Roy Kellerman's reactions

[Robert Harris]

Over the years I have asked John McAdams and other nutters,
whether they agree that Kellerman carried out very specific
actions following frame 285.

Typical response have been personal insults or total evasion.
McAdams however, did once claim that he couldn't see
Kellerman's movements well enough to come to a decision.

This animation should take care of that. I used the relevant
frames from Robin Unger's animation, brightening it up a bit
and adding explanatory annotations and arrow.

Of course, the "see no evil" crowd will evade this, but perhaps
there are a few of you who are honest enough to address these
facts regarding Kellerman's reactions as he was hearing a
"flurry" of at least two closely bunched gunshots at 285
and 313.

http://jfkhistory.com/kellerman2.gif





Robert Harris

[BT George]

Yes. I told you before (in a roundabout way) that Kellerman is the only
person who's movements do not look clearly VOLUNTARY to me. Indeed
Robert, he is the only reason I said that I personally believe you could
be right though I am not sold.

To be quite honest, it looks to me like 3 (non-injured) participants are
acting in a conscious manner at most precisely the same instant to a
realization of what is taking place, while a 4th (Kellerman) is
manifesting movements that are more consistent with an involuntary startle
reaction. Since that would be a HIGHLY unlikely result it appears that
there are only two credible approaches for someone to take if that is how
the movements/actions/reactions honestly appear to them:

1) Harmonize one's understanding of the other 3's movements to be
involuntary startle reactions like Kellerman's appear they very well could
be. (I.e. ignore the contra-impression & go with your scenario.)

2) Harmonize one's understanding of Kellerman's movements in light of the
seemingly clear intentionality of the actions of the other 3. (That is,
accept that he is doing something intentional even if it is unclear quite
what---could he have been hastily grabbing for a mic. which in his haste
he missed & ended up drawing an empty hand up to the side of his face
instead?)

I find both scenarios somewhat unsatisfying, but given the lack of "hard
evidence" to corroborate another shooter or shot, I remain quite unwilling
to favor scenario 1 over scenario 2. However, I am being quite honest in
saying you should do something more than endlessly try to convince JFK
Buffs LN or CT to opt for 1 & take more effective action if you REALLY are
so certain of your scenario. My oft repeated challenge to you is not
unreasonable even if you say we are being unreasonable to not accept Z285
as established fact.

BT

[Anthony Marsh]

On 7/18/2013 9:47 PM, Robert Harris wrote:
> Over the years I have asked John McAdams and other nutters,
> whether they agree that Kellerman carried out very specific
> actions following frame 285.
>

Why just the nutters? Conspiracy believers do not believe your wacky
theories either. You are just trying to play the victim for sympathy.

[Robert Harris]

In article <01324a32-3813-4b1c...@googlegroups.com>,

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

> Yes. I told you before (in a roundabout way) that Kellerman is the only
> person who's movements do not look clearly VOLUNTARY to me.

You might want to consider how preposterous it is to think that whatever
it was that that startled Kellerman, didn't startle the others and had
nothing to do with them ducking and spinning at the same instant he did:-)

And I couldn't care less about anyone's subjective opinions. We all tend
to see what we want to see. As I mentioned in another thread, The
writer, Cecily von Ziegesar hit the proverbial nail on the head.

"No matter the truth, people see what they want to see."

Fortunately for us, we are saved from our prejudices by a wealth of
OBJECTIVE facts and evidence.

1. Every surviving passenger in the limo began to react in the same
1/6th of a second. That alone, resolves the question. The notion that
they all reacted in such perfect unison by coincidence is ridiculously
improbable.

2. Dr. Luis Alvarez concluded in his study of Zapruder's reactions, that
there was a startling noise at frame 285.

3. Every nonvictim in the limo testified to hearing shots that were
fully consistent with 285 and 313.

4. The large majority of witnesses that day said they heard closely
bunched shots at the end of the attack, which were fully consistent with
285 and 313, and contradicted the WC/nutter theory that required the
early shots to have been closer than the final shots.

> Indeed
> Robert, he is the only reason I said that I personally believe you could
> be right though I am not sold.
>
> To be quite honest, it looks to me like

Please don't take this personally, but it doesn't matter what it "looks
to you like". It doesn't even matter that the overwhelming majority of
others who have seen my presentations on this, fully agree:

154 thumbs up, 24 down.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ql6VqZDiC6s

What matters are the objective facts and evidence. And those facts
settle the issue very conclusively.


Robert Harris

[BT George]

Well Bob I don't mean it personally either, but your belief that you have
established a "fact" here carries no weight either. You have a belief
system supported by a combination of observation, argumentation, &
interpretation, but no HARD corroborating evidence that "settles" things
in favor of your view.

If you really believed it was "settled" I am quite certain my challenges
to you would never have been made, because you would already have been
pursuing such a course. ----More importantly, your pursuit would garner
real effective results, because "absolute proof" especially of a
controversial & attention grabbing topic like the JFK Assassination, will
not remain hidden long.

At any rate, we are at an impasse. You believe your "evidence" should be
accepted in it's current form & I am equally insistent that you need TRULY
hard corroborating evidence for it or that you should be able to
successfully take your case where effective validation & action can
occur.

BT

[Robert Harris]

In article <b339ef73-c9f5-486c...@googlegroups.com>,

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

> Well Bob I don't mean it personally either, but your belief that you have
> established a "fact" here carries no weight either.

This is not about my "belief". It's about the subject that you never want
to talk about, and snipped in your reply - the verifiable facts and
evidence. Here they are again:

1. Every surviving passenger in the limo began to react in the same 1/6th
of a second. That alone, resolves the question. The notion that they all
reacted in such perfect unison by coincidence is ridiculously improbable.

2. Dr. Luis Alvarez concluded in his study of Zapruder's reactions, that
there was a startling noise at frame 285.

3. Every nonvictim in the limo testified to hearing shots that were fully
consistent with 285 and 313.

4. The large majority of witnesses that day said they heard closely
bunched shots at the end of the attack, which were fully consistent with
285 and 313, and contradicted the WC/nutter theory that required the early
shots to have been closer than the final shots.

(unquote)

It's not impressive to snip the evidence and then claim that all this is
about my subjective "beliefs".

My conclusions are based SOLELY on the facts and evidence.

And it is the facts and evidence that you need to discuss, rather than
evade. Your subjective opinion and mine, are not what matter, my friend.
All that matters is.. well, you know the rest.




Robert Harris

[Anthony Marsh]

On 7/19/2013 3:48 PM, BT George wrote:
> Well Bob I don't mean it personally either, but your belief that you have
> established a "fact" here carries no weight either. You have a belief
> system supported by a combination of observation, argumentation, &
> interpretation, but no HARD corroborating evidence that "settles" things
> in favor of your view.
>

But Robert says, "There can no longer be any doubt."
Don't you know that if it wasn't true he couldn't say it on the Internet?

[BT George]

On Friday, July 19, 2013 6:32:12 PM UTC-5, Robert Harris wrote:
> In article <b339ef73-c9f5-486c...@googlegroups.com>,
>
> BT George <brockg...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> > Well Bob I don't mean it personally either, but your belief that you have
>
> > established a "fact" here carries no weight either.
>
>
>
> This is not about my "belief". It's about the subject that you never want
>
> to talk about, and snipped in your reply - the verifiable facts and
>
> evidence. Here they are again:
>
>
>
> 1. Every surviving passenger in the limo began to react in the same 1/6th
>
> of a second. That alone, resolves the question. The notion that they all
>
> reacted in such perfect unison by coincidence is ridiculously improbable.
>
>
>
> 2. Dr. Luis Alvarez concluded in his study of Zapruder's reactions, that
>
> there was a startling noise at frame 285.
>
>

Yes. And you ignored virtually all of his other findings and the fact
that the HSCA Photographic panel specifically dissmissed the
startle/jiggle episode beginning around Z290 as follows:

"A fifth episode E possibly associated with a shot occurs at frames
290-293. Although it contains a very small blur detected both Hartmann and
Scott as well as a more substantial blur in Alvarez data, the Panel found
no visual indications of reactions to a shot by the limousine's occupants
coinciding with this segment of blur in the film."

In short Bob, the reality is that YOU are the only authority you really
agree with and the opinion of other experts (even when highly accomplished
ones) are easily brushed aside whenever it disagrees with YOUR beliefs.

>
> 3. Every nonvictim in the limo testified to hearing shots that were fully
>
> consistent with 285 and 313.
>
>
>
> 4. The large majority of witnesses that day said they heard closely
>
> bunched shots at the end of the attack, which were fully consistent with
>
> 285 and 313, and contradicted the WC/nutter theory that required the early
>
> shots to have been closer than the final shots.
>
>
>
> (unquote)
>
>
>
> It's not impressive to snip the evidence and then claim that all this is
>
> about my subjective "beliefs".
>
>
>
> My conclusions are based SOLELY on the facts and evidence.
>

Good. Then you will have no problem accepting my challenges to you.

>
>
> And it is the facts and evidence that you need to discuss, rather than
>
> evade. Your subjective opinion and mine, are not what matter, my friend.
>
> All that matters is.. well, you know the rest.
>
>
>

Speaking of evasions, let's see how you do with these matters. In another
thread on Clint Hill, you just told me that it was time to accept that the
Earth really is round. So Bob, if you really think you have proof like
this:

http://d1jqu7g1y74ds1.cloudfront.net/wp-content/uploads/2010/05/Earth-Western-Hemisphere.jpg

Then I suppose you are now ready to provide the same kind of REAL hard
corroborating evidential support for your "shot reactions" beginning
withing 1/6of a second of Z285 that the following 3 images:

http://1.bp.blogspot.com/_fjVgadgAt-Q/TL1_KtqqJ0I/AAAAAAAAACY/e-YBelATSuw/s1600/b.jpg

http://1.bp.blogspot.com/_fjVgadgAt-Q/TL1_MLWZJDI/AAAAAAAAACs/XFh6ag71HxQ/s1600/g.jpg

http://3.bp.blogspot.com/_fjVgadgAt-Q/TL1_Mch0JRI/AAAAAAAAACw/bZUIk3dfEBw/s1600/h.jpg

...help provide to confirm our understanding that we are, in fact, seeing
JFK reacting to his wounds at the following point in the Z Film:

http://jfk-archives.blogspot.com/2010/06/single-bullet-theory-in-action.html


Now having done that, you are doubtless ready to update us and enlighten
us on the following:


1) What progress have you made in taking your FACTS to the authorities to
get something done about this?

2) What scientific bodies or journals have you RECENTLY submitted your
PROOFS too that have endorsed them or called for further study?

3) What historians, or prominent journalists have you taken your
"irrefutable" evidence to and did you manage to interest them in your
ideas?

4) NEW ONE: What EQUIVALENT evidence do you have for your shot at Z285
for Kennedy’s reaction at Z226?

On the other hand, if you refuse to address yourself to *really* putting
your money where your mouth is, surely you can do at least the following:

***Please explain to the "lurkers" why you think your current strategy of
reposting and reposting and reposting, and badgering and badgering others
in this NG is a more useful or effective strategy than the above for
dealing with something of such “momentous” importance as your Z285
“fact”?

Your answer will no doubt clarify the perfectly logical and understadable
reason that a sincere and dedicated JFK researcher and American
citizen---who presumably cares about concepts like true justice for JFK
and the American People and setting the historical record straight---best
accomplishes such meaningful goals by continuing to spam this NG in the
same manner he has done for the last 15-20 years---so far without success
in bringing about any such "lofty" outcomes.***

BT

[Research]

"BT George" <brockg...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:01324a32-3813-4b1c...@googlegroups.com...

Yes. I told you before (in a roundabout way) that Kellerman is the only
person who's movements do not look clearly VOLUNTARY to me. Indeed
Robert, he is the only reason I said that I personally believe you could
be right though I am not sold.

To be quite honest, it looks to me like 3 (non-injured) participants are
acting in a conscious manner at most precisely the same instant to a
realization of what is taking place, while a 4th (Kellerman) is
manifesting movements that are more consistent with an involuntary startle
reaction. Since that would be a HIGHLY unlikely result it appears that
there are only two credible approaches for someone to take if that is how
the movements/actions/reactions honestly appear to them:

1) Harmonize one's understanding of the other 3's movements to be
involuntary startle reactions like Kellerman's appear they very well could
be. (I.e. ignore the contra-impression & go with your scenario.)

2) Harmonize one's understanding of Kellerman's movements in light of the
seemingly clear intentionality of the actions of the other 3. (That is,
accept that he is doing something intentional even if it is unclear quite
what---could he have been hastily grabbing for a mic. which in his haste
he missed & ended up drawing an empty hand up to the side of his face
instead?)

Thats NOT what he been saying happened. So you LNers have to make up your
OWN verson of the FACTS. Just an assumption! You know what that makes out
of you!

I find both scenarios somewhat unsatisfying, but given the lack of "hard
evidence" to corroborate another shooter or shot, I remain quite unwilling
to favor scenario 1 over scenario 2. However, I am being quite honest in
saying you should do something more than endlessly try to convince JFK
Buffs LN or CT to opt for 1 & take more effective action if you REALLY are
so certain of your scenario. My oft repeated challenge to you is not
unreasonable even if you say we are being unreasonable to not accept Z285
as established fact.

BT

What bout the acoustical evidence? That is collaborating. Kellerman said a
flurry. NOT two shots. A flurry is a cluster. Certainly more than two shot
fired at the same time. How come no one is looking for more evidence of an
Oswald conspiracy plot. However Z285 does have more collaboration. AND is
a viable theory. At least as viable as Oswald alone.

[Robert Harris]

In article <a4dfe6c6-60f5-4c9d...@googlegroups.com>,

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

> On Friday, July 19, 2013 6:32:12 PM UTC-5, Robert Harris wrote:
> > In article <b339ef73-c9f5-486c...@googlegroups.com>,
> >
> > BT George <brockg...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> >
> >
> > > Well Bob I don't mean it personally either, but your belief that you have
> >
> > > established a "fact" here carries no weight either.
> >
> >
> >
> > This is not about my "belief". It's about the subject that you never want
> >
> > to talk about, and snipped in your reply - the verifiable facts and
> >
> > evidence. Here they are again:
> >
> >
> >
> > 1. Every surviving passenger in the limo began to react in the same 1/6th
> >
> > of a second. That alone, resolves the question. The notion that they all
> >
> > reacted in such perfect unison by coincidence is ridiculously improbable.
> >
> >
> >
> > 2. Dr. Luis Alvarez concluded in his study of Zapruder's reactions, that
> >
> > there was a startling noise at frame 285.
> >
> >
>
> Yes. And you ignored virtually all of his other findings and the fact
> that the HSCA Photographic panel specifically dissmissed the
> startle/jiggle episode beginning around Z290 as follows:
>
> "A fifth episode E possibly associated with a shot occurs at frames
> 290-293. Although it contains a very small blur detected both Hartmann and
> Scott as well as a more substantial blur in Alvarez data, the Panel found
> no visual indications of reactions to a shot by the limousine's occupants
> coinciding with this segment of blur in the film."

LOL!! Yes, I wrote a rather vitriolic post about the HSCA over that very
statement, many years ago. That citation demonstrates how totally inept
the HSCA was and how desperately they were trying to match their own set
of "jiggles" with their moronic acoustic evidence.

Their argument that there was only a "very small blur" between 290 and
293 is first of all, absurdly false. 291 is horribly blurred. More
importantly, it is irrelevant because the degree of blurring is not
related to the question of whether it was caused by a gunshot. If Mary
Sitzman barely tapped Zapruder's arm, the result would probably be the
worst blurred frame in the film.

And many of the obvious false positives are much more blurred than any
of the real shots. Check out frame 383 and tell me if that was caused by
a gunshot.

But if you want to go with the HSCA, then surely you agree with their
brilliant conclusion that Oswald fired early shots 1.66 seconds apart.

Do you also buy their conclusion that shots were fired at the end of the
attack that were even closer together??

I didn't think so. YOu ONLY want to go with their conclusion on one
single issue, right??

And gosh, why would you select just that one issue, while rejecting
pretty much all of the others?

They had NO experts on their staff who were qualified to hold Alvarez's
slide rule or even Dr. Stroscio's who also confirmed that loud noise at
285 although of course, he believes that was a gunshot rather than a
siren.

But let's cut to the chase. THIS trumps ALL of the opinions of the HSCA
and everyone else, even the those who were legitimately qualified.

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

I have already answered those questions in great detail, in spite of the
fact that they are among the stupidest questions I have ever been asked.

>
> 4) NEW ONE: What EQUIVALENT evidence do you have for your shot at Z285

> for Kennedyąs reaction at Z226?

I actually have considerably more evidence. I explain that in the
following videos as well as countless posts I have made to this
newsgroup.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ql6VqZDiC6s

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

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

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


What is rather transparent in your postings is that you want to talk
about anything and everything EXCEPT the facts and evidence related to
this issue.

And the facts and evidence are all that matter.





Robert Harris

[BT George]

NOTE: Bob. I am not snipping your prior thread. I. am working from an
IPhone as I am on vacation & replying directly to posts while leaving the
thread intact is incredibly hard. It's much easier just creating a new
post.

1 ) No one was suggesting you, I, or anyone else has to agree with the
HSCA findings as a whole. The point was rather simple: You pretty much
ALWAYS ignore ANY source (including Alvarez) when their findings are not
to your liking. You may deny that, but it is evident to all who watch you
in operation.

The signigance? Debating this topic or any topic with you in detail is a
WASTE of time. You will always find Bob's beliefs the only valid one's
because you always dismiss contra-evidence & insinuate bad faith,
incompetence, or outright stupidity in those who refuse your
INTERPRETATIONS of the visual & testimonial evidence.

Others may choose the futility. I choose to call you out on your utter
lack of HARD CORROBORATING EVIDENCE for virtually all your unique JFK
assassination theories. And you can bet I will always do so when you
engage me & try to make me accept *your* INTERPRETATIONS as if they were
substantiated "facts" that would impress anyone of consequence that you
really have proved any "fact" at all.

2). My questions/challenges have *not* been answered. ...Hardly at all
and DEFINATELY not to *my* satisfaction. By your standards of debate,
that is enough for me to conclude you are *evading* them.

However, Bob I submit that the "lurkers" will generally join that
assessment since you cannot logically defend your claims to have "absolute
proof" for a shot @ Z85, yet provide a coherent defense as to why you
cannot therefore take your case to law enforcement, the press, the
scientific community, historical societies, etc. and expect the kind of
action befitting an "inarguable" "fact" like you repeatedly claim to have.

3) Quite simply, your claim to have evidence equal to what I have cited in
other threads (and now linked examples of in this one) for Z285 compared
to Kennedy's Z226 movements is laughable. Go take your Z285 "shot
reactions" to law enforcement or a court of law & let me take what I have
to support why JFK's hands begin to rise to his neck @ Z226 & let's see
which interpretation of Z film movements. is deemed better supported &
more worthy of words like "absolute" or "compelling" evidence/facts.

If I were you, I'd take your own advice & admit you were wrong to make
such a silly declaration, because "it only hurts for a little while."

BT.

There is NO question an honest man will evade.

....But the rule for Z285 is a little different;

There is no honest answer an honest man will be allowed to give that does
not agree with the shot at Z285

[Anthony Marsh]

They were talking about the DURATION of each blur. How many consecutive
frames. Not the intensity of a blur in one frame.
But I do like your idea of blaming the blurs on Marilyn.
Did you copyright that or can I use it? Maybe she was startled by all
the bottles crashing on the walkway.

> And many of the obvious false positives are much more blurred than any
> of the real shots. Check out frame 383 and tell me if that was caused by
> a gunshot.
>

Maybe it was caused by the breaking Coke bottle.

> But if you want to go with the HSCA, then surely you agree with their
> brilliant conclusion that Oswald fired early shots 1.66 seconds apart.
>

I do.
Others have duplicated that.
When the data tells you that an impossible thing is true, you know it is
real.

> Do you also buy their conclusion that shots were fired at the end of the
> attack that were even closer together??
>

Yes, because they were fired from two different directions.

> I didn't think so. YOu ONLY want to go with their conclusion on one
> single issue, right??
>
> And gosh, why would you select just that one issue, while rejecting
> pretty much all of the others?
>

I have addressed all the issues.

> They had NO experts on their staff who were qualified to hold Alvarez's
> slide rule or even Dr. Stroscio's who also confirmed that loud noise at
> 285 although of course, he believes that was a gunshot rather than a
> siren.
>

Another phony Argument by Authority.

>> for Kennedy�s reaction at Z226?

[Robert Harris]

In article <0e1ba4e8-f333-41ff...@googlegroups.com>,

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

> NOTE: Bob. I am not snipping your prior thread. I. am working from an
> IPhone as I am on vacation & replying directly to posts while leaving the
> thread intact is incredibly hard. It's much easier just creating a new
> post.
>
> 1 ) No one was suggesting you, I, or anyone else has to agree with the
> HSCA findings as a whole. The point was rather simple: You pretty much
> ALWAYS ignore ANY source (including Alvarez) when their findings are not
> to your liking.

That is outrageously false. I have addressed that HSCA citation,
originally in 1995. And I have discussed Alvarez's "siren" speculation
on countless occasions.

And I am sick and tired of discussing "Robert Harris".

> You may deny that, but it is evident to all who watch you
> in operation.

Why don't you start a new newsgroup and call it something like,
alt.robert.harris.sux or something like that?

This newsgroup is for discussion of the JFK case. It gets tiresome
having to address your endless ad hominem rants, which are in almost
every case, ridiculously false.

>
> The signigance? Debating this topic or any topic with you in detail is a
> WASTE of time.

Then don't debate with me.

But you're just wasting bandwidth and time, posting all these ridiculous
insults which only confirm that you cannot defend the LN theory and tell
us much more about BT George than they do about Robert Harris.


Robert Harris

[BT George]

Bob, you have your wish, I will leave you to go do your thing. While you
think it is up go me to PROVE the LN case, I think the physical &
circumstantial evidence against LHO is decisive & the utter lack of
equivalently strong evidence for the various CT scenarios has & will
continue to establish it as the "official verdict" of history.

TO BE VERY CLEAR-----> It is up to you & your CT brethren to prove it is
otherwise. Posting to NG's hasn't got that done in almost 5 decades.
Let's see when doing the same thing finally does produce a different
result, since you have no apparent desire to take your alleged Z285 shot
"fact" to any other venues.

BT

[Robert Harris]

In article <263e50a2-b4f0-4627...@googlegroups.com>,

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

> Bob, you have your wish, I will leave you to go do your thing. While you
> think it is up go me to PROVE the LN case,

I think it is up to everyone who publicly promotes their arguments about
the case, to document and support their position. Sadly, many people
shirk that responsibility and have to resort to evasion and ad hominem
attacks.

> I think the physical &
> circumstantial evidence against LHO is decisive & the utter lack of
> equivalently strong evidence for the various CT scenarios has & will
> continue to establish it as the "official verdict" of history.

Here we go again. It doesn't matter what you "think". What matters is
what your can prove. And that requires you to address the dreaded "facts
and evidence", which you avoid like a case of Herpes.

>
> TO BE VERY CLEAR-----> It is up to you & your CT brethren to prove it is
> otherwise.

I have done exactly that. And you corroborate me by evading pretty much
all the facts and evidence that I have posted. Mcadams and most of his
friends do exactly the same.

> Posting to NG's hasn't got that done in almost 5 decades.

Nonsense. Most people, probably well over 90% who visit this newsgroup,
never post anything. But they are curious and they read the articles and
follow some of the debates.

Some have emailed me, including a fair number of now, ex-nutters and I
am quite certain that many others have come to the same conclusion that
the large majority of people who have seen my video presentations have.

The consensus is pretty much overwhelming.



Robert Harris

[BT George]

Bob Harris said:

Here we go again. It doesn't matter what you "think". What matters is what
your can prove. And that requires you to address the dreaded "facts and
evidence", which you avoid like a case of Herpes.

BT George concludes:

Them go PROVE your "facts" with TRULY "undeniable" evidence to those best
equipped to agree & act in whatever way appropriate. I will leave it to
the wise & reasoned viewers to determine if your actions truly support the
confidence you claim to have in your alleged X285 shot or if they can see
as clearly as I that your refusal to do so betrays your awareness that
your merely have "arguments & opinions" rather than said alleged "facts."

BT George

[BT George]

1) The acoustical "evidence" has been thoroughly debunked. (Actually one
of the relatively few things Bob Harris and I DO agree on.) It was first
debunked by the work of Steve Barber and the National Academy of Sciences
in showing that the best evidence is that the sounds recorded were picked
up AFTER the shooting had already happened. It has since been further
debunked by Dale Meyers work of harmonizing the various films taken that
day in Dealey Plaza, and establish beyond all doubt that HB McClain was
NOT where the HSCA acoustics experts said he HAD to be in order to have
recorded the sounds of the "alleged" shots.

2) I do NOT 100% rule out the possibility of a conspiracy---especially
those involving a non-innocent Oswald. (Indeed, I even indicated to Bob
in the above stream that I thought he COULD be right.) I simply do not
believe ANY of the various conspiracy theories has been proven "more
likely than not" still less "beyond all doubt" with the kind of REAL
HARD/UNDENIABLE CORROBORATING evidence necessary to overturn the official
conclusion that LHO killed JFK (and Tippet) and apparently acted alone in
so doing.

3) Bob and some others seem to think it is my burden to positively PROVE
the case the government already amassed against Oswald. That's not the
way it works, since it's neither MY personal theory or MY personal case to
defend! Rather, having studied their case, I find the bulk of the
scientifically credible and verifiable evidence to be on that side of the
ledger. Moreover, the kind of "grand-scale cover ups" posited by most
CT's seem to be "per se" unlikely.

Therefore, the logical burden of proof is more on those who would
discredit that hard/verifiable evidence condemning Oswald and who would
seek to prove that a cover up occured in the case sufficient to "hide" a
murder conspiracy.

BT

[Anthony Marsh]

So you're a WC defender who believes in conspiracy and likes to make fun
of conspiracy believers.

[Robert Harris]

In article <b524905a-ed13-4a3f...@googlegroups.com>,

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

> Bob Harris said:
>
> Here we go again. It doesn't matter what you "think". What matters is what
> your can prove. And that requires you to address the dreaded "facts and
> evidence", which you avoid like a case of Herpes.
>
> BT George concludes:
>
> Them go PROVE your "facts" with TRULY "undeniable" evidence to those best
> equipped to agree & act in whatever way appropriate.

Sorry BT. This thread is about the reactions of Roy Kellerman and the
assassination of JFK.

It is not about Robert Harris.





Robert Harris

[John McAdams]

On 23 Jul 2013 00:21:29 -0400, Robert Harris <bobha...@yahoo.com>
wrote:

Of course it's about Bob Harris.

You try to bully and hector everybody into agreeing with you, and you
accuse them of "evasion" when they refuse to agree with you.

Quite attacking and insulting people. Quit claiming they have
"evaded" you when they simply didn't agree with you.

Accept that people don't agree with you.

.John
--------------
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/home.htm

[Anthony Marsh]

On 7/23/2013 12:24 AM, John McAdams wrote:
> On 23 Jul 2013 00:21:29 -0400, Robert Harris <bobha...@yahoo.com>
> wrote:
>
>> In article <b524905a-ed13-4a3f...@googlegroups.com>,
>> BT George <brockg...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> Bob Harris said:
>>>
>>> Here we go again. It doesn't matter what you "think". What matters is what
>>> your can prove. And that requires you to address the dreaded "facts and
>>> evidence", which you avoid like a case of Herpes.
>>>
>>> BT George concludes:
>>>
>>> Them go PROVE your "facts" with TRULY "undeniable" evidence to those best
>>> equipped to agree & act in whatever way appropriate.
>>
>>
>> Sorry BT. This thread is about the reactions of Roy Kellerman and the
>> assassination of JFK.
>>
>> It is not about Robert Harris.
>>
>
> Of course it's about Bob Harris.
>
> You try to bully and hector everybody into agreeing with you, and you
> accuse them of "evasion" when they refuse to agree with you.
>

WOW!
Both bully AND hector?
How come you are allowed to use those words and I am not?
Do you always argue with a double standard? Is that a rule for WC defenders?

> Quite attacking and insulting people. Quit claiming they have
> "evaded" you when they simply didn't agree with you.
>

Quit attacking and insuting people, and bullying and hectoring, and
misrepresenting and marginalizing.

[BT George]

Wow Tony! To again borrow one of your favorite expressions "READ FOR
COMPREHENSION." Where did I say I BELIEVED in a conspiracy? Since when
did saying that I don't 100% rule out a conspiracy, come to mean that I
actually believe there was one?

Also, I don't mock ALL CT's. Hopefully only those who REALLY deserve it,
and hopefully only WHEN they deserve it. But heck...I'm only human. I do
have to admit that the temptation to recreationally hector you just for
the pure sport of it sometimes overwhelms me. BAD BT!...BAD BT! :-)

[Anthony Marsh]

I said you secretly believe in a conspiracy. You don't want to get
kicked out of the club.

[Sandy McCroskey]

You secretly know there was no conspiracy. Deep down inside. I mean,
really, you can't be as dense as you seem. (That's a compliment, see.)

/sm

[BT George]

Well tell me if you don 't mind just WHAT conspiracy it is that I
"secretly" believe in?

[Anthony Marsh]

That Caatro did it.

[Robert Harris]

In article <291su8h7a45tdl4h8...@4ax.com>,

John McAdams <john.m...@marquette.edu> wrote:

> On 23 Jul 2013 00:21:29 -0400, Robert Harris <bobha...@yahoo.com>
> wrote:
>
> >In article <b524905a-ed13-4a3f...@googlegroups.com>,
> > BT George <brockg...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> >> Bob Harris said:
> >>
> >> Here we go again. It doesn't matter what you "think". What matters is what
> >> your can prove. And that requires you to address the dreaded "facts and
> >> evidence", which you avoid like a case of Herpes.
> >>
> >> BT George concludes:
> >>
> >> Them go PROVE your "facts" with TRULY "undeniable" evidence to those best
> >> equipped to agree & act in whatever way appropriate.
> >
> >
> >Sorry BT. This thread is about the reactions of Roy Kellerman and the
> >assassination of JFK.
> >
> >It is not about Robert Harris.
> >
>
> Of course it's about Bob Harris.

Wow! I don't know how you could have better defined your ad hominem
agenda.

No, it is not about Robert Harris. It is about "Roy Kellerman's
Reactions". But you and your friends have no interest in discussing the
facts and evidence related to this issue, do you John?

Substituting personal attacks for legitimate discussion of the issues,
just doesn't get it. It tells us more about my attackers than it does
about Robert Harris.

>
> You try to bully and hector everybody into agreeing with you, and you
> accuse them of "evasion" when they refuse to agree with you.

That is utter nonsense.

I state that people evade me when they refuse to answer questions,
directly related to their own arguments.

>
> Quite attacking and insulting people. Quit claiming they have
> "evaded" you when they simply didn't agree with you.

Your accusation makes no sense at all. If I made false accusations of
evasion, my adversaries could simply cite their actual statements in
which they addressed the question.

The problem is, that some people don't seem to realize that responding
is not the same as answering a particular question. In fact, it is quite
common for some people to entirely evade the important questions in
their responses.

Sadly, some of those same people then try to distort the issue by
pretending that they were accused of not responding rather than failing
to address specific questions.

If this forum is really dedicated to finding the truth, it should be
encouraging its members to NEVER evade relevant questions, especially
when the questions are about their own claims.

>
> Accept that people don't agree with you.

Gosh! I would never have known that if you hadn't told me.

Nothing gets by you, does it john:-)




Robert Harris

[Sandy McCroskey]

No one would know that from reading your posts.

I've lost track of how many times this has been explained to you.

When someone says they disagree with you, your response is invariably to
say that they are evading the plain truth that any honest person can
see. Your mantra of "evasion" implies insincerity, as opposed to honest
disagreement. It is the maximum of tartuffery for you to accuse others
of "ad hominem" attacks. Please remember that and take it as the answer
to your reply to this (unless you surprise the hell out of me and don't
post one).

[BT George]

No!!! If it is ONE thing in emphatically deny, it is any belief that
"Caatro" did it!!! (Well...'cause first off...I don't know who THAT is.
:-) )

Having said that, if you meant "Castro" I would deny that only slightly
less emphatically. First, for many of the same reasons I mentioned to
Claviger in the following post, I seriously doubt any communist-directed
hit on Kennedy:

https://groups.google.com/d/msg/alt.assassination.jfk/ARvf0EUQyjE/P15lJc_kIPAJ

For Castro or his regime to be behind it would, IMO, have been an even
more foolhardy strategy, given Oswald's known Communist connections and
strong pro-Castro leanings. He would have known that such a plot would
have been one of the first to be considered. He also would probably have
feared that, if it could have been proven that he directly backed the hit,
we could have exerted pressure on the Soviets to abandon their support for
him and demand he step down from power or risk a US invasion that they
could ill find grounds to oppose under such circumstances. While they
would not want to do so, I think their own fear of WWIII would have made
supporting him in such circumstances untenanable, and I believe Castro was
too smart not to see that too.

Tony, I know that YOU believe our leaders would do a lot to avoid WWIII,
and given that they had just "blinked" in the Cuban Missle Crisis, I can't
see the Soviets continuing to prop up Kennedy's killer either.

BT

[Anthony Marsh]

The coorect word is suicidal.

> more foolhardy strategy, given Oswald's known Communist connections and
> strong pro-Castro leanings. He would have known that such a plot would
> have been one of the first to be considered. He also would probably have
> feared that, if it could have been proven that he directly backed the hit,
> we could have exerted pressure on the Soviets to abandon their support for
> him and demand he step down from power or risk a US invasion that they
> could ill find grounds to oppose under such circumstances. While they
> would not want to do so, I think their own fear of WWIII would have made
> supporting him in such circumstances untenanable, and I believe Castro was
> too smart not to see that too.
>
> Tony, I know that YOU believe our leaders would do a lot to avoid WWIII,
> and given that they had just "blinked" in the Cuban Missle Crisis, I can't
> see the Soviets continuing to prop up Kennedy's killer either.
>

LBJ, not everyone. Some of our top leaders actually wanted WWII. LBJ
didn't have the stomach for it.

> BT
>

[Robert Harris]

In article <51f1...@mcadams.posc.mu.edu>,

That only happens in your imagination Sandy.

I state that someone has evaded me when and only when they refuse to
answer a specific question.

> Your mantra of "evasion" implies insincerity, as opposed to honest
> disagreement.

No, it "implies" that they didn't answer a specific question and almost
without exception, that question is critical to the issue on the table.

> It is the maximum of tartuffery for you to accuse others
> of "ad hominem" attacks.

John McAdams, from a rejection notice just two days ago "It was "bias
and hypocrisy" that got that rejected."

Gosh, I wonder why your message didn't get censored like mine did?


LOL!! Actually, I don't wonder at all :-)



Robert Harris

[Sandy McCroskey]

In your opinion.
Others may feel that it is pointless to "answer" questions to which no
*objective* solution will ever be available,

And when the don't answer your question, you accuse them of dishonesty.

It is way too late for you to pretend otherwise,

[lone gunman]

On Friday, July 19, 2013 2:47:43 AM UTC+1, Robert Harris wrote:
> Over the years I have asked John McAdams and other nutters,
>
> whether they agree that Kellerman carried out very specific
>
> actions following frame 285.
>
>
>
> Typical response have been personal insults or total evasion.
>
> McAdams however, did once claim that he couldn't see
>
> Kellerman's movements well enough to come to a decision.
>
>
>
> This animation should take care of that. I used the relevant
>
> frames from Robin Unger's animation, brightening it up a bit
>
> and adding explanatory annotations and arrow.
>
>
>
> Of course, the "see no evil" crowd will evade this, but perhaps
>
> there are a few of you who are honest enough to address these
>
> facts regarding Kellerman's reactions as he was hearing a
>
> "flurry" of at least two closely bunched gunshots at 285
>
> and 313.
>
>
>
> http://jfkhistory.com/kellerman2.gif
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Robert Harris

your insulting people here Bob !
Calling them nutters. Very childish !

[Robert Harris]

In article <51f34595$1...@mcadams.posc.mu.edu>,

Sandy, I asked you who would win the big game Sunday and you evaded my
question!!

reply: Here is a verbatim citation from Saturday, I said, "The Jets will
win the big game Sunday".

End of discussion.

I don't know how this could be any simpler.

> Others may feel that it is pointless to "answer" questions to which no
> *objective* solution will ever be available,

Then they can say exactly that. We can then discuss whether such
evidence exists or not.

Sorry to be repetitive, but none of this is complicated.

>
> And when the don't answer your question, you accuse them of dishonesty.

I have rarely done that. I couldn't in this forum even if I wanted to.
Hell, I can't even tell mcadams that he is wrong:-)

I do however, believe that evasion is intellectually dishonest. In the
real world I think everybody does.

>
> It is way too late for you to pretend otherwise,

I don't think so, I can pretend otherwise any damn time I feel like it!

Fortunately however, I choose not to:-)

It's unbelievable that this is even an issue. For 18 years people have
been challenged then beat up when they refuse to reply, and much more so
than anything I ever did. I doubt that there is a controversial forum in
which that is not common.

Mcadams is on this kick for one reason only, and that is to shield
himself and his fellow nutters when they evade the important issues.



Robert Harris

[Sandy McCroskey]

If you asked anybody that, they would be free not to answer, because
nobody can know the answer to that ahead of time, unless they are in on
a rigged game.

> reply: Here is a verbatim citation from Saturday, I said, "The Jets will
> win the big game Sunday".
>

What do think of this answer: "I do not follow sports, and I have no
opinion on the issue."

Or this one: "Nobody can know who will win a game ahead of time."

In either case, I think you would say that I evaded your brilliant
question.

But nobody can know objectively, for certain, *why* Greer or Kellerman
did, down to every discernible detail. We can only guess.

I have the impression that the limo passengers were by this time in a
rather excited, disturbed state.


/sandy

[Sandy McCroskey]

what we see them doing
[oops]

[Robert Harris]

In article <51f4...@mcadams.posc.mu.edu>,

Sigh...

>
> > reply: Here is a verbatim citation from Saturday, I said, "The Jets will
> > win the big game Sunday".
> >
>
> What do think of this answer: "I do not follow sports, and I have no
> opinion on the issue."

That would be a great answer - beats the hell out of silence.

>
> Or this one: "Nobody can know who will win a game ahead of time."

I like that one too. What is your point?

>
> In either case, I think you would say that I evaded your brilliant
> question.

Nonsense! I would consider all of those replies to be completely
satisfactory.

>
> But nobody can know objectively, for certain, *why* Greer or Kellerman
> did, down to every discernible detail. We can only guess.

That's why I asked questions like,

Do you agree that Kellerman dropped his head during the same 1/6th of a
second that two others did?

or

Do you agree that Kellerman simultaneously twisted his head, hunched his
shoulders and raised his hand to his ear as he was dropping his head?

Those are specific questions which do not require a conclusion about
their cause. But because the cause is so ridiculously obvious most
nutters won't touch it.

So instead of direct answers I get things like, "Bob, nobody was ducking
at 285"

Do you think that is intellectually honest, Sandy?

>
> I have the impression that the limo passengers were by this time in a
> rather excited, disturbed state.

Five people reacted during the span of 290-292, six if you count
Zapruder.

That was not a coincidence.




Robert Harris

[John McAdams]

On 28 Jul 2013 21:53:01 -0400, Robert Harris <bobha...@yahoo.com>
wrote:

Of course it is, Bob.

We all know that you think you come somehow trick or maneuver us into
agreeing with you.

But we don't think anybody was ducking at Z-285.

We have told you repeatedly that Jackie and Nellie were leaning in to
look at their husbands.

We have told you repeatedly that Greer looked back to see what was
going on in the limo.

You want to claim that we have to answer *only* what you want us to
answer, like hostile witnesses at a trial.

But you can't demand that.

Is it honest to ignore the fact that we have repeatedly told you that
we don't see what you see?

.John
--------------
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/home.htm

[Anthony Marsh]

He doesn't have to. All he has to do is badger you until you get tired
and walk away. Then he declares victory. It's a very old trick on the
Internet. Reductio ad Ignorantiam.

[Sandy McCroskey]

OK, Bob. Then you should regard it as a satisfactory answer when someone
tells you they think any interpretation of actions of the limo passengers
is ultimately subjective.

>>
>> But nobody can know objectively, for certain, *why* Greer or Kellerman
>> did, down to every discernible detail. We can only guess.
>
> That's why I asked questions like,
>
> Do you agree that Kellerman dropped his head during the same 1/6th of a
> second that two others did?
>

I would say "No." His head goes a little lower at the end of his
swinging back around to face forward, I'd say 296, but not yet in the
three frames (1/6th of a second) that you highlight. His move forward
actually begins around 284.

I really don't know why you can't see that.

> or
>
> Do you agree that Kellerman simultaneously twisted his head, hunched his
> shoulders and raised his hand to his ear as he was dropping his head?

How does one "twist" one's head? I think you mean "neck."

I see Kellerman turn around to face forward and his left hand go up
toward the left side of his face and back down. His left ear is not, of
course, visible, and his hand would not, in any case, have been close
enough to the ear long enough to have any noise-attenuating effect. I
don't see any particular hunching of his shoulders, as an action
separate from his turning forward. When he leans furthest forward, his
jacket briefly rides up to hide his collar.

>
> Those are specific questions which do not require a conclusion about
> their cause. But because the cause is so ridiculously obvious most
> nutters won't touch it.

Yes, let's consider the fact that you are asking questions whose answers
you consider to be screamingly obvious.

If the answers really are so obvious, why do you want to browbeat people
into saying that they have two eyes and can see what's on the Zapruder
film just as easily as you can?

It's only so then you can accuse them of "evading" your interpretation
of what anybody can see.

However, you sometimes phrase your questions in a way that does not
correspond to what anyone can objectively see but includes an element of
interpretation. Rather than unraveling your knot of perception and
presupposition, many prefer to cut to the chase and say that they do not
agree with your interpretation. And we all know what your response to that
is.

>
> So instead of direct answers I get things like, "Bob, nobody was ducking
> at 285"
>
> Do you think that is intellectually honest, Sandy?
>

I think these people sincerely disagree with you, and that nevertheless
you constantly imply that they are not honest in saying that.

I am sure that they don't secretly believe, but are afraid to admit,
that you have cracked the case. They, and I, think you are an obsessive
with a pet theory.


/sandy

[Ott Rovgeisha]

But John!

Isn't the movements of Jackie and Nellie a bit too fast for just turning
do wn and look at their husbands?

Why didn't Jackie say anything about ducking to examining his neck?

Nellie Connallu said she grabbed John and pulled him towards her, he was
face up and she could then see a huge wound in his chest.

My main question is: aren't those movements way too sudden to be just
regular movements?

Do you also notice, that NOT ONLY does Jackie turn forward and down, but
at the same time her elbows and shoulders rise very quickly?

Ott

[BT George]

> do= wn and look at their husbands?

>
>
>
> Why didn't Jackie say anything about ducking to examining his neck?
>
>

Of course, the REAL answer as to what Jackie was doing at this moment is
something that NO ONE can say with 100% certainty. However, far more than
a jerky "ducking" motion, this looks rather like an attempt (with JFK
seemingly locked in place) by Jackie to pull herself around to get a
better look at the area his hands were drawn up to and clutching. (Which
actually WAS his lower neck area.)

As I have said before, drawing fine detail such as exactly what someone's
eyes were focusing on, during a given moment on the non-HD film is a
rather risky proposition. However, a look at her head/eyes in this up
close and slow motion version of the Z film, certainly makes it hard to
argue that it is impossible that that was her purpose:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kMBCfxIqP-s


Of course, Bob believes that the testimonies are generally accurate and
complete (though I would say sometimes after a little interpretation on
his part), but what happens if they aren't? Can you say with anywhere
near 100% certainty that there could be NO elements that Jackie failed to
mention/remember in her testimony? If not, there is little basis for
drawing any dogmatic conclusions from the silence.

>
> Nellie Connallu said she grabbed John and pulled him towards her, he was
>
> face up and she could then see a huge wound in his chest.
>
>
>
> My main question is: aren't those movements way too sudden to be just
>
> regular movements?
>
>

I would ask a different question that is EVERY bit as valid. Aren't the
full movements of Jackie and Nellie rather smooth and---particularly in
Jackie's case---rather long lasting compared to what is typically seen in
"reflexive" actions such as a gun shot startle?

The following shows EXACTLY what such reactions generally look like:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=CnOgVANxMmo

If you say they look about the same, I won't say you are lying...but I
will suggest a consultation with a vision care professional ASAP.

>
> Do you also notice, that NOT ONLY does Jackie turn forward and down, but
>
> at the same time her elbows and shoulders rise very quickly?
>
>

Not in ANY way that looks like a twitch, such as observed in the gun shot
startle reaction I posted above. Again, if you DO see such a twitch, I'm
sure there is an Estonian optometrist who is now taking new patients.

BT

[Sandy McCroskey]

On 7/29/13 10:27 PM, BT George wrote:
> On Monday, July 29, 2013 4:41:39 PM UTC-5, Ott Rovgeisha wrote:

Jackie didn't recall climbing onto the back of the limo after Jack's
brain matter went flying, which you might think (not taking into
consideration the traumatic nature of the whole experience) would be an
unforgettable detail.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ike_Altgens

<quote> Mrs. Kennedy's testimony suggested that she saw Altgens'
photograph (or the corresponding still picture made from the Zapruder
film) showing "me climbing out the back. But I don't remember that at
all."</quote>

[Lanny]

I have a different question that I also believe is valid.

Why does everyone twist themselves into the shape of a pretzel attempting
to reconcile the movements of the non-wounded limo occupants when renowned
physicists Alvarez and Stroscio pay them no mind whatsoever?

If the startle reactions of Abe Zapruder as indicated by his camera jiggle
could be legitimately validated or dismissed simply by visual reference to
the passengers he was photographing, why do Alvarez and Stroscio decline
to avail themselves of such a simple and obvious proof?

Yes, Alvarez had an interest in what made Greer slow the limo, but if the
SCIENCE of auditory startle reactions can reliably answer the larger
question of when shots were or were not fired based solely on the evidence
offered by Bob Harris, how is it that Alvarez and Stroscio apparently
overlooked that methodology and focused their meticulous analysis on
Zapruder's reactions almost exclusively?

The admiration for the genius which Harris effuses for these two
intellectual giants would seem more fairly directed towards himself if
only he saw that which the entire physics community incomprehensibly
missed.

[Ott Rovgeisha]

BT, just he other day I had fun by startling my dear or 80 year old
grandma and my wife with an air gun. You wouldn't believe the kooky
movements they made. I am serious :D. it all depends on what somebody was
doing at the time and in what position they are.

There is an Estonian optometrist? Oh thank GOD! I didn't know Estonia had
one.. But I think I would also need a brain surgery, don't you?

[Ott Rovgeisha]

> Jackie didn't recall climbing onto the back of the limo after Jack's
>
> brain matter went flying, which you might think (not taking into
>
> consideration the traumatic nature of the whole experience) would be an
>
> unforgettable detail.
>
>
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ike_Altgens
>
>
>
> <quote> Mrs. Kennedy's testimony suggested that she saw Altgens'
>
> photograph (or the corresponding still picture made from the Zapruder
>
> film) showing "me climbing out the back. But I don't remember that at
>
> all."</quote>
>

Then how did she remember that she went after Jack's brain tissue, and in
fact telling in detail how she saw it detaching? What do you think, Sandy?

[BT George]

It might not change your vision of the Z Film in either case. But hey, if
you do try the brain surgery route and are pleased with the results let me
know. ...The realization that if I really did have MPD, I actually COULD
be another poster's alias without knowing it is unnerving me a bit. :-)

[Sandy McCroskey]

I'm thinking that I don't know what your point could be here.

Are you actually doubting that she said that she didn't remember going
onto the roof of the limo?

Do you not believe that a traumatized person might remember some details
of an event and not others?

[Sandy McCroskey]

On 7/30/13 6:59 PM, Ott Rovgeisha wrote:

Now, that's an example of mature behavior.

You could give some 80-year-olds a heart attack with a startle reaction.

[Ott Rovgeisha]

Well it was NOT done deliberately. And since a "heart attack" is almost
always caused by blockage of blood supply to a part of the heart, I doubt
that startling someone could cause a heart attack. Although it could cause
fatal arrhythmia or a stroke secondary to high blood pressure or coronary
artery disease.

[Sandy McCroskey]

On 7/31/13 4:56 PM, Ott Rovgeisha wrote:

> kolmap�ev, 31. juuli 2013 6:02.53 UTC+3 kirjutas Sandy McCroskey:
>> On 7/30/13 6:59 PM, Ott Rovgeisha wrote:
>>

You said "I had fun by startling" them, which sure sounds like a
deliberate action.
You may want to blame this on your grasp of English.

> And since a "heart attack" is almost
> always caused by blockage of blood supply to a part of the heart, I doubt
> that startling someone could cause a heart attack. Although it could cause
> fatal arrhythmia or a stroke secondary to high blood pressure or coronary
> artery disease.
>

Sorry for the imprecision. You know, though, people sometimes say things
like, "Whew, you nearly gave me a heart attack!" That's because the term
also has a looser sense:
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/heart+attack
World English Dictionary
heart attack

� n
any sudden severe instance of abnormal heart functioning, esp coronary
thrombosis

Collins English Dictionary

[Ott Rovgeisha]

neljapäev, 1. august 2013 0:55.09 UTC+3 kirjutas Sandy McCroskey:
> On 7/31/13 4:56 PM, Ott Rovgeisha wrote:
>

> — n

>
> any sudden severe instance of abnormal heart functioning, esp coronary
>
> thrombosis
>
>
>
> Collins English Dictionary

Oh, cool it Sandy...Let it go.. It was a bit amuzing though... :D

My grandma is 80 years old but still rides on motorcycle.. I guess that is
not very responsible either :D

Cheers

[Ott Rovgeisha]

My point is: sometimes startle reactions look bizarre, especially when a
person is in a process of doing something else, not just sitting or
standing up.