*
> Nellie could see what she begins to describe in her testimony

But you didn't say that in your other post.

More importantly, you are flatly wrong. That is NOT the earliest point
at which Mrs. Connally could have seen the President, unless she was
looking in the rear view mirror:-)

> --- and
> NOTHING in what she said indicates she thought she turned around
> substantially after hearing the loud terrifying noise she said just a few
> sentences later was a gunshot.

Nothing???

That is EXACTLY what she said. What the hell are you talking about?

> I repost the relevant part here:
>
> "Then I heard a loud, terrifying noise. It came from the back.

Yes, she has heard one shot - the one at 160.

> I turned
> and looked at the President just in time to see him clutch his neck and
> sink down in the seat.

That was at about 258 - no earlier.

> There was no utterance of any kind from him.
> There was no grimace and I had no sure knowledge as to what the noise
> was. I felt it was a gunshot and I had a horrifying feeling that the
> President had not only been shot but could be dead.

Excuse me BT, but why did you leave out the next sentence? I mean that
sentence is all about the crux of this issue, isn't it? Why would you
omit it?

"Quickly there was a second shot ... I reached over and pulled [John] to
me"

Despite your best efforts to complicate all this, it is ridiculously
simple and clear.

She hears a shot, looks back and sees JFK in distress and then hears
another shot, followed by the fatal head shot.

And she said that over and over and over and over again all through her
life. Her statement was consistent with the other limo passengers
testimonies and the recollections of most others in DP that day. There
really is nothing to debate here BT.

She also said repeatedly, that she never again turned to the rear after
hearing that second shot. And yet she turned to the rear TWICE after
223. But we NEVER see her turn to the rear again after 285, do we?

How do you explain that?

>
> You be the judge as to whether her testimony gives the very *clear*
> impression that she heard a loud audible shot and then turned around
> promptly in response and saw JFK's post Z226 movements

No, she did NOT see JFK at 226. That was physically impossible. You need
to accept that fact.

> that came in
> response to his wounding around 223/224. If so, she is saying quite
> *plainly* that she HEARD the shot that wounded JFK almost immediately
> before she turned to see him clutching his throat area.

LOL!! She said nothing even remotely like that. Was this something you
saw in a dream?

>
> >
> > > You see a certain
> >
> > > theorist around here can't accept that straight-forward explanation
> >
> > > without abandoning his theories about that shot being silent.
> >
> >
> >
> > That's nonsense.
> >
>
> So Bob claims.
> >
> >
> > The overwhelming majority of witnesses, including ALL surviving limo
> >
> > passengers only reported hearing one shot, prior to events that we know
> >
> > were after 223.
> >
> >
> >
>
> Says Bob based on his review of witness testimonies. Yet right here an
> unbiased personc can see clearly that SOME (like Nellie) at least
> initially thought the only prior shot they heard was the one that struck
> Kennedy around 223/224.

Well, don't be bashful BT. Tell us how you came to the conclusion that
she heard 223 rather than 160. She was obviously not startled, so there
is no expectation that she would react within a third of a second. In
fact, reactions to that first noise were all over the place, ranging
from Jackie at 169 to Hickey in the 190's, to Kellerman and Greer, just
after 250.

This is how we know that the first shot was not loud enough to startle
anyone. Had it come from a high powered rifle, we would have seen
dramatic, simultaneous reactions within no more than 6 frames after it
was fired.

Obviously, that first shot was vastly different from the much louder
ones at 285 and 313.

And even if she had heard 223 rather than 160, it wouldn't matter,
because she still heard the next one well after 258.

>
> **Lurkers you judge if you believe that a MINIMUM of 3.5 to 4 second gap
> between the *sound* of Z150-160 and the sights of circa Z226, makes any
> sense with Nellie Connally's testimony. 'Cause that's the only way Bob's
> silence-suppressed shot can co-exist with her testimony.**

Utter nonsense.

The problem is that she only heard one shot prior to 258. It really
doesn't matter which of those two early shots she heard, since if they
had both been fired by Oswald she would not only have heard BOTH of
them, but she would have been jumping out of her scivvies when she was
startled by them.

If Oswald had fired all of them, the earliest shots would have been
considerably louder to the limo passengers than the ones at the end. In
fact, the muzzle blast would have been more than TWICE as loud at 160 as
it was at 313.

You aren't connecting to the most basic facts related to these witnesses
and their reactions/nonreactions BT. You simply have to do that to have
any hope at all of understanding this stuff.

>
> >
> >
> > >
> >
> > > Well there is ONE way. He may very well want to counter that she is
> >
> > > conflating the sound of circa Z150-160 with the sights she sees at about
> >
> > > 226.
> >
> >
> >
> > Where are you getting this 226 business?
> >
>
> Yep. Hear no evil, see no evil, speak no evil regarding Z226. I LOVE it!
> :-)

BT, you made no mention whatsoever of what in hell you were talking
about. You called this,

"Bob's 2nd most favorite :-) Z frame 226."

The minor fact that I never in my life mentioned 226 in relation to this
issue, doesn't seem to have slowed you down at all:-)

>
> >
> >
> > Mrs. Connally turns to the rear and sees JFK in distress, exactly as she
> >
> > testified. But she was not able to see him until the late 250's -
> >
> > probably about 258. This animation makes it easy to see when this
> >
> > happened,
> >
> >
> >
> > http://jfkhistory.com/nellie2.gif
> >
> >
> >
> > "Then I heard a loud, terrifying noise. It came from the back. I turned
> >
> > and looked at the President just in time to see him clutch his neck and
> >
> > sink down in the seat."
> >
> >
> >
> > So by 258, she has heard a grand total of ONE gunshot, although she
> >
> > didn't recognize it as such at the time.
> >
> >
> >
> > Are you following me here BT?
> >
>
> More importantly lurkers, are *YOU* following him in trying to contort his
> way out of the "theory" delimma Nellie's testimony just spelled out for
> him.

You know, if you don't stop tossing me softballs, the other nutters
around her are going to start calling you Reggie's evil twin:-)

>
> >
> >
> > So, what happened next?
> >
> >
> >
> > "Quickly there was a second shot ... I reached over and pulled [John] to
> >
> > me and tried to get us both down in the car. Then came a third shot.."
> >
> >
> >
> > Any arguments BT?
> >
> >
>
> Lurkers, he asks for arguments. How about reposting the one he seems to
> have no credible answer for. This time I'll put *** brackets*** around a
> certain relevant part:
>
> "Well there is ONE way. He may very well want to counter that she is
> conflating the sound of circa Z150-160 with the sights she sees at about
> 226.

No sir, "he" will do no such thing. Because at 226, Mrs. Connally is
still facing to the front.

By 240, stops and examine her husband. She remains focused on him until
about 249.

Only then does she resume her turn toward JFK, turning far enough to see
him, roughly half a second later.

Have you even bothered to study her movements in Zapruder film?

> But REALLY. Wouldn't that really just be her mind filling in the
> details of a shot she didn't actually hear

No, it would be her reporting a shot that was heard by almost every
other person in DP that day, including Mrs. Kennedy, Greer and Kellerman.

Your "theory" would have her and fifty others, not only hallucinating a
gunshot at 285, but somehow failing to notice an early high powered
rifle shot that would have been SIXTEEN TIMES LOUDER than the level at
which experts confirmed, will cause involuntary startle reactions and
can result in permanent hearing damage.

The "gun mounted in the trunk theory", is about the only other theory I
can think of that is almost as illogical as this one:-)

> to go with his reactions that
> she clearly saw as being related to a shot?
>
> If so, then that certain theorist

If you need to address me in the third person, why not use "Robert
Harris", or perhaps something like, "that scumbag Harris", which I'm
sure will have no problem getting past the censors around here:-)

> might also have to face the reality that
> Nellie evidently believed at this point in her testimony that JBC was
> actually hit by this "2nd shot"

Well, of course that's what she thought. She only said that several
dozen times:-)

> since she didn't believe he was wounded by
> the same shot that 1st injured JFK. ***How then can said theorist refute
> the assertion that Nellie's mind must have again inserted a "needed sound"
> to go with the movements of JBC at the very point where his actions led
> her to believe (falsely) that he had just been hit by a 2nd bullet?" ***

I already answered that question for you BT and you have not replied to
my answer.

The shot she heard matched perfectly with the recollections of most
other witnesses in DP that day, including every other nonvictim in the
limousine.

If her recollection was isolated to only herself, I would agree that
this might have been a delusion. But the fact that so many others heard
that same shot, makes this a done deal.

285 and 313 were a perfect match with the "closely bunched" shots that
most relevant witnesses heard at the end of the attack.

And Nellies recollection of only a single, audible early shot also
matches perfectly with them.

So does Greer hearing nearly simultaneous shots at the end, Kellerman
hearing a "flurry" of closely based shots and Jackie hearing a single
"noise" and then two shots after Connally began to shout, circa 240.

Your problem is not Nellie BT. It's Nellie and an army of other very
consistent witnesses.

>
> So far I don't see the credible refutation of that final statement, given
> that he is stuck with making Nellie's mind supply virtually NO gap between
> the shot at Z150-160 and the (63-73 frames later) shot she sees JFK
> reacting to.

I have no idea what you are talking about.

But why do you suppose there was a "gap" between this shot and Greer and
Kellerman reacting at about 250 or in Greer's case, after that?

There is a difference between how people react to "what was that?"
noises and "HOLY SHIT!!" noises. Startle reactions MUST begin within no
more than a third of a second.

Voluntary reactions will be all over the place, as they were in this
case. Mrs. Connally began to turn to the rear more than a second faster
than Kellerman and Greer did.

She began to turn around at about 228. That would have been less than a
third of a second after 223 and EXTREMELY fast for a voluntary reaction.
If it was not impossible, it was at best, highly improbable.

>
> ...I'm know I'm not buying it. Are YOU?
>
>
> >
> >
> >
> > > But REALLY. Wouldn't that really just be her mind filling in the
> >
> > > details of a shot she didn't actually hear to go with his reactions that
> >
> > > she clearly saw as being related to a shot?
> >
> >
> >
> > No, she heard the shot at 160 and then turned around to check JFK.
> >
> >
> >
> > This is NOT complicated my friend:-)
> >
> >
>
> Nope. I suppose it does get rather simple when one doesn't mind Bob
> selectively parsing the same witnesses statement

That was a terrible and insulting accusation, BT.

Why don't you tell us specifically, what testimony I cited "selectively"?

I will eagerly await your reply.

> wherby whatever supports
> his beliefs is to be regarded as near gospel and whatever doesn't can be
> conveniently ignored ro supplied a rather "strained" explanation to make
> it go away. Easy indeed! :-)

Examples please - VERBATIM.

In fact, on numerous occasions and in my paper on the subject I even
went so far as to cite her subjective opinion that the early shots were
closer together than the final ones.

To be "selective" I would have had to ignore parts of her testimony
which refuted my argument. Why don't you cite a few of the ones you
claim to have heard?

>
> > > > > > > If so, then that certain theorist might also have to

> face the reality t¡at > > > Nellie evidently believed at this
> point in her testimony that JBC was–20 > > > actually hit by this
> "2nd shot"

How exactly do I "face the reality test" of what I have been saying
since 1995??

Are you OK, BT?

> > > > Yes, she absolutely believed he was hit by
> that "2nd shot". > > Indeed she did lurkers. Perhaps to the point
> of her mind supply the sound of a shot to go with what she heard/saw JBC
> doing that made her think he was wounded at this point

Then please explain to us, how she shared that same delusion with almost
50 other people that day, including the other nonvictims in the
limousine.

One of those "closely bunched" shots they all heard must have been a
delusion too, right BT??

And if those people were correct, as they obviously were, why would
Nellie have heard one nonexistent shot and not the other two that were
"closely bunched"?

And how was it that she reacted to her "delusion" in perfect unison with
every other surviving passenger in that car??

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cv7Lz25Xyno

I'm sorry BT, I know you're proud of your "sonic delusion" theory but it
really doesn't make the grade:-)

> --- even when we
> KNOW he wasn't. Bob strenously rejects that theory, yet has not problem
> letting Nellie's mind remove 3-4 second gaps between sounds and sights in
> order to defend his "silencer suppression theory."

Wow!! So now I have have a first name!!

I can't tell you happy that makes me:-)

As for "removing 3-4 seconds", that is beyond silly. I never said or
implied that in my life. Have you noticed BT, how much easier it is to
refute the statements you make up for me than the ones I actually make:-)

>
> But what am I whining about?

That seems to be the key question here.

> It's often said that "consistency is the
> hobgoblin of little minds" so I suppose we should all give it up and
> convert to the "The Gospel of JFK's Assassination According to Robert
> Harris" and just be done with it.

Well, that certainly is a mature, intelligent sentence.

But I have a better idea. Let's all convert to "The gospel of facts,
evidence and reason".

And instead of looking for excuses for those inconvenient witness
statements, let's take a little time to evaluate them based on objective
criteria, such as,

Were they corroborated by the other witnesses? Do their visible
reactions match with their testimony? Are their statements consistent
with the conclusions of the best scientists?

Perhaps the best rebuttal to your "sonic delusion" theory is that
Nellie's perception was not fabricated after the event. We see exactly
when she reacted to that shot and then pulled her husband to her,
exactly as she said she did, immediately after she heard that shot.

And at the risk of sounding like a stuck record, her reaction occurred
in perfect unison with the reactions of the others in the car.





Robert Harris

[lone gunman]

Robert, haven't you got anything better to do with your life ?

[Ott Rovgeisha]

But why are you here? why?

[Robert Harris]

In article <d1c8c85a-780d-4577...@googlegroups.com>,

It is a TERRIBLE mistake to ally oneself to any particular individuals or
position. When you do that, your perspective changes and you will find
yourself more concerned with supporting whatever dogma your "side"
espouses, and rebuttals to your "opponents" than to looking for objective
answers to important questions.

You simply do not accept claims by ANYONE which cannot be verified. And
the only honest, effective objective is to seek out answers to the
important questions.

Was it possible for Oswald to have acted alone?

Is there verifiable evidence of CIA involvement?

Is there verifiable evidence of mob involvement? Or LBJ or the Cuban
exiles, etc.

To do that, you look for facts and it doesn't matter whether they come
from Garrison or Bugliosi, or your own studies. If they can actually be
confirmed, then incorporate them into your considerations. If you cannot
resolve a claim or issue to at least a very high degree of probability,
then move on to one that you can.

There is NOTHING more dishonest or disempowering than becoming a "team
player". Teams play to win debates. Researchers are loyal to ON ONE.
They are as fickle as the next piece of good evidence that comes along.





Robert Harris

[BT George]

On Thursday, August 15, 2013 9:36:04 PM UTC-5, Robert Harris wrote:
> In article <7fae1bec-8091-474e...@googlegroups.com>,
>
> BT George <brockg...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> > On Wednesday, August 14, 2013 11:50:56 AM UTC-5, Robert Harris wrote:
>
> > > In article <3f46ae58-61d4-44e1...@googlegroups.com>,
>
> > >
>
> > > BT George <brockg...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > >
>
> > >
>
> > >
>
> > > > Oh John! I have stopped corresponding with Bob on this, but if YOU
>
> > > > choose
>
> > >
>
> > > > to engage him, you should point out a couple of things to him in Nellie's
>
> > >
>
> > > > testimony.
>
> > >
>
> > > >
>
> > >
>
> > > > See she seems to be describing a loud noise in association with Kennedy's
>
> > >
>
> > > > wounding at Bob's 2nd most favorite :-) Z frame 226.
>
> > >
>
> > >
>
> > >
>
> > > Perhaps John has a clue about what you are talking about. I don't.
>
> > >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > Well Bob never does. But for the lurkers out there, Z226 corresponds to
>
> > when JFK begin to bring his hands up to his neck and corresponds the
>
> > earliest Nellie could have been saying:
>
> >
>
> > "I turned and looked at the President just in time to see him clutch his
>
> > neck..."
>
>
>
> LOL!! I love how you pretend to be above speaking to me directly:-)
>
>

Hmmm. I don't recall implying I was withdrawing from (endless) direct Z285 debates with Bob because I was "above" speaking with him. Heck, I'm just shocked he "deigns" to speak with little ole' me. :-)

>
> It is beyond ridiculous to claim that this was the earliest point at
>
> which she could have seen his hands raised or rising to his neck. Have
>
> you even bothered to study her movements in the Zapruder film?
>
>

Well the one word answer to his question is "yes". ....But I'll be the
first to say that I have *micro-analyzed* it down to the "cellular level"
of every person on the film or written a doctoral thesis dedicated to
Nellie Connally's movements frame by frame. But I'm sure with enough
dilligence anyone can see what Bob's bleary eyes long ago discerned as
"irrefutable" evidence of conspiracy in the JFK case.

That's why he's doubtless already taking his "absolute proof" to the next
level, right? :-)

>
> At 226, Nellie was still turned almost completely to the front. True, it
>
> is difficult to see her orientation in that particular frame, but you
>
> can confirm that she was facing forward by examining the frames
>
> immediately following 226.
>
>

Well folks, I've looked at these very frames and I simply do not see that
it is at all clear at *all times* that she could not have seen EXACTLY
what she had to have seen unless she was psychic. Now please remember.
It was Bob who made the big point that this was her testimony on
11-22-63---LONG BEFORE SHE COULD POSSIBLY HAVE SEEN ON THE ZFILM WHAT SHE
SEEMS TO CLEARLY DESCRIBE----and fairly accurately as follows:

"Then I heard a loud, terrifying noise. It came from the back. I turned

and looked at the President *just in time* to *see* him *clutch his neck*

and sink down in the seat.

Now we know very well that JFK didn't actually manage to clutch his neck,
but who has any real doubt the *instant* they first read her testimony
that what she is referring to is what we see JFK begin to do right around
Z226 as his arms and hands begin to raise up near to the very area we know
he was just severly wounded by the shot circa Z222-224. ***If that mental
image from the Z film didn't pop into your head the first time you read
what she just said dear lurker/viewer, what the heck did?**

Now short of "clairvoyance" I ask, how on earth could Nellie
Connally---right after the assassination happened---so clearly describe a
scene of what we know JFK actually did *right after* he was shot, UNLESS
she ACTUALLY saw it happen just as she said?

You see Bob can go on all day about not seeing her ever look that way at
this point in the film. But that will never change the fact that the film
is not nearly clear enough at all times at this point, nor is she visible
enough at all points, to rule out that at some moment *VERY NEAR* to his
wounding, Nellie Connally must've observed what she so clearly seems to be
describing.

*Lurkers YOU view the film and read her testimony and decide.*

>
> And as she turned, she briefly stopped to check her husband at
>
> approximately 240. Notice that she remains fixed him until about 249,
>
> when she resumes her turn to the rear. She could have seen the
>
> President's condition by about 258.
>
>
>
> It is IMPORTANT to get this stuff right, BT and it requires some serious
>
> focus and effort. You need to study this ONE FRAME AT A TIME and then
>
> put yourself in the witness's shoes.
>
>

Yes lurkers and viewers it is VERY important to get this right. Now I am
not sure just what kind of "right" Bob is attempting to get to in regards
to make his silencer suppressed shot any more feasible by this line of
reasoning but I am pretty sure *I* am not following it too well.

I mean do *YOU* really see how he is helping his case by arguing that it
was even LATER (circa Z258) in the Zfilm that Nellie *saw* JFK react to
the sound she seems to associate with it that--per Bob's theory---had to
have occurred now some 98-108 or some 5.4 - 5.9 seconds later!?!

Yepper. That REALLY undermined *my* whole theory that Nellie would have to
be suffering some kind of sight/sound telescoping delusion for Bob's
thesis to be true. You betcha'! :-)

>
> Because the more you understand this, the closer you will come to
>
> realizing that she heard that shot at 285, just like everyone else in DP
>
> did.
>
>
>
> http://jfkhistory.com/nellie2.gif
>
>
>
> To single step the way I described, download Quicktime from Apple, if
>
> you don't already have it. Then download some of the videos from my
>
> website. Most of them have been setup to run at one Zframe per Quicktime
>
> frame. So it is easy to use the arrow keys to single step backward and
>
> forward.
>
>
>
> http://jfkhistory.com/zfilms.html
>
>
>
> You cannot understand this shooting without the right tools. Once you
>
> have them, study Mrs. Connally and the other witnesses to the point that
>
> you thoroughly understand their motions.
>

Hmmmm. Then surely he'll now take his proof to the "next level". I mean
if ANYBODY can clearly see such "absolute and irrefutable" proof with the
right tools, going to someone for REAL validation and action should be a
piece of cake!

>
>
> Then match those motions up with their testimonies. They certainly made
>
> mistakes, but mostly about conclusions they deduced from what they saw
>
> and heard. However, they were almost flawless in their recollections
>
> about their own movements and reactions.
>
>
>
> Once you understand that, you will stop arguing with me about the
>
> shooting, you will stop arguing with me about that shot:-)
>
>

OH MY! Bob's incredibly insightful refutation of my "strained"
sight/sound delusion of 3-4 seconds by INCREASING it to 5-6 seconds is
simply too much for a mere mortal like me to bear! ...Ohhhh what a world,
what a world! I'm melting! ....Or not. :-)

>
>
>
> >
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> > > I never mentioned 226. Connally and JFK were hit at 223, or at least
>
> > >
>
> > > Connally was and JFK - probably.
>
> > >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > **Lurkers that's not the point.** The point was that's the *earliest*
>
> > Nellie could see what she begins to describe in her testimony
>
>
>
> But you didn't say that in your other post.
>
>

Hmmm. I can make this simple and say. What the HECK is he even talking
about? Lurkers and viewers, please go back and look at what I said in my
first post and see if *you* have any idea what it was I supposedly said
that is changing from anything else I've said since. 'Cause I can't find
it.

>
> More importantly, you are flatly wrong. That is NOT the earliest point
>
> at which Mrs. Connally could have seen the President, unless she was
>
> looking in the rear view mirror:-)
>
>

Stranger and stranger. Now he thinks *I'm* flatly wrong because the
earliest I think Nellie could see Kennedy raise his hands up to his neck
area was...well...the first time he does any such thing.

Say...wouldn't that be right around that Z226 frame thingy that Bob seems
to struggle with in various---to me at least---inexplicable ways? :-)

>
>
>
> > --- and
>
> > NOTHING in what she said indicates she thought she turned around
>
> > substantially after hearing the loud terrifying noise she said just a few
>
> > sentences later was a gunshot.
>
>
>
> Nothing???
>
>
>
> That is EXACTLY what she said. What the hell are you talking about?
>
>
>
>
>
> > I repost the relevant part here:
>
> >
>
> > "Then I heard a loud, terrifying noise. It came from the back.
>
>
>
> Yes, she has heard one shot - the one at 160.
>
>
>
> > I turned
>
> > and looked at the President just in time to see him clutch his neck and
>
> > sink down in the seat.
>
>
>
> That was at about 258 - no earlier.
>
>

So folks, with the last few pearls of wisdom, we see that Bob is fully
intent on nailing *my* hide to the wall by locking himself further down
into his "inscrutable" strategy of INCREASING the site/sound disconnect in
this whole discussion. Yep. That's definitely too "brilliant" an insight
for a rube like me to comprehend.

>
>
>
> > There was no utterance of any kind from him.
>
> > There was no grimace and I had no sure knowledge as to what the noise
>
> > was. I felt it was a gunshot and I had a horrifying feeling that the
>
> > President had not only been shot but could be dead.
>
>
>
> Excuse me BT, but why did you leave out the next sentence? I mean that
>
> sentence is all about the crux of this issue, isn't it? Why would you
>
> omit it?
>
>
>
> "Quickly there was a second shot ... I reached over and pulled [John] to
>
> me"
>
>

Yep. I gotta' admit. He's got me. I left it out for the "criminally"
indefensible reason that it is a non sequitur to the point I was making.
Is it somehow relevant that she pulled JBC into her lap a few seconds
later because she (incorrectly we know) thought he was wounded about that
time?

Hard to see how that "undoes" my point that if Bob is OK with (now) 5-6
second sight/sound disconnect delusions for Nellie AND Sam Holland, then
he needs to be just as OK with the possibilty Nellie's mind filled in the
"sound blank" at this point to go along with the shot injury she
*incorrectly* thought JBC had just suffered.

But you see it never works like that with Bob folks. *HE* gets to decide
which incorrect brain phenomenon are valid and acceptible and which can be
dismissed. ...Strangely enough, they all form a curious pattern of
supporting his various JFK theories. ...How utterly coincidental! :-)

>
> Despite your best efforts to complicate all this, it is ridiculously
>
> simple and clear.
>
>
>
> She hears a shot, looks back and sees JFK in distress and then hears
>
> another shot, followed by the fatal head shot.
>

Oh yes lurkers and viewers! The "inspired and inerrent" testimony and
Zfilm watching of Robert Harris have spoken! It is ALL very simple when
you simply *submit* to his view of this thing.

...Strangely, however, he seems to not show much confidence he can get
anyone who could actually DO something about his "incredible" finds and
take action to do the "submitting". :-)

>
>
> And she said that over and over and over and over again all through her
>
> life. Her statement was consistent with the other limo passengers
>
> testimonies and the recollections of most others in DP that day. There
>
> really is nothing to debate here BT.
>
>

Nope. His "brilliant" addition of nearly 1.75 seconds to the Z150-160
sound with Nellie's (and Sam's) first view of JFK post-wounding has
certainly silenced all rational objections for me! I'm sure he's
convinced all you lurkers and viewers by now too ehh?

>
> She also said repeatedly, that she never again turned to the rear after
>
> hearing that second shot. And yet she turned to the rear TWICE after
>
> 223. But we NEVER see her turn to the rear again after 285, do we?
>
>
>
> How do you explain that?
>
>

Gee. You'd think that maybe she was NOT describing that first missed shot
at Z150-160 that many thought was a firecracker and not a "loud terrifying
noise". Hey, I've got a crazy idea lurkers. Maybe she was describing the
AUDIBLE sound that Bob insists NOBODY heard that actually DID go with the
shot that caused JFK to perform the motions she *actually* described as
going with that "loud and terrifying noise."

If you just get rid of Mr. Harris' assertions to the contrary, what's
senseless about THAT notion. **Lurkers and viewers YOU decide.**

>
>
>
> >
>
> > You be the judge as to whether her testimony gives the very *clear*
>
> > impression that she heard a loud audible shot and then turned around
>
> > promptly in response and saw JFK's post Z226 movements
>
>
>
> No, she did NOT see JFK at 226. That was physically impossible. You need
>
> to accept that fact.
>
>

I know I'm NOT going to accept that "fact" folks. How about YOU?

>
>
>
> > that came in
>
> > response to his wounding around 223/224. If so, she is saying quite
>
> > *plainly* that she HEARD the shot that wounded JFK almost immediately
>
> > before she turned to see him clutching his throat area.
>
>
>
> LOL!! She said nothing even remotely like that. Was this something you
>
> saw in a dream?
>
>

Yes folks. I saw it in the same "dream" I bet each of *you* familiar with
the Zfilm and JFK's arms raised up motion around Z226 had too when your
read the following description:

"I turned and looked at the President *just in time* to *see* him *clutch
his neck*..."

>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> > > > You see a certain
>
> > >
>
> > > > theorist around here can't accept that straight-forward explanation
>
> > >
>
> > > > without abandoning his theories about that shot being silent.
>
> > >
>
> > >
>
> > >
>
> > > That's nonsense.
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > So Bob claims.
>
> > >
>
> > >
>
> > > The overwhelming majority of witnesses, including ALL surviving limo
>
> > >
>
> > > passengers only reported hearing one shot, prior to events that we know
>
> > >
>
> > > were after 223.
>
> > >
>
> > >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > Says Bob based on his review of witness testimonies. Yet right here an
>
> > unbiased personc can see clearly that SOME (like Nellie) at least
>
> > initially thought the only prior shot they heard was the one that struck
>
> > Kennedy around 223/224.
>
>
>
> Well, don't be bashful BT. Tell us how you came to the conclusion that
>
> she heard 223 rather than 160. She was obviously not startled, so there
>
> is no expectation that she would react within a third of a second. In
>
> fact, reactions to that first noise were all over the place, ranging
>
> from Jackie at 169 to Hickey in the 190's, to Kellerman and Greer, just
>
> after 250.
>
>

Strange stuff here. Well folks, I'm not gonna keep repeating why I
actually think Nellie is describing the sound that went with the sight she
described as by now at least *you* surely get what I am saying. However.
Mr. Bob is starting to make some *very* insonsistent arguments. Let's see
as we go along...

>
> This is how we know that the first shot was not loud enough to startle
>
> anyone. Had it come from a high powered rifle, we would have seen
>
> dramatic, simultaneous reactions within no more than 6 frames after it
>
> was fired.
>

OK. So this shot wasn't loud enough to startle anyone. But presumably
Z150-160was, right?

WEll FOLKS. Below Bob is going to eventually repeat his point about how
the *earliest* shots had to be considerablt louder than the later shots.
Now please bear with me while I ask an interesting rhetorical question
about the "inevetable" "involuntary" shot reactions that Bob is always
insisting the limo. occupants must visibly manifest in response to a loud
rifle shot.

If it's true---as Bob soon argues---that the limo passengers should have
been "jumping out of their scivvies" by a MC shot in the Z222-224
neighborhood--then WHY ON EARTH DIDN'T SOMETHING ANYWHERE NEAR THAT
MAGNITUDE HAPPEN WITH THE SHOT AT Z15-160?

I mean does Connaly's "head snap" to the right, or the little girl who was
trainling the limo. on the left side of Elm turning around and stopping to
look behind her look like someone "jumping out of their scivvies"? Did
everyone in the limo. do the sort of stuff that Bob insists are shot
reactions after Z285?

OTOH, if he thinks the shot was lound, but not really THAT loud, then does
that comport very well with Nellie's (supposedly) describing the Z150-160
shot as a "loud and terrifying noise"?

>
>
> Obviously, that first shot was vastly different from the much louder
>
> ones at 285 and 313.
>
>

Only if YOU buy his silencer suppressed theories and IGNORE, the most
straightforward reading of the opening part of Nellie's 11-22-63 testimony
that *he* was crowing to John McAdams about! I know *I* don't!

>
> And even if she had heard 223 rather than 160, it wouldn't matter,
>
> because she still heard the next one well after 258.
>
>

"Well after" he says. Yet even the "shot" at Z285 that Bob insists really
happened and she really heard (rather than her mind possibly inserting a
sound per my suggestion in response to the "wounding" we KNOW JBC didn't
*really* suffer here) occured only 1.5 seconds later. Seems to me that if
he wants "well after" the closest candidate would be the fatal 312/313
shot.

>
>
>
> >
>
> > **Lurkers you judge if you believe that a MINIMUM of 3.5 to 4 second gap
>
> > between the *sound* of Z150-160 and the sights of circa Z226, makes any
>
> > sense with Nellie Connally's testimony. 'Cause that's the only way Bob's
>
> > silence-suppressed shot can co-exist with her testimony.**
>
>
>
> Utter nonsense.
>

Really? **Lurkers and viewers, you decide who's reading of Nellie's
testimony in this regard seems the more contorted.**

>
>
> The problem is that she only heard one shot prior to 258. It really
>
> doesn't matter which of those two early shots she heard, since if they
>
> had both been fired by Oswald she would not only have heard BOTH of
>
> them, but she would have been jumping out of her scivvies when she was
>
> startled by them.
>
>

See above.

>
> If Oswald had fired all of them, the earliest shots would have been
>
> considerably louder to the limo passengers than the ones at the end. In
>
> fact, the muzzle blast would have been more than TWICE as loud at 160 as
>
> it was at 313.
>
>

See above.

>
> You aren't connecting to the most basic facts related to these witnesses
>
> and their reactions/nonreactions BT. You simply have to do that to have
>
> any hope at all of understanding this stuff.
>
>

Lurkers and viewers. Please judge how "disconnected" *I* appear to the
basic facts related to the witnesses at this juncture.

>
>
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> > >
>
> > > >
>
> > >
>
> > > > Well there is ONE way. He may very well want to counter that she is
>
> > >
>
> > > > conflating the sound of circa Z150-160 with the sights she sees at about
>
> > >
>
> > > > 226.
>
> > >
>
> > >
>
> > >
>
> > > Where are you getting this 226 business?
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > Yep. Hear no evil, see no evil, speak no evil regarding Z226. I LOVE it!
>
> > :-)
>
>
>
> BT, you made no mention whatsoever of what in hell you were talking
>
> about. You called this,
>
>
>
> "Bob's 2nd most favorite :-) Z frame 226."
>
>
>
> The minor fact that I never in my life mentioned 226 in relation to this
>
> issue, doesn't seem to have slowed you down at all:-)
>
>

Well Folks. Why don't YOU search this NG's posts for BT George and Bob
Harris regarding Z226s. Let's see if you have any notion why I would call
this tongue-in-cheek Bob's 2nd favorite Z Frame. ...But I'm sure most of
you already know! :-)

>
>
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> > >
>
> > > Mrs. Connally turns to the rear and sees JFK in distress, exactly as she
>
> > >
>
> > > testified. But she was not able to see him until the late 250's -
>
> > >
>
> > > probably about 258. This animation makes it easy to see when this
>
> > >
>
> > > happened,
>
> > >
>
> > >
>
> > >
>
> > > http://jfkhistory.com/nellie2.gif
>
> > >
>
> > >
>
> > >
>
> > > "Then I heard a loud, terrifying noise. It came from the back. I turned
>
> > >
>
> > > and looked at the President just in time to see him clutch his neck and
>
> > >
>
> > > sink down in the seat."
>
> > >
>
> > >
>
> > >
>
> > > So by 258, she has heard a grand total of ONE gunshot, although she
>
> > >
>
> > > didn't recognize it as such at the time.
>
> > >
>
> > >
>
> > >
>
> > > Are you following me here BT?
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > More importantly lurkers, are *YOU* following him in trying to contort his
>
> > way out of the "theory" delimma Nellie's testimony just spelled out for
>
> > him.
>
>
>
> You know, if you don't stop tossing me softballs, the other nutters
>
> around her are going to start calling you Reggie's evil twin:-)
>
>
>

Oh yes. And HOW he's fielded those soft balls! Yep. That whole adding
1.75 seconds to the sight/sound telescope delusions and "honest" treatment
of the REAL HARD CORROBORATING evidence for JFK's actions at Z226 vs.
those for the limo. passengers after Z285 were REAL "bases loaded" game
winners! :-)

>
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> > >
>
> > > So, what happened next?
>
> > >
>
> > >
>
> > >
>
> > > "Quickly there was a second shot ... I reached over and pulled [John] to
>
> > >
>
> > > me and tried to get us both down in the car. Then came a third shot.."
>
> > >
>
> > >
>
> > >
>
> > > Any arguments BT?
>
> > >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > Lurkers, he asks for arguments. How about reposting the one he seems to
>
> > have no credible answer for. This time I'll put *** brackets*** around a
>
> > certain relevant part:
>
> >
>
> > "Well there is ONE way. He may very well want to counter that she is
>
> > conflating the sound of circa Z150-160 with the sights she sees at about
>
> > 226.
>
>
>
>
>
> No sir, "he" will do no such thing. Because at 226, Mrs. Connally is
>
> still facing to the front.
>
>
>
> By 240, stops and examine her husband. She remains focused on him until
>
> about 249.
>
>
>
> Only then does she resume her turn toward JFK, turning far enough to see
>
> him, roughly half a second later.
>
>
>
> Have you even bothered to study her movements in Zapruder film?
>
>

Already discussed with you dear vierwers and lurkers above. Now I have a
life to get back to.

>
>
>
> > But REALLY. Wouldn't that really just be her mind filling in the
>
> > details of a shot she didn't actually hear
>
>
>
> No, it would be her reporting a shot that was heard by almost every
>
> other person in DP that day, including Mrs. Kennedy, Greer and Kellerman.
>
>
>
> Your "theory" would have her and fifty others, not only hallucinating a
>
> gunshot at 285, but somehow failing to notice an early high powered
>
> rifle shot that would have been SIXTEEN TIMES LOUDER than the level at
>
> which experts confirmed, will cause involuntary startle reactions and
>
> can result in permanent hearing damage.
>
>
>
> The "gun mounted in the trunk theory", is about the only other theory I
>
> can think of that is almost as illogical as this one:-)
>
>

Oh yes. More "teaching" the poor rube how to think, think, think! Are
*YOU* learning anything from all this about how Mr. Harris works?
Probably not...it was likely evident LONG before now.

>
>
>
>
>
> > to go with his reactions that
>
> > she clearly saw as being related to a shot?
>
> >
>
> > If so, then that certain theorist
>
>
>
> If you need to address me in the third person, why not use "Robert
>
> Harris", or perhaps something like, "that scumbag Harris", which I'm
>
> sure will have no problem getting past the censors around here:-)
>
>
>

Hmmm. He seems to think in very hostile terms and then project that onto
me, cause I don't think I've called him any dirty names. Maybe it's the
failure to "submit" that he finds so personally insulting?

>
>
> > might also have to face the reality that
>
> > Nellie evidently believed at this point in her testimony that JBC was
>
> > actually hit by this "2nd shot"
>
>
>
> Well, of course that's what she thought. She only said that several
>
> dozen times:-)
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > since she didn't believe he was wounded by
>
> > the same shot that 1st injured JFK. ***How then can said theorist refute
>
> > the assertion that Nellie's mind must have again inserted a "needed sound"
>
> > to go with the movements of JBC at the very point where his actions led
>
> > her to believe (falsely) that he had just been hit by a 2nd bullet?" ***
>
>
>
> I already answered that question for you BT and you have not replied to
>
> my answer.
>
>

Hmmm. If by "answered" he means adding time to the sight/sound telescopic
delusions, I guess there's noting I can do further to reply to such
segacious insight. :-)

>
> The shot she heard matched perfectly with the recollections of most
>
> other witnesses in DP that day, including every other nonvictim in the
>
> limousine.
>
>
>
> If her recollection was isolated to only herself, I would agree that
>
> this might have been a delusion. But the fact that so many others heard
>
> that same shot, makes this a done deal.
>

He doen't need to worry. Sam Holland apparently had the SAME recollection
at the SAME time. Problem is...that recollection featured an apparently
delusional matching of a sound from now 5-6 seconds earlier with JFK's
hands starting to rise to his neck area. :-)

I only wonder, just how many OTHER witnesses one will eventually need
Bob's inerrant and inspired analysis of to make sure it's clear just what
they did and did not hear?

>
>
> 285 and 313 were a perfect match with the "closely bunched" shots that
>
> most relevant witnesses heard at the end of the attack.
>
>
>
> And Nellies recollection of only a single, audible early shot also
>
> matches perfectly with them.
>
>
>
> So does Greer hearing nearly simultaneous shots at the end, Kellerman
>
> hearing a "flurry" of closely based shots and Jackie hearing a single
>
> "noise" and then two shots after Connally began to shout, circa 240.
>
>
>
> Your problem is not Nellie BT. It's Nellie and an army of other very
>
> consistent witnesses.
>
>

And I am quite sure they will be consistent when looked at
closely...AFTER, of course, you have Bob's all-knowing hand to guide you!
I don't know about you, but *I* sure do plan to hold my breath for more
awe-inspiring revelations yet to come! You betcha'!

>
>
>
>
>
> >
>
> > So far I don't see the credible refutation of that final statement, given
>
> > that he is stuck with making Nellie's mind supply virtually NO gap between
>
> > the shot at Z150-160 and the (63-73 frames later) shot she sees JFK
>
> > reacting to.
>
>
>
> I have no idea what you are talking about.
>
>
>
> But why do you suppose there was a "gap" between this shot and Greer and
>
> Kellerman reacting at about 250 or in Greer's case, after that?
>
>
>
> There is a difference between how people react to "what was that?"
>
> noises and "HOLY SHIT!!" noises. Startle reactions MUST begin within no
>
> more than a third of a second.
>
>
>
> Voluntary reactions will be all over the place, as they were in this
>
> case. Mrs. Connally began to turn to the rear more than a second faster
>
> than Kellerman and Greer did.
>
>
>
> She began to turn around at about 228. That would have been less than a
>
> third of a second after 223 and EXTREMELY fast for a voluntary reaction.
>
> If it was not impossible, it was at best, highly improbable.
>
>

Dear lurkers and viewers...please understand and submit to the forgoing
"umpteenth thousandth" lecture and presentation of startle reactions and
their role in this case. 'Cause I know he's going to soon take it where
REAL action can happen! You just wait! :-)

>
>
>
> >
>
> > ...I'm know I'm not buying it. Are YOU?
>
> >
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> > >
>
> > >
>
> > > > But REALLY. Wouldn't that really just be her mind filling in the
>
> > >
>
> > > > details of a shot she didn't actually hear to go with his reactions that
>
> > >
>
> > > > she clearly saw as being related to a shot?
>
> > >
>
> > >
>
> > >
>
> > > No, she heard the shot at 160 and then turned around to check JFK.
>
> > >
>
> > >
>
> > >
>
> > > This is NOT complicated my friend:-)
>
> > >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > Nope. I suppose it does get rather simple when one doesn't mind Bob
>
> > selectively parsing the same witnesses statement
>
>
>
> That was a terrible and insulting accusation, BT.
>
>
>
> Why don't you tell us specifically, what testimony I cited "selectively"?
>
>
>
> I will eagerly await your reply.
>
>
>
> > wherby whatever supports
>
> > his beliefs is to be regarded as near gospel and whatever doesn't can be
>
> > conveniently ignored ro supplied a rather "strained" explanation to make
>
> > it go away. Easy indeed! :-)
>
>
>
> Examples please - VERBATIM.
>
>

Hmmm. I guess that whole "telescoping Z150-160 sounds into Z226 (or Z258)
sights" for two witnesses while denying any possibility Nellie could just
as easily have imaginged she heard a "shot" that "wounded" Connally
shortly after Z285, is completely lost on him as examples of selective
parsing.

Lurkers and viewers let me be clear. I am not suggesting Bob actually
misquotes testimony or (necessarily) that he leaves it out. What I *am*
saying is that he often interprets different parts inconsistently whenever
he needs to in order to make them fit his different theories.

**You decide if that's correct.**

>
> In fact, on numerous occasions and in my paper on the subject I even
>
> went so far as to cite her subjective opinion that the early shots were
>
> closer together than the final ones.
>
>
>
> To be "selective" I would have had to ignore parts of her testimony
>
> which refuted my argument. Why don't you cite a few of the ones you
>
> claim to have heard?
>
>

See above.

>
>
>
> >
>
> > > > > > > > If so, then that certain theorist might also have to
>

> > face the reality tíat > > > Nellie evidently believed at this
>
> > point in her testimony that JBC wasľ20 > > > actually hit by this

>
> > "2nd shot"
>
>
>
> How exactly do I "face the reality test" of what I have been saying
>
> since 1995??
>
>
>
> Are you OK, BT?
>
>

I am certainly much "better" after he "learned us" all something by ADDING
additional time to the sight/sound disconnect!

>
>
>
>
>
> > > > > Yes, she absolutely believed he was hit by
>
> > that "2nd shot". > > Indeed she did lurkers. Perhaps to the point
>
> > of her mind supply the sound of a shot to go with what she heard/saw JBC
>
> > doing that made her think he was wounded at this point
>
>
>
> Then please explain to us, how she shared that same delusion with almost
>
> 50 other people that day, including the other nonvictims in the
>
> limousine.
>
>
>
> One of those "closely bunched" shots they all heard must have been a
>
> delusion too, right BT??
>
>

Lurkers, it is a fact that not all parties in DP claimed to hear closely
bunched shots. It is also a fact that not all who heard such shots
describe them in quite the same way. **One thing I can pretty much
predict with great confidence based on what I've seen so far. You can bet
they are not all describing everything in a manner anywhere near as
consistent with Bob Harris various theories as he would like you to
believe.**

>
> And if those people were correct, as they obviously were, why would
>
> Nellie have heard one nonexistent shot and not the other two that were
>
> "closely bunched"?
>
>
>
> And how was it that she reacted to her "delusion" in perfect unison with
>
> every other surviving passenger in that car??
>
>

Folks. Bob is clearly proceeding from the ASSUMPTION that all these people
were indeed manifesting "involuntary" shot reactions. It is that very
fact that is in dispute regarding Z285 and that he is so "confident of it:
that he planning to take it where such "absolute/irrefable proof" should
go. Right? :-)

But since he hasn't quite "gotten 'round" to that just yet, I'm saying
that he's positing a THEORY and NOT a fact. Throw out his "fact" and you
don't need everyone in the limo having simultaneous "shot delusions" to do
what they are doing.

In fact before you get there, you have to buy into, not only his
questionable "involuntary shot reaction" interpretations, but *his*
interpretation of the various testimonies. Lurkers and viewers, bases on
what you've seen so far, are you really ready to go there? I know I'm
not.

>
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cv7Lz25Xyno
>
>
>
> I'm sorry BT, I know you're proud of your "sonic delusion" theory but it
>
> really doesn't make the grade:-)
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > --- even when we
>
> > KNOW he wasn't. Bob strenously rejects that theory, yet has not problem
>
> > letting Nellie's mind remove 3-4 second gaps between sounds and sights in
>
> > order to defend his "silencer suppression theory."
>
>
>
> Wow!! So now I have have a first name!!
>
>
>
> I can't tell you happy that makes me:-)
>
>
>
> As for "removing 3-4 seconds", that is beyond silly. I never said or
>
> implied that in my life. Have you noticed BT, how much easier it is to
>
> refute the statements you make up for me than the ones I actually make:-)
>
>

Interesting that "Bob" (I emphasized it that time since it seemed to
delight him so much above.) thinks he has to *specifically* utter a
statement in order for it to be true of what he is communicationing and/or
clearly implying. If you dear folks cannot see that I am not mistating
what he is implying about the shot/sight disconnect, then there are no
words in human expression that likely will covey that reality to you.

>
>
>
> >
>
> > But what am I whining about?
>
>
>
> That seems to be the key question here.
>
>
>
>
>
> > It's often said that "consistency is the
>
> > hobgoblin of little minds" so I suppose we should all give it up and
>
> > convert to the "The Gospel of JFK's Assassination According to Robert
>
> > Harris" and just be done with it.
>
>
>
> Well, that certainly is a mature, intelligent sentence.
>
>
>
> But I have a better idea. Let's all convert to "The gospel of facts,
>
> evidence and reason".
>
>

Yep. Let's ADD time to the dilemma!

>
> And instead of looking for excuses for those inconvenient witness
>
> statements, let's take a little time to evaluate them based on objective
>
> criteria, such as,
>
>
>
> Were they corroborated by the other witnesses? Do their visible
>
> reactions match with their testimony? Are their statements consistent
>
> with the conclusions of the best scientists?
>
>
>
> Perhaps the best rebuttal to your "sonic delusion" theory is that
>
> Nellie's perception was not fabricated after the event. We see exactly
>
> when she reacted to that shot and then pulled her husband to her,
>
> exactly as she said she did, immediately after she heard that shot.
>
>
>
> And at the risk of sounding like a stuck record, her reaction occurred
>
> in perfect unison with the reactions of the others in the car.
>
>
>

And like a "stuck record" I will refer you lurkers and viewers to the
above and to my MANY posts stating my position and advice to Bob on this
whole "absolute proof" shot reaction Z285 thingy.

That's all for me for a while on this folks. But don't worry...Bob will
be here to keep up the same kind of "irrefutable" insight that now has now
added 42-48% to Nellie (and Sam's) telescopic sight/sound delusions!

BT

[Robert Harris]

In article
<bobharris77-329C...@70-3-168-216.pools.spcsdns.net>,

Duh! No One




RH

[BT George]

On Friday, August 16, 2013 4:32:16 AM UTC-5, BT George wrote:
> On Thursday, August 15, 2013 9:36:04 PM UTC-5, Robert Harris wrote:
>
> > In article <7fae1bec-8091-474e...@googlegroups.com>,
>
> >
>
> > BT George <brockg...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> > > On Wednesday, August 14, 2013 11:50:56 AM UTC-5, Robert Harris wrote:
>
> >
>
> > > > In article <3f46ae58-61d4-44e1...@googlegroups.com>,
>
> >
>
> > > >
>
> >
>
> > > > BT George <brockg...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> >
>
> > > >
>
> >

Humongous Snip.


All,

I apologize for my innumerable spelling and editing errors in the above
response to the above "mother-of-all-long-length posts". I am bad enough
about that as it is, but choosing to start a reply late at night that
carried on till an unseemly hour of the morning clearly didn't help.

All-in-all another example of why I now have REALLY commit to
discontinuing my personal insanity of going endlessly around the mulberry
bush with Bob (or "Ott") regarding their own unique assassination
theories. Don't know if it will be forever, but for the FORSEEABLE future
I leave you all with the (many) threads I've already engaged in with them
so far.

BT George

[Anthony Marsh]

Are you copying from Pee Wee Herman, "I know you are, but what am I?"

[Robert Harris]

In article <cc04454c-2faa-47ed...@googlegroups.com>,

I always speak to you directly, my friend.

And I am delighted that are willing to discuss these issues with me. You
are one of the few who have the courage.

>
> >
> > It is beyond ridiculous to claim that this was the earliest point at
> >
> > which she could have seen his hands raised or rising to his neck. Have
> >
> > you even bothered to study her movements in the Zapruder film?
> >
> >
>
> Well the one word answer to his question is "yes". ....But I'll be the
> first to say that I have *micro-analyzed* it down to the "cellular level"
> of every person on the film or written a doctoral thesis dedicated to
> Nellie Connally's movements frame by frame. But I'm sure with enough
> dilligence anyone can see what Bob's bleary eyes long ago discerned as
> "irrefutable" evidence of conspiracy in the JFK case.
>
> That's why he's doubtless already taking his "absolute proof" to the next
> level, right? :-)
>
> >
> > At 226, Nellie was still turned almost completely to the front. True, it
> >
> > is difficult to see her orientation in that particular frame, but you
> >
> > can confirm that she was facing forward by examining the frames
> >
> > immediately following 226.
> >
> >
>
> Well folks, I've looked at these very frames and I simply do not see that

Really? In what frame do you first see her begin to turn to the rear?

http://jfkhistory.com/nellie2.gif

By the number please.

In fact, let's hold the presses and give you a chance to answer that
question. I will be happy to continue my reply after you do that.







Robert Harris

[Ott Rovgeisha]

e>

BT!

Why didn't you answer Robert's question directly about Nellie saying that she never turned back again to watch JFK.
In other interviews she even says the reason why: she says that John's weight was upon her so that she could not turn even if she wanted to.

This is very important. That is not something she would confuse.
So this really does settle the issue, that Nellie IS talking about a shot at z285.

She also said that upon hearing the shot, she immediately pulled John towards her. You don't see her do that for several seconds after z223. This is is hardly immediately. You can see her pulling John towards him with a very rapid, sudden way. Something clearly must have JUST provoked her.

Let us try to discuss these issues. I can understand that you do not like Robert, I would say that he does not have important points and rather strong point. We really should discuss this. Very clearly, very specifically.

Ott

[Robert Harris]

In article <87cb817d-265e-44bf...@googlegroups.com>,

BT George <brockg...@gmail.com> wrote:

> On Friday, August 16, 2013 4:32:16 AM UTC-5, BT George wrote:
> > On Thursday, August 15, 2013 9:36:04 PM UTC-5, Robert Harris wrote:
> >
> > > In article <7fae1bec-8091-474e...@googlegroups.com>,
> >
> > >
> >
> > > BT George <brockg...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > >
> >
> > >
> >
> > >
> >
> > > > On Wednesday, August 14, 2013 11:50:56 AM UTC-5, Robert Harris wrote:
> >
> > >
> >
> > > > > In article <3f46ae58-61d4-44e1...@googlegroups.com>,
> >
> > >
> >
> > > > >
> >
> > >
> >
> > > > > BT George <brockg...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > >
> >
> > > > >
> >
> > >
>
> Humongous Snip.
>
>
> All,
>
> I apologize for my innumerable spelling and editing errors in the above
> response to the above "mother-of-all-long-length posts". I am bad enough
> about that as it is, but choosing to start a reply late at night that
> carried on till an unseemly hour of the morning clearly didn't help.
>
> All-in-all another example of why I now have REALLY commit to
> discontinuing my personal insanity of going endlessly around the mulberry
> bush with Bob (or "Ott") regarding their own unique assassination
> theories.

Hi BT.

I can sympathize with your concern about posting late at night. Maybe a
better solution would be to try posting earlier.

I very much respect your opinion on these issues and hope that you
before you bail, you at least choose to address one issue. I believe
Mrs. Connally did not turn to the rear early enough to see JFK's arms
begin to rise at 226.

Now, it's true that we can't see her very well then, but I think that if
you closely examine her movements you will agree that she hadn't even
begun to turn to the rear that early. She couldn't see her husband at
226, let alone JFK.

Perhaps a better way to address the issue is to first determine when she
begins to turn around. Do you have any thoughts on that?

http://jfkhistory.com/nellie2.gif

As for going "around the mulberry bush" I believe you are mistaken. Even
the most fanatical nutters in this forum have not denied that she
couldn't have seen JFK prior to the late 250's.

Perhaps a better argument on your part is the suggestion that she was
delusional when she thought she heard that shot - enough so that she
actually reacted to it. But I am troubled that so many other people seem
to have heard it as well.

Do you think it strange that so many others had identical delusions?

And do you think it is even stranger that brilliant scientists like
Alvarez and Stroscio identified a loud and startling noise at the same
instant that the limo passengers reacted simultaneously as they did?


If you address those particular issues I think you will find that you
won't have to go around any mulberry bushes at all. In fact, you can go
in a perfectly straight line to an honest and indisputable answer to the
conspiracy question.




Robert Harris

[BT George]

Hmmm. Looks like my "friend" had some major snippage of my response.
Nevertheless, as I said I am through with our little "debates" for now.


However, not to leave you lurkers and viewers hanging on Bob's final
question, the REAL issue is not necessarily what frames we can actually
*see* Nellie look back. But rather, KNOWING that based on her testimony,
she obviously *had* to have looked back about the time JFK begins to raise
his arms (unless she really was pretty psychic)the better question to ask
is, are there any frames where it's not possible say for sure where she
was looking?

Here are the 10 frames comprising Z226 and the next approx. 1/2 second for
your perusal. Judge for yourselves whether you can tell 100% where Nellie
Connally's eyes are looking in all of them:

http://www.assassinationresearch.com/zfilm/z226.jpg
http://www.assassinationresearch.com/zfilm/z227.jpg
http://www.assassinationresearch.com/zfilm/z228.jpg
http://www.assassinationresearch.com/zfilm/z229.jpg
http://www.assassinationresearch.com/zfilm/z230.jpg
http://www.assassinationresearch.com/zfilm/z231.jpg
http://www.assassinationresearch.com/zfilm/z232.jpg
http://www.assassinationresearch.com/zfilm/z233.jpg
http://www.assassinationresearch.com/zfilm/z234.jpg
http://www.assassinationresearch.com/zfilm/z235.jpg
http://www.assassinationresearch.com/zfilm/z236.jpg

Also, you can continue on like this for several more frames and begin to
see that in the neighborhood of Z237-240 and beyond for a bit, she
actually starts to be look back at in Kennedy's direction---all this still
less than a second after the arm raising begins. (Of course this can also
be seen on many slow motion Z film versions, though many are so zoomed in
now that Nellie can't be seen at all in many of the relevant frames.)

At any rate *you* can decide, because that really is finis for BT on this
baby!


BT George

[Robert Harris]

In article
<bobharris77-6A6D...@70-3-168-216.pools.spcsdns.net>,

Almost on cue, "Lone Gunman" whom I'm sure you will agree, is not
exactly my staunchest ally, addressed this very issue. In fact, he
disagreed with my conclusion that she could JFK in the late 250's,

"my answer to number 2 is about 260."

Are you sure that you don't want to correct your error on this before
you bail, BT?





Robert Harris

[Robert Harris]

In article <2ebef428-7f22-4c0c...@googlegroups.com>,

stevemg...@yahoo.com wrote:

> On Wednesday, August 14, 2013 8:33:08 AM UTC-5, Ott Rovgeisha wrote:

There is no such word in Webster's or any other dictionary that I am
aware of.

So, why don't you tell us what you mean by "conspiracists"?

If you believe it to mean someone who believes there are conspiracies
then, unless you deny what happened in the Watergate scandal, or
countless other confirmed conspiracies, you are one yourself, are you
not?

If you are defining it by the number of conspiracies one believes are
real, then what is that number? I believe that conspiracies happen among
terrorists around the world on an almost daily basis. But then, so does
CNN:-)

IMO, terms like this are similar to racial epithets meant for the
solitary purpose of demeaning a particular group.

Don't you think it would be infinitely simpler and more honest, to
simply address the issues related to this particular case?

> They spend their time studying films or pictures of
> statements until they find an "odd" result. They then take that oddity and
> weave some giant story out out if.

Yes, and they're all lazy and live off welfare and have 12 children per
family, right?

Oh wait! Wrong targeted group - my bad.

Steve, let's try something new and talk about the facts and evidence.
Are you up for that?

>
> Yeah, it's a game for them. Not all, some are sincere. But not, in my
> view, the majority.
>
> Look, there are lone nutters who refuse to consider any new questions. For
> them, everything is settled. And for the conspiracists, nothing is settled
> except that Oswald didn't do it. Or he didn't do it alone. They don't ask
> questions in good faith.
>
> It's been 50 years. Oswald shot the president. And killed Tippit.

Gotta love these absolutes! Why waste time on little things like
evidence and proof:-)

> If there
> was a conspiracy - and I'm open to the possibility - it was on a small
> scale.

I would tend to agree with that, but I can support that argument with
facts and evidence, something you don't seem too interested in
discussing.

As always, the devil is in the details. If you REALLY want to get to the
truth, then you need to lose these sweeping generalizations and consider
those details. There are a LOT of them and they point to some very solid
conclusions about the shooting that day and whether Oswald could have
fired all the shots.





Robert Harris

[Ott Rovgeisha]

I have said this before and I'll say this again:

The truth has the habit of revealing itself.
Propagandists can do whatever they want, but the truth does reveal itself.
The details are one of the most crucial things, because details are , what criminals ignore. A detail in of enormous importance, because they seem insignificant, but most always clinch a case.

There are people who always know what happened, and will always deny this truth for one reason or another.
But the truth always remains the truth, and there is nothing anyone can do.

For the things to be like the WC concluded, we would have to dismiss key witnesses, label them delusional and of course close our eyes shut tight in front of literary tens and tens of most unlikely coincidences. How adult is that?

[BT George]

On Saturday, August 17, 2013 6:15:21 AM UTC-5, Robert Harris wrote:
> In article <87cb817d-265e-44bf...@googlegroups.com>,
>
> BT George <brockg...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> > On Friday, August 16, 2013 4:32:16 AM UTC-5, BT George wrote:
>
> > > On Thursday, August 15, 2013 9:36:04 PM UTC-5, Robert Harris wrote:
>
> > >
>
> > > > In article <7fae1bec-8091-474e...@googlegroups.com>,
>
> > >
>
> > > >
>
> > >
>
> > > > BT George <brockg...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > >
>
> > > >
>
> > >
>
> > > >
>
> > >
>
> > > >
>
> > >
>
> > > > > On Wednesday, August 14, 2013 11:50:56 AM UTC-5, Robert Harris wrote:
>
> > >
>
> > > >
>
> > >
>
> > > > > > In article <3f46ae58-61d4-44e1...@googlegroups.com>,
>
> > >
>
> > > >
>
> > >
>
> > > > > >
>
> > >
>
> > > >
>
> > >
>
> > > > > > BT George <brockg...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > >
>
> > > >
>
> > >
>
> > > > > >
>
> > >
>
> > > >
>
> >
>
> > Humongous Snip.
>
> >
>
> >
>
> > All,
>
> >
>
> > I apologize for my innumerable spelling and editing errors in the above
>
> > response to the above "mother-of-all-long-length posts". I am bad enough
>
> > about that as it is, but choosing to start a reply late at night that
>
> > carried on till an unseemly hour of the morning clearly didn't help.
>
> >
>
> > All-in-all another example of why I now have REALLY commit to
>
> > discontinuing my personal insanity of going endlessly around the mulberry
>
> > bush with Bob (or "Ott") regarding their own unique assassination
>
> > theories.
>
>
>
> Hi BT.
>
>
>
> I can sympathize with your concern about posting late at night. Maybe a
>
> better solution would be to try posting earlier.
>

But Bob, that is part of the problem. It appears to me that you, and
quite a few others around here, are already retired, or have a
job/occupation that allows extensive daytime posting. I have a day job
that I am paid well to do, but unfortunately, their vision of what they
are paying me for doesn't include me spending hours on end, week after
week, posting on a JFK NG.

Also, my beloved wife and family would like to see me too sometimes.
...Yes. I guess their tastes are questionable in that regard. :-)

At any rate, I have invested mucho hours in our back and forth the last
few months and simply have to give it a rest for now. You've only been
posting about Z285 for a couple of decades or so now. and I'm sure you'll
still be doing it a decade or two from now given life and limb to do so.
There should be plenty of time ahead to re-engage, if I ever find myself
with more time on my hands.

BT

[Robert Harris]

In article <cb862321-e02e-41b9...@googlegroups.com>,

No it doesn't.

It looks like the john mcadams did some "major snippage" of your
response. He has a tendency to snip everything below the signature.

> Nevertheless, as I said I am through with our little "debates" for now.

Did you overlook my very simple question?

"In what frame do you first see her begin to turn to the rear?"



>
>

> However, not to leave you lurkers and viewers hanging on Bob's final
> question, the REAL issue is not necessarily what frames we can actually
> *see* Nellie look back. But rather, KNOWING that based on her testimony,
> she obviously *had* to have looked back about the time JFK begins to raise
> his arms (unless she really was pretty psychic)the better question to ask
> is, are there any frames where it's not possible say for sure where she
> was looking?
>
> Here are the 10 frames comprising Z226 and the next approx. 1/2 second for
> your perusal. Judge for yourselves whether you can tell 100% where Nellie
> Connally's eyes are looking in all of them:
>
> http://www.assassinationresearch.com/zfilm/z226.jpg
> http://www.assassinationresearch.com/zfilm/z227.jpg
> http://www.assassinationresearch.com/zfilm/z228.jpg
> http://www.assassinationresearch.com/zfilm/z229.jpg
> http://www.assassinationresearch.com/zfilm/z230.jpg
> http://www.assassinationresearch.com/zfilm/z231.jpg
> http://www.assassinationresearch.com/zfilm/z232.jpg
> http://www.assassinationresearch.com/zfilm/z233.jpg
> http://www.assassinationresearch.com/zfilm/z234.jpg
> http://www.assassinationresearch.com/zfilm/z235.jpg
> http://www.assassinationresearch.com/zfilm/z236.jpg

Why would you direct people to such horribly blurry, low resolution
images?? This is much clearer and covers a much longer time span.

http://jfkhistory.com/nellie2.gif

>
> Also, you can continue on like this for several more frames and begin to
> see that in the neighborhood of Z237-240 and beyond for a bit,

I think you are going to have to find some frames that are even worse
than the last batch, in order to sell that one:-)

But even if she had looked back at JFK at 237-240, why would it matter?

That still eliminates 223, does it not? And she said she heard that shot
AFTER she looked back and saw Kennedy.

How do you fit 160, 223, and then two shots after "237-240" into a lone
nut scenario?




Robert Harris

[Robert Harris]

In article <8690c514-2c19-4568...@googlegroups.com>,

BT, have you considered that it would have required much less time and
typing to answer my simple question than it took you to explain why you
can't:-)





Robert Harris

[BT George]

Sorry. I didn't notice this last little remark until now. I already
addressed my so-called "error" in the following post a few days ago:

https://groups.google.com/d/msg/alt.assassination.jfk/h5eAX6O2dJI/p1B71IX93XMJ

I challenge anyone to *conclusively* demonstrate that there are *NO*
frames prior to the late 250's, where it was even possible for Nellie
Connally to have potentially seen Kennedy's early post Z222-224 shot
reactions.

Again I repeat her relevant 11-22-63 testimony that so vividly conjures up
the images of JFK's arms/hands raising up around Z226 and in the following
several frames WHICH SHE PROVIDED *BEFORE* EVER YET SEEING THE ZAPRUDER
FILM:

"Then I heard a loud, terrifying noise. It came from the back. I turned
and looked at the President *just in time* to *see* him *clutch his neck*

and sink down in the seat."

I say that she either had to be *pshychic* or it's pretty darn
coincidental that she describes it this way UNLESS at some point *very
soon* after that shot and after he begins to react in a *highly* similar
manner, her eyes actually were in position to spot and descibe exactly
what it sounds like she is describing!

At any rate *viewers and lurkers decide* for yourselves.

BT

[Anthony Marsh]

On 8/26/2013 11:26 PM, BT George wrote:
> Bob, I am done exchanging on this topic after Inpoint out that I have a
> response from earlier that has not yet posted and that your own supposedly
> vastly clearer version disproves NOTHING that I said in that response or
> elsewhere.
>
> As for your acting like 10-14 Zframes (less than a second) somehow means
> JFK's actions throughout that general time frame looked markedly different
> than what he started around Z226 and she described I'll leave for others
> to judge. However, I point out that his movements in that time- frame
> appear to me *notably* closer to what she described, than what I see in
> your supposed Z258-260 time frame. (...and without the apppeal to a 5-6
> second sound/sight telescoping delusion needed for a "silent" SBT shot.)
>

This makes no sense. How can there be a "silent" SBT shot?
Using a silence would make the bullet going so slowly that is could not
have caused all that damage. What kind of bullet? Unspecified. Certainly
no "silenced" Carcano bullet.

> As always, the viewers and lurkers can decide for themselves.
>

[Anthony Marsh]

You are misrepresenting historical documents to push a political agenda.
Nellie never specificed frame 226. That comes only from your imagination.

> several frames WHICH SHE PROVIDED *BEFORE* EVER YET SEEING THE ZAPRUDER
> FILM:
>
> "Then I heard a loud, terrifying noise. It came from the back. I turned
> and looked at the President *just in time* to *see* him *clutch his neck*
> and sink down in the seat."
>
> I say that she either had to be *pshychic* or it's pretty darn
> coincidental that she describes it this way UNLESS at some point *very
> soon* after that shot and after he begins to react in a *highly* similar
> manner, her eyes actually were in position to spot and descibe exactly
> what it sounds like she is describing!
>

You have overlooked another possibility. Maybe she heard the first sound
which was a shot that missed and turned to look back just as the second
shot was fired which hit Kennedy. The acoustical evidence strongly
suggests that the first shot missed. Maybe because as the first shot
fired that day it had a lower than normal velocity.

[Anthony Marsh]

Sometimes the software does that automatically.
Learn how to post correctly.
Did .John ever tell you why he had to start signing his name as
.John instead of John?

[BT George]

On Monday, August 26, 2013 10:26:32 PM UTC-5, BT George wrote:
> Bob, I am done exchanging on this topic after Inpoint out that I have a
>
> response from earlier that has not yet posted and that your own supposedly
>
> vastly clearer version disproves NOTHING that I said in that response or
>
> elsewhere.
>
>
>
> As for your acting like 10-14 Zframes (less than a second) somehow means
>
> JFK's actions throughout that general time frame looked markedly different
>
> than what he started around Z226 and she described I'll leave for others
>
> to judge. However, I point out that his movements in that time- frame
>
> appear to me *notably* closer to what she described, than what I see in
>
> your supposed Z258-260 time frame. (...and without the apppeal to a 5-6
>
> second sound/sight telescoping delusion needed for a "silent" SBT shot.)
>
>
>

> As always, the viewers and lurkers can decide for themselves.

REPOST OF PRIOR ANSWER THAT I DELETED TO MAKE EDIT CORRECTIONS AND ADDRESS
A COUPLE OF ITEMS MORE DIRECTLY:

Bob, I am done exchanging on this topic after this. (I also made a
response yesterday that just posted today. And I say that *NOTHING* in
your own supposedly vastly clearer version of the Z Film disproves what I
said in that response or elsewhere.)

Now to answer those other items more directly for the benefit of those
following this topic.

Bob Harris said:

But even if she had looked back at JFK at 237-240, why would it matter?
That still eliminates 223, does it not?

I say:

Of course not. We are talking a period of 10-14 Z Frames (less than a
second). As to whether JFK's actions throughout the general Z227 - Z240
time frame looked markedly different than what he started doing around
Z226 (or than what Nellie seemed to be describing) I'll leave for others
to judge. However, I do note that his movements during that time- frame
appear *clearly* closer to the first actions Nellie described, than to
what is seen in the later mid 250’s to early 260’s time frame.
(...and without the appeal to a 5-6 second sound/sight telescoping

delusion needed for a "silent" SBT shot.)

Viewers and Lurkers:

Please note that it is during this general sequence that JFK’s elbows
and hands can be seen at times to continue to elevate, which would seem to
match this part of her statement best:

“…I turned and looked at the President *just in time* to *see* him
*clutch his neck*…”

If Nellie turned around (probably less than a second) after hearing the
“loud, terrifying noise” during this earlier period and saw JFK
continuing to elevate his elbows/hands, what else would she think but that
she had turned around “just in time” to see his reaction?

OTOH, during the later time frame (which Bob favors) is when we see
JFK’s arms/hands begin to drop and when we see him begin to slump
forward and have a facial expression that looks somewhat like she
describes.

Attend please the second part of her statement:

“…and sink down in the seat. There was no utterance of any kind from

him. There was no grimace and I had no sure knowledge as to what the noise
was. I felt it was a gunshot and I had a horrifying feeling that the

President had not only been shot but could be dead.”

Again, it seems to me, that the later frames accord much better with the
END of what she is describing in this part of her account, and that the
earlier frames accord best with the BEGINNING. In other words, it sure
looks like she is describing the scene circa. Z237ish to Z260ish at this
point.

*The viewers and lurkers may decide for themselves.*

Then Bob said:

But even if she had looked back at JFK at 237-240, why would it matter?
That still eliminates 223, does it not? And she said she heard that shot
AFTER she looked back and saw Kennedy.

How do you fit 160, 223, and then two shots after "237-240" into a lone
nut scenario?

I say:

Uhhh…we’re talking about less than one second later. Why on earth
need this be a separate shot from Z223? *NOTHING* in her statement that
we have been debating indicates that she is *at any time* describing Z160,
thus Bob’s whole premise that she is *hearing* 160 and *seeing*
something in the mid-late 250’s and beyond, is ridiculously unnecessary.
(Unless, like him, you want to believe in a “silencer suppressed shot”
at Z223.)

The most straightforward reading of what she was describing in this
critical part of her statement on 11-22-63 is just as I have been
maintaining all along:

NELLIE CONNALLY *HEARD* THE SO-CALLED SILENT SHOT AT Z223, AND THEN TURNED
AROUND FAR ENOUGH TO SEE JFK’S EARLY POST SHOT REACTION WITHIN *LESS
THAN 1 SECOND* OF THE TIME HE BEGINS TO MANIFEST A REACTION.

Viewers and lurkers:

For the dozenth and FINAL time, I ask you to compare the above notion to
Nellie’s actual statements, and then compare that to what is seen in the
Z Film from the general time period Z226 - Z240. (Or extending to about
245 at latest.) I believe most impartial observers, having no *silencer
suppressed shot* or similar novel theory to defend, will see for
themselves that my interpretation is perfectly reasonable and is the most
straight-forward reading of her comments at this juncture. As always
*you* decide for yourselves.

Finally, I truly have NO idea what Bob means when he says:

"And she said she heard that shot AFTER she looked back and saw

Kennedy.”

The only “that” shot that he had just referred to was Z223 and, as I
have labored to prove, a straightforward reading of her testimony
indicates that she heard 223 and then turned around and saw what she
describes JFK do in response to it. I close by asking you kind viewer and
lurker, what in Nellie Connally’s 11-22-63 testimony indicates anything
else?

BT George

[ottrov...@gmail.com]

BT, Do you realize that even If Nellie saw john Connally earlier and heard
the shot at 223, she STILL describes TWO more shots! The last one being a
shot that hit the president!

Do you realize that she describes a shot after 223 and before 313 ??

Either way there is a shot IN BETWEEN 223 and 313. From NUMEROUS witness
testimonies and the Zapruder film itself, it is easily deducible that this
shot in between occurred during 280-s.

The most important thing about this still remains the same despite the
smoke screen.

[John Reagor King]

In article <d5717033-c9c6-4355...@googlegroups.com>,

ottrov...@gmail.com wrote:

> BT, Do you realize that even If Nellie saw john Connally earlier and heard
> the shot at 223, she STILL describes TWO more shots! The last one being a
> shot that hit the president!
>
> Do you realize that she describes a shot after 223 and before 313 ??

That is misleading. She did indeed say that she heard the first shot, and
that she saw JFK clutching his throat, etc., *before* she heard the 2nd
shot, but that's not quite the same thing as putting an additional shot
between 223 and 313, since she still agreed with her husband that it was
the 2nd of three shots that hit her husband. Nellie is only one witness,
and she could simply have been what is called "mistaken." I do not see
her doing anything even remotely like looking back at JFK until after 223.

> Either way there is a shot IN BETWEEN 223 and 313.

That is nowhere close to firmly established.

> From NUMEROUS witness
> testimonies and the Zapruder film itself, it is easily deducible that this
> shot in between occurred during 280-s.

How many witnesses constitutes "numerous"? You could say that about any
number, from two upward. Far more important would be the *percentage* of
witnesses involved.

[BT George]

On Wednesday, August 28, 2013 10:50:02 AM UTC-5, ottrov...@gmail.com wrote:
> kolmapäev, 28. august 2013 4:08.23 UTC+3 kirjutas BT George:
>

Snippage:

>
> BT, Do you realize that even If Nellie saw john Connally earlier and heard
>
> the shot at 223, she STILL describes TWO more shots! The last one being a
>
> shot that hit the president!
>
>
>
> Do you realize that she describes a shot after 223 and before 313 ??
>
>
>
> Either way there is a shot IN BETWEEN 223 and 313. From NUMEROUS witness
>
> testimonies and the Zapruder film itself, it is easily deducible that this
>
> shot in between occurred during 280-s.
>
>
>
> The most important thing about this still remains the same despite the
>
> smoke screen.

This is my last post to you debating these matters also:

First. Be very CLEAR. This thread was *NOT* supposed to be focused on the
debate about Z285. (Need I quote the very title of it to make that
point?) Whatever bearing it has on Z285 from my perspective was already
covered several times in my earlier posts above. Here are links to a
couple of them:

https://groups.google.com/d/msg/alt.assassination.jfk/FnNOJIURCm8/m6Y_mHGtvAsJ
https://groups.google.com/d/msg/alt.assassination.jfk/FnNOJIURCm8/xyWItVb7Gi4J

Second. I'll let the interested viewers and lurkers decide just *who* is
blowing the bigger smoke screens in this particular little exercise.

I have presented plenty of evidence that *strongly* supports the
contention that Nellie Connaly's 11-22-63 testimony indicates that she
most likely *heard* the shot circa Z223 and then described it's immediate
aftermath---Bob's silencer suppressed Z223 theories not withstanding.

You/he may disagree from now to eternity, but I will leave it to *others*
to make their own determination as to who has presented the stronger case.

Bye-bye.

[BT George]

On Thursday, August 29, 2013 3:01:05 PM UTC-5, John Reagor King wrote:
> In article <d5717033-c9c6-4355...@googlegroups.com>,
>
> ottrov...@gmail.com wrote:
>
>
>
> > BT, Do you realize that even If Nellie saw john Connally earlier and heard
>
> > the shot at 223, she STILL describes TWO more shots! The last one being a
>
> > shot that hit the president!
>
> >
>
> > Do you realize that she describes a shot after 223 and before 313 ??
>
>
>
> That is misleading. She did indeed say that she heard the first shot, and
>
> that she saw JFK clutching his throat, etc., *before* she heard the 2nd
>
> shot, but that's not quite the same thing as putting an additional shot
>
> between 223 and 313, since she still agreed with her husband that it was
>
> the 2nd of three shots that hit her husband. Nellie is only one witness,
>
> and she could simply have been what is called "mistaken." I do not see
>
> her doing anything even remotely like looking back at JFK until after 223.
>
>

Hey John R. Don't know if you've been able to follow the posts above
(some of them pretty long) but if you do, you will see that I am the one
saying that Nellie Connally's 11-22-63 statements most closely imply that
it was *not* Z160 that she heard (Though I'm quite sure she may have
*later* thought it was 160 which we all know JBC did hear and recognize as
a shot.) but rather Z223.

The reason I say this, is that for it to have been 160 rather than 223,
one must believe that she first heard a "loud and terrfying noise", and
then waited some 4 to 6 seconds *later* to turn around, but still managed
to believe she had done so "just in time" to see JFK's arms/hands raising
up. (Of course, we know he did no such thing until *after* the shot at
circa Z223.)

While such a delay is possible, I think it far *less* likely than to just
accept the rather straightforward proposition that Nellie must have heard
223 and then turned around sometime in the next second or so to see
Kennedy's early post-shot reactions. Of course, Bob Harris resists that
notion strenously---not because I don't make a strong argument for
it---but because it contradicts his "silencer suppressed shot at Z223"
beliefs.

However, with his avid disciple "Ott" (and him) all roads ultimately seem
to lead back to a debate about Z285, hence the latest effort to take this
thread in that direction (despite its title: "John - forget about 285").

BT

[John Reagor King]

In article <547dfb5f-9bac-476e...@googlegroups.com>,

BT George <brockg...@gmail.com> wrote:

> On Thursday, August 29, 2013 3:01:05 PM UTC-5, John Reagor King wrote:
> > In article <d5717033-c9c6-4355...@googlegroups.com>,
> > ottrov...@gmail.com wrote:
> >
> > > BT, Do you realize that even If Nellie saw john Connally earlier and
> > > heard
> > > the shot at 223, she STILL describes TWO more shots! The last one being a
> > > shot that hit the president!
> > > Do you realize that she describes a shot after 223 and before 313 ??
> >
> > That is misleading. She did indeed say that she heard the first shot, and
> > that she saw JFK clutching his throat, etc., *before* she heard the 2nd
> > shot, but that's not quite the same thing as putting an additional shot
> > between 223 and 313, since she still agreed with her husband that it was
> > the 2nd of three shots that hit her husband. Nellie is only one witness,
> > and she could simply have been what is called "mistaken." I do not see
> > her doing anything even remotely like looking back at JFK until after 223.
>
> Hey John R. Don't know if you've been able to follow the posts above
> (some of them pretty long) but if you do, you will see that I am the one
> saying that Nellie Connally's 11-22-63 statements most closely imply that
> it was *not* Z160 that she heard (Though I'm quite sure she may have
> *later* thought it was 160 which we all know JBC did hear and recognize as
> a shot.) but rather Z223.

The woman herself said she heard 3 shots total, entirely consistent with
what the vast majority of the witnesses said. If 223 was the first shot
she heard, then she would have recalled only two shots.

> The reason I say this, is that for it to have been 160 rather than 223,
> one must believe that she first heard a "loud and terrfying noise", and
> then waited some 4 to 6 seconds *later* to turn around, but still managed
> to believe she had done so "just in time" to see JFK's arms/hands raising
> up. (Of course, we know he did no such thing until *after* the shot at
> circa Z223.)

Exactly. And why is it so difficult to believe that she waited several
seconds to turn around? Even 6 seconds, the longest time you gave above,
is still a very short amount of time. Since she is only one witness, with
not one other person in the limo corroborating her, her recollection that
she turned and looked at JFK after she heard the first shot, but before
she heard the second shot, can easily be just a simple mistake in
recollection. This is not an even slightly unreasonable assumption.

> While such a delay is possible, I think it far *less* likely than to just
> accept the rather straightforward proposition that Nellie must have heard
> 223 and then turned around sometime in the next second or so to see
> Kennedy's early post-shot reactions.

No. That would not explain why she recalled 3 shots instead of only 2.

[BT George]

Not correct...at least according to her 11-22-63 notes (as posted by Bob
Harris above. I have reposted it with emphasis on how she described the
shot sequence the *very day* of the assassination:

"Then I heard a loud, terrifying noise. It came from the back. I turned
and looked at the President just in time to see him clutch his neck and

sink down in the seat. There was no utterance of any kind from him. There

was no grimace and I had no sure knowledge as to what the noise was. ***I
felt it was a gunshot*** and I had a horrifying feeling that the President

had not only been shot but could be dead.

***Quickly there was a second shot*** ... I reached over and pulled [John]
to me and tried to get us both down in the car. ***Then came a third
shot.."***

So it is clear according to her EARLIEST recollections, *after* hearing a
loud noise and turning to see JFK begin to raise his hands, she attests to
hearing two more shots. The only *real* debate regarding that first shot
is whether she failed to hear 160 at all (Which many did not even
recognize it as a shot, but thought it was more like a firecracker or
motorcyle backfire---still less describe it as a "loud and *terrifying*
noise".) or if she failed to hear 223 even as her (shot) husband did not
recall hearing it.

Bob insists that she *must* have heard 160 and then didn't hear 223
because he doggedly defends that it was a silencer suppressed shot that
*no one* heard. I insist that her testimony, calls for the very opposite
interpretation and I believe her actions in the Z film at that point
support both her 11-22-63 recollection and that contention fairly well.

BTW, the extra post Z223 "shot" that she said she heard corresponds to
when she puled a collapsing and wounded JBC into her lap, because she
*incorrectly* thought he had been wounded at that point. That very fact
forms part of Bob Harris' missed shot at Z285 support. (A contention I do
not buy into, but have told him clearly that I do not 100% rule it out
either.)

>
> > The reason I say this, is that for it to have been 160 rather than 223,
>
> > one must believe that she first heard a "loud and terrfying noise", and
>
> > then waited some 4 to 6 seconds *later* to turn around, but still managed
>
> > to believe she had done so "just in time" to see JFK's arms/hands raising
>
> > up. (Of course, we know he did no such thing until *after* the shot at
>
> > circa Z223.)
>
>
>
> Exactly. And why is it so difficult to believe that she waited several
>
> seconds to turn around? Even 6 seconds, the longest time you gave above,
>
> is still a very short amount of time. Since she is only one witness, with
>
> not one other person in the limo corroborating her, her recollection that
>
> she turned and looked at JFK after she heard the first shot, but before
>
> she heard the second shot, can easily be just a simple mistake in
>
> recollection. This is not an even slightly unreasonable assumption.
>
>

Well I guess I have to simply disagree with you on that one. Six seconds
is a *very long time* in my book to hear a "loud and terrifying noise"
behind you and then wait that long to turn around and see what it is.
Also, nothing in following words even hints that *any* delay took place:

"It came from the back. I turned and looked at the President *just in
time* to see him clutch his neck and sink down in the seat."

Of course, I am not claiming that such wording is *decisive* in
establishing an exact time. But I am saying that it seems far *more*
supportive of the rather straightforward interpretation of her words that
she must have heard Z223 and then began to turn around and look behind her
rather immediately thereafter (The Z Film shows her head to be moving back
towards JFK within less than a second after this shot.) *just in time* to
see him raising his arms/hands up towards his neck area. An action we
*know* took place directly in response to *that* very shot and no other.

Though I discussed this several times in the above thread, perhaps my last
post to Bob states my arguments most concisely. I have posted a link to
it below and trust that whether you agree or not, you will see the logical
basis for my reaching this conclusion:

https://groups.google.com/d/msg/alt.assassination.jfk/FnNOJIURCm8/Lo7kYm2bIQYJ

>
> > While such a delay is possible, I think it far *less* likely than to just
>
> > accept the rather straightforward proposition that Nellie must have heard
>
> > 223 and then turned around sometime in the next second or so to see
>
> > Kennedy's early post-shot reactions.
>
>
>
> No. That would not explain why she recalled 3 shots instead of only 2.

Already discussed this point above.

BT