Nutters question #2

[Robert Harris]

Hey! You guys claim that I "spam" the newsgroup.

So, here's your chance to even the score. Let's hear *YOUR* explanation?

No one seems to dispute my claim that Roy Kellerman raised his left hand
to his hear for less than 1/3rd of one second, as he was dropping his head
downward.

http://jfkhistory.com/kellerman2.gif

You all know what my explanation for that is. But now it's your turn.
Surely, there is someone in this newsgroup who has enough faith in the LN
theory, that he will defend it.

The floor is yours.



Robert Harris

[Bud]

On Tuesday, May 6, 2014 5:50:28 PM UTC-4, Robert Harris wrote:
> Hey! You guys claim that I "spam" the newsgroup.
>
>
>
> So, here's your chance to even the score. Let's hear *YOUR* explanation?
>
>
>
> No one seems to dispute my claim that Roy Kellerman raised his left hand
>
> to his hear for less than 1/3rd of one second, as he was dropping his head
>
> downward.
>
>
>
> http://jfkhistory.com/kellerman2.gif

Crappy video, hard to make out anything.

>
>
> You all know what my explanation for that is. But now it's your turn.
>
> Surely, there is someone in this newsgroup who has enough faith in the LN
>
> theory, that he will defend it.

What part of the LN theory requires an explanation for the split second
movement of people under attack?

[BT George]

***Dear Veiwers and Lurkers***

This is indeed AMAZING! This throws that *WHOLE* theory of LHO acting
alone into the toilet because now a *much* "clearer" scenario has been
established:

Roy Kellerman's movements (upon hyper-analysis of 1 (ONE) single second in
this event) conclusively show that he---and he alone---*could* have been
manifesting an involuntary shot startle reaction.

Jackie's movements? Not a chance. *WAY* too smooth.

Greer's? Even less so. For he's simply *REPEATING* the very *SAME*
movement of turning around looking into the back seat he had *ALREADY*
done shortly before Z285.

Nellie's? Well she's *clearly* pulling her wounded and collapsing husband
into your lap. Indeed a form of "reaction" to the unfolding assassination
attempt---but most definitely *NOT* an *INVOLUNTARY* one.

CONGRATULATIONS TO BOB! He's clearly demonstrated that on 11-22-63 Roy
Kellerman *may* have been manifesting an "involuntary" startle reaction to
a "shot" at Z285 even as the rest of the uninjured limo passengers were...
...well... ...uhhh. ...doing something else! :-)

Yep. Now there's an assassination scenario you can really sink your teeth
into! ...Or not. :-)

BT George

[Anthony Marsh]

As Alvarez and I have said it is the limo suddenly slowing down.

>
> Robert Harris
>

[Sandy McCroskey]

Why must there be an "explanation" for every little motion a person
makes at such a moment?

But to some people... nothing is random. Everything is a clue.

[Robert Harris]

Bud wrote:
> On Tuesday, May 6, 2014 5:50:28 PM UTC-4, Robert Harris wrote:
>> Hey! You guys claim that I "spam" the newsgroup.
>>
>>
>>
>> So, here's your chance to even the score. Let's hear *YOUR* explanation?
>>
>>
>>
>> No one seems to dispute my claim that Roy Kellerman raised his left hand
>>
>> to his hear for less than 1/3rd of one second, as he was dropping his head
>>
>> downward.
>>
>>
>>
>> http://jfkhistory.com/kellerman2.gif
>
> Crappy video, hard to make out anything.

LOL!! You seem to be the only one having a problem here.

If this is a vision issue, then why don't you have a friend examine it
for you.

>>
>>
>> You all know what my explanation for that is. But now it's your turn.
>>
>> Surely, there is someone in this newsgroup who has enough faith in the LN
>>
>> theory, that he will defend it.
>
> What part of the LN theory requires an explanation for the split second
> movement of people under attack?

I believe my question preceded yours.

After you answer I will answer your question in detail.





Robert Harris

[Robert Harris]

BT George wrote:
> On Tuesday, May 6, 2014 4:50:28 PM UTC-5, Robert Harris wrote:
>> Hey! You guys claim that I "spam" the newsgroup.
>>
>>
>>
>> So, here's your chance to even the score. Let's hear *YOUR* explanation?
>>
>>
>>
>> No one seems to dispute my claim that Roy Kellerman raised his left hand
>>
>> to his hear for less than 1/3rd of one second, as he was dropping his head
>>
>> downward.
>>
>>
>>
>> http://jfkhistory.com/kellerman2.gif
>>
>>
>>
>> You all know what my explanation for that is. But now it's your turn.
>>
>> Surely, there is someone in this newsgroup who has enough faith in the LN
>>
>> theory, that he will defend it.
>>
>>
>>
>> The floor is yours.
>>
>>
>>
> ***Dear Veiwers and Lurkers***
>
> This is indeed AMAZING! This throws that *WHOLE* theory of LHO acting
> alone into the toilet because now a *much* "clearer" scenario has been
> established:
>
> Roy Kellerman's movements (upon hyper-analysis of 1 (ONE) single second in
> this event) conclusively show that he---and he alone---*could* have been
> manifesting an involuntary shot startle reaction.

ROFLMAO!!

So, Kellerman is the only one who exhibited startle reactions??

Is this some kind of joke?

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

>
> Jackie's movements? Not a chance. *WAY* too smooth.

Uh huh.

Nothing like subjective opinion eh? I mean we can claim to personally
see or not see anything, so long as we don't have to prove it, right?

So, I guess it's just a coincidence that Jackie reacted in the same
1/6th of a second of the other passengers as well as Abraham Zapruder.

Is that *REALLY* a position you want to take, BT?




Robert Harris

[Robert Harris]

Alvarez said nothing of the kind.

The reactions of the passengers began at 290. Alvarez confirmed that the
slowdown began circa frame 300.

And in fact, the reason he lifted his foot from the gas was that he too
was startled by the 285 shot. That's why he testified that the second and
third shots were fired, "simultaneously, one right after the other".




Robert Harris

[Bud]

On Wednesday, May 7, 2014 2:12:27 PM UTC-4, Robert Harris wrote:
> Bud wrote:
>
> > On Tuesday, May 6, 2014 5:50:28 PM UTC-4, Robert Harris wrote:
>
> >> Hey! You guys claim that I "spam" the newsgroup.
>
> >>
>
> >>
>
> >>
>
> >> So, here's your chance to even the score. Let's hear *YOUR* explanation?
>
> >>
>
> >>
>
> >>
>
> >> No one seems to dispute my claim that Roy Kellerman raised his left hand
>
> >>
>
> >> to his hear for less than 1/3rd of one second, as he was dropping his head
>
> >>
>
> >> downward.
>
> >>
>
> >>
>
> >>
>
> >> http://jfkhistory.com/kellerman2.gif
>
> >
>
> > Crappy video, hard to make out anything.
>
>
>
> LOL!! You seem to be the only one having a problem here.

Crappy video is perfect for your purposes, you can see what you want to
see. All conspiracy hobbyists are enamored with poor photography, they see
whatever they want to see in it.

> If this is a vision issue, then why don't you have a friend examine it
>
> for you.

Why don`t you make a friend and ask him if he thinks this video is
crappy?

>
>
> >>
>
> >>
>
> >> You all know what my explanation for that is. But now it's your turn.
>
> >>
>
> >> Surely, there is someone in this newsgroup who has enough faith in the LN
>
> >>
>
> >> theory, that he will defend it.
>
> >
>
> > What part of the LN theory requires an explanation for the split second
>
> > movement of people under attack?
>
>
>
> I believe my question preceded yours.

I believe you took a position that LN theory revolves around this issue.
So I asked you what you base this position on.

>
>
> After you answer I will answer your question in detail.

You question assumes something as true that is untrue. You need to establish that your assumption that the LN theory is predicated on this issue for your question to be valid.

>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Robert Harris

[OHLeeRedux]

Robert Harris
- show quoted text -

Alvarez said nothing of the kind.

The reactions of the passengers began at 290. Alvarez confirmed that the
slowdown began circa frame 300.

And in fact, the reason he lifted his foot from the gas was that he too
was startled by the 285 shot. That's why he testified that the second and
third shots were fired, "simultaneously, one right after the other".




Robert Harris

Dr. Alvarez is a plastic surgeon. He knows nothing about startle
reactions. Neither do you.

[BT George]

On Wednesday, May 7, 2014 1:12:56 PM UTC-5, Robert Harris wrote:
> BT George wrote:
>
> > On Tuesday, May 6, 2014 4:50:28 PM UTC-5, Robert Harris wrote:
>
> >> Hey! You guys claim that I "spam" the newsgroup.
>
> >>
>
> >>
>
> >>
>
> >> So, here's your chance to even the score. Let's hear *YOUR* explanation?
>
> >>
>
> >>
>
> >>
>
> >> No one seems to dispute my claim that Roy Kellerman raised his left hand
>
> >>
>
> >> to his hear for less than 1/3rd of one second, as he was dropping his head
>
> >>
>
> >> downward.
>
> >>
>
> >>
>
> >>
>
> >> http://jfkhistory.com/kellerman2.gif
>
> >>
>
> >>
>
> >>
>
> >> You all know what my explanation for that is. But now it's your turn.
>
> >>
>
> >> Surely, there is someone in this newsgroup who has enough faith in the LN
>
> >>
>
> >> theory, that he will defend it.
>
> >>
>
> >>
>
> >>
>
> >> The floor is yours.
>
> >>
>
> >>
>
> >>
>
> > ***Dear Veiwers and Lurkers***
>
> >
>
> > This is indeed AMAZING! This throws that *WHOLE* theory of LHO acting
>
> > alone into the toilet because now a *much* "clearer" scenario has been
>
> > established:
>
> >
>
> > Roy Kellerman's movements (upon hyper-analysis of 1 (ONE) single second in
>
> > this event) conclusively show that he---and he alone---*could* have been
>
> > manifesting an involuntary shot startle reaction.
>
>
>
> ROFLMAO!!
>
>
>
> So, Kellerman is the only one who exhibited startle reactions??
>
>
>
> Is this some kind of joke?
>
>
>
> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cv7Lz25Xyno
>
>

Very perceptive of Bob folks! He seems to at last realize the logical
folly of what he has managed to prove---at best---after all these years.
:-)

>
>>
>> Jackie's movements? Not a chance. *WAY* too smooth.
>
>Uh huh.
>
>Nothing like subjective opinion eh? I mean we can claim to personally
>see or not see anything, so long as we don't have to prove it, right?
>
>

Why not? Just when has Bob ever "proved" to *YOU* dear Lurker and Viewer,
that Jackie's movements look anything like an *INVOLUNTARY* shot startle
reaction? I know *I* certainly have "missed" all that "convincing" that
his (endless) *REPETITION* has managed to accomplish!

>So, I guess it's just a coincidence that Jackie reacted in the same
>1/6th of a second of the other passengers as well as Abraham Zapruder.
>
>Is that *REALLY* a position you want to take, BT?
>
>

Well yes folks. The attack has already been going on for about 85% of its
length if we assume a shot at least as early as Z155-160ish. What *would*
be utterly "shocking" is if they all were NOT starting to do *lots* of
things "simultaneously" in reaction to the ongoing assault.

Bob seems to believe if he can find several actions related to being under
attack going on at once in the film---even those as divergent as the ones
I just mentioned---he has "somehow" magically "proved" something profound.
*YOU* will have to be the judge of whether you *really* believe that he
has.

I only know his harping on several related (but *un*identical) things
starting to happen within a fraction of a second as being somehow grossly
improbable is not a belief he holds when it comes to other scenarios.

He himself believes that within approximately 1/3 of a second, an
unnecessary insurance pistol shot, fired by a person in a storm drain (who
would himself have only had a split second to aim and fire) somehow
"luckily" managed one in a million strike on JFK's head as it was still
exploding in the aftermath of the fatal rifle strike at Z312/313.

Considering all the facts and circumstances I will leave it to *you* to
judge whether *Bob's* scenario is any more likely to have successfully
played out in such a minuscule measure of time than what he decries that
others believe.

BT George

[OHLeeRedux]

You need to get a cat, Robert.

I suggest your local animal shelter.

[FELIX LEITER]

Marsh, you know nothing about limos.

[Mitch Todd]

"Robert Harris" wrote in message
news:Le-dnekbirn3S_TO...@earthlink.com...

>Anthony Marsh wrote:
>> On 5/6/2014 5:50 PM, Robert Harris wrote:
>>> Hey! You guys claim that I "spam" the newsgroup.
>>>
>>> So, here's your chance to even the score. Let's hear *YOUR* explanation?
>>>
>>> No one seems to dispute my claim that Roy Kellerman raised his left hand
>>> to his hear for less than 1/3rd of one second, as he was dropping his
>>> head downward.
>>>
>>> http://jfkhistory.com/kellerman2.gif
>>>
>>> You all know what my explanation for that is. But now it's your turn.
>>> Surely, there is someone in this newsgroup who has enough faith in the
>>> LN theory, that he will defend it.
>>>
>>> The floor is yours.
>>
>> As Alvarez and I have said it is the limo suddenly slowing down.
>
>Alvarez said nothing of the kind.
>
>The reactions of the passengers began at 290. Alvarez confirmed that the
>slowdown began circa frame 300.

Alvarez said that he determined that "the heavy car decelerated
suddenly for about 0.5 sec (10 frames), centered at about frame
299, reducing its speed from about 12 mph to about 8 mph." He
didn't "confirm" anything.

>And in fact, the reason he lifted his foot from the gas was that he too was
>startled by the 285 shot. That's why he testified that the second and third
>shots were fired, "simultaneously, one right after the other".

Not according to Alvarez: "I was bothered for some time by the weaker
set of pulses lasting a shorter time, that show in Fig. 3, from
frames 290 through 298. They don't look like the ones that seemed
clearly associated with bullets".

You could at least honor Alvarez' memory by getting what he
said right.

[Anthony Marsh]

That's no fun.

[Bud]

On Wednesday, May 7, 2014 9:38:55 PM UTC-4, OHLeeRedux wrote:
> You need to get a cat, Robert.
>
>
>
> I suggest your local animal shelter.

I have two, which means I can spare.... two.

[Robert Harris]

Bud wrote:
> On Wednesday, May 7, 2014 2:12:27 PM UTC-4, Robert Harris wrote:
>> Bud wrote:
>>
>>> On Tuesday, May 6, 2014 5:50:28 PM UTC-4, Robert Harris wrote:
>>
>>>> Hey! You guys claim that I "spam" the newsgroup.
>>
>>>>
>>
>>>>
>>
>>>>
>>
>>>> So, here's your chance to even the score. Let's hear *YOUR* explanation?
>>
>>>>
>>
>>>>
>>
>>>>
>>
>>>> No one seems to dispute my claim that Roy Kellerman raised his left hand
>>
>>>>
>>
>>>> to his hear for less than 1/3rd of one second, as he was dropping his head
>>
>>>>
>>
>>>> downward.
>>
>>>>
>>
>>>>
>>
>>>>
>>
>>>> http://jfkhistory.com/kellerman2.gif
>>
>>>
>>
>>> Crappy video, hard to make out anything.
>>
>>
>>
>> LOL!! You seem to be the only one having a problem here.
>
> Crappy video is perfect for your purposes, you can see what you want to
> see. All conspiracy hobbyists are enamored with poor photography, they see
> whatever they want to see in it.

Instead of all this irrelevant ranting, why don't you admit that the video
is more than adequate to determine the actions described?

If you are actually incapable of seeing the events I described, then let's
address them one at a time. What EXACTLY are you failing to identify?

http://jfkhistory.com/kellerman2.gif

>
>> If this is a vision issue, then why don't you have a friend examine it
>>
>> for you.
>
> Why don`t you make a friend and ask him if he thinks this video is
> crappy?

What exactly did I describe that you are unable to see, Bud?

>
>>
>>
>>>>
>>
>>>>
>>
>>>> You all know what my explanation for that is. But now it's your turn.
>>
>>>>
>>
>>>> Surely, there is someone in this newsgroup who has enough faith in the LN
>>
>>>>
>>
>>>> theory, that he will defend it.
>>
>>>
>>
>>> What part of the LN theory requires an explanation for the split second
>>
>>> movement of people under attack?
>>
>>
>>
>> I believe my question preceded yours.
>
> I believe you took a position that LN theory revolves around this issue.
> So I asked you what you base this position on.

I am not going to bicker with you about this. I asked my question first.
Post at least a semi-intelligent answer and I will answer your question.

What is your explanation for these reactions?

http://jfkhistory.com/kellerman2.gif

>
>>
>>
>> After you answer I will answer your question in detail.
>
> You question assumes something as true that is untrue. You need to establish that your assumption that the LN theory is predicated on this issue for your question to be valid.

Nonsense.

We can discuss the significance of Kellerman's reactions after we
confirm that they were as described.

I'm sure we will both enjoy that, won't we Bud:-)




Robert Harris

[Robert Harris]

Stop changing the subject.

You suggested that Kellerman was the only one of the six people who
reacted simultaneously, to have been startled. That is not just
fallacious, it is hilariously ridiculous.

Why don't you tell us who is the *ONLY* person in this little video, to
have been startled:-)

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DSXjbiDD0rY

>
>>
>>>
>>> Jackie's movements? Not a chance. *WAY* too smooth.
>>
>> Uh huh.
>>
>> Nothing like subjective opinion eh? I mean we can claim to personally
>> see or not see anything, so long as we don't have to prove it, right?
>>
>>
>
> Why not?

Because that is a extremely poor way to determine reality. And it is
frequently subject to prejudice, as is obvious in your case.

> Just when has Bob ever "proved" to *YOU* dear Lurker and Viewer,
> that Jackie's movements look anything like an *INVOLUNTARY* shot startle
> reaction?

That's because "Bob" doesn't subject people to his personal, subjective
opinion. "Bob" produces verifiable, measurable facts which prove his
arguments. Mrs. Kennedy dropped her head in perfect unison with Mrs.
Connally and Roy Kellerman.

http://jfkhistory.com/angles285.jpg

And those three reactions were simultaneous with reactions by John
Connally, who snapped his head sharply to his left, along with Bill Greer
who spun around to front so rapidly that some people thought his turns
were not humanly possible. I personally proved that it was possible,
though just barely.

http://jfkhistory.com/simultaneous.gif

There are only two possible explanations for why the reactions would be
in perfect unison.

1. That it was the result of inertia from Greer slamming on the brakes.

or

2. That they were startled by a very loud noise.

#1 would only explain the three who ducked. It would not explain Greer's
or Connally's nearly inhuman turns or any of Kellerman's other
reactions. It is also refuted by the analysis of Dr. Alvarez or anyone
else who measures the limo's velocity during this time.

The only remaining explanation is the obvious one. These people were in
the midst of a shooting. It was obviously, a gunshot that startled them.
You might try to blame the reactions on a backfire, but then you will
need to explain why those people never reacted that way to the numerous
backfires prior to Zapruder.

And the overwhelming consensus of the witnesses, including the limo
passengers was that there were two very closely bunched shots right at
the end.

285 and 313 were closely bunched and right at the end.

It doesn't take a genius to figure this stuff out BT.






Robert Harris

[Robert Harris]

Yes he did. You just aren't understanding Alvarez's geekspeak. But his
diagram of the deceleration makes this much more clear.

http://jfkhistory.com/slowdown.jpg

He also said that Greer lifted his foot from the gas at about 294. The
reactions began at 290-292.

>
>
>> And in fact, the reason he lifted his foot from the gas was that he
>> too was startled by the 285 shot. That's why he testified that the
>> second and third shots were fired, "simultaneously, one right after
>> the other".
>
> Not according to Alvarez: "I was bothered for some time by the weaker
> set of pulses lasting a shorter time, that show in Fig. 3, from
> frames 290 through 298. They don't look like the ones that seemed
> clearly associated with bullets".

Look at his chart:

http://jfkhistory.com/alvarezchart.jpg

The 290 blips are certainly as intense as the earlier ones, which we
know today, were false positives.

Notice also that the 290 blip contains a small peak to the left and then
a larger peak to the right, just as the one at 318 did and unlike the
two earlier ones.

Alvarez was a genius, but sadly, he was also a nutter.

His measurements were flawless, his *opinions* - not so great.




Robert Harris

[Robert Harris]

What a terrible thing to say!?

There are countless thousands of things that Marsh knows nothing about -
especially when it comes to the JFK case.




Robert Harris

[Robert Harris]

Sandy, you are much too intelligent to make a statement like that.

People don't *randomly* do the things Kellerman did in that fraction of
a second.

And do I really have to talk about the timing of those reactions - again?

You are one of the few people who has had to the courage to discuss this
stuff with me in depth. I respect that.

But the penalty for you, is that by now, you must understand the details
of all this.

Maybe it's time to come out?

Think of the rewards! You will be despised by everyone in the world of the
JFK case!

You will be accused of being bribed, while getting nothing for your
honesty!

And you will be accused of secretly being Robert Harris!



It just doesn't get any better than that!





Robert Harris

[Bud]

On Thursday, May 8, 2014 7:18:48 PM UTC-4, Robert Harris wrote:
> Bud wrote:
>
> > On Wednesday, May 7, 2014 2:12:27 PM UTC-4, Robert Harris wrote:
>
> >> Bud wrote:
>
> >>
>
> >>> On Tuesday, May 6, 2014 5:50:28 PM UTC-4, Robert Harris wrote:
>
> >>
>
> >>>> Hey! You guys claim that I "spam" the newsgroup.
>
> >>
>
> >>>>
>
> >>
>
> >>>>
>
> >>
>
> >>>>
>
> >>
>
> >>>> So, here's your chance to even the score. Let's hear *YOUR* explanation?
>
> >>
>
> >>>>
>
> >>
>
> >>>>
>
> >>
>
> >>>>
>
> >>
>
> >>>> No one seems to dispute my claim that Roy Kellerman raised his left hand
>
> >>
>
> >>>>
>
> >>
>
> >>>> to his hear for less than 1/3rd of one second, as he was dropping his head
>
> >>
>
> >>>>
>
> >>
>
> >>>> downward.
>
> >>
>
> >>>>
>
> >>
>
> >>>>
>
> >>
>
> >>>>
>
> >>
>
> >>>> http://jfkhistory.com/kellerman2.gif
>
> >>
>
> >>>
>
> >>
>
> >>> Crappy video, hard to make out anything.
>
> >>
>
> >>
>
> >>
>
> >> LOL!! You seem to be the only one having a problem here.
>
> >
>
> > Crappy video is perfect for your purposes, you can see what you want to
>
> > see. All conspiracy hobbyists are enamored with poor photography, they see
>
> > whatever they want to see in it.
>
>
>
> Instead of all this irrelevant ranting,

It is not irrelevant that the video is crappy, it is pertinent.

> why don't you admit that the video
>
> is more than adequate to determine the actions described?

I doubt very much that if I looked at this video without your comments I
would have made out the things you claim to see.

> If you are actually incapable of seeing the events I described, then let's
>
> address them one at a time. What EXACTLY are you failing to identify?

Kellerman, for one. If you showed me a pictures of 5 people and
Kellerman was one of them I doubt I could pick him out of the five as
being the one seen in the video. The video is just too crappy.

>
>
> http://jfkhistory.com/kellerman2.gif
>
>
>
>
>
> >
>
> >> If this is a vision issue, then why don't you have a friend examine it
>
> >>
>
> >> for you.
>
> >
>
> > Why don`t you make a friend and ask him if he thinks this video is
>
> > crappy?
>
>
>
> What exactly did I describe that you are unable to see, Bud?

Just about everything you wrote in red letters.

>
>
>
>
> >
>
> >>
>
> >>
>
> >>>>
>
> >>
>
> >>>>
>
> >>
>
> >>>> You all know what my explanation for that is. But now it's your turn.
>
> >>
>
> >>>>
>
> >>
>
> >>>> Surely, there is someone in this newsgroup who has enough faith in the LN
>
> >>
>
> >>>>
>
> >>
>
> >>>> theory, that he will defend it.
>
> >>
>
> >>>
>
> >>
>
> >>> What part of the LN theory requires an explanation for the split second
>
> >>
>
> >>> movement of people under attack?
>
> >>
>
> >>
>
> >>
>
> >> I believe my question preceded yours.
>
> >
>
> > I believe you took a position that LN theory revolves around this issue.
>
> > So I asked you what you base this position on.
>
>
>
> I am not going to bicker with you about this.

I wouldn`t if I were you, this position you`ve expressed is a guaranteed
loser.

> I asked my question first.

Your question assumes things about the LN theory that are not true.

> Post at least a semi-intelligent answer and I will answer your question.

Post a question that doesn`t assume something is true that isn`t and I
will answer it.

> What is your explanation for these reactions?

They were under attack. Some were shot, others were reacting to those
who were shot. Concern. Confusion. Panic.

>
>
> http://jfkhistory.com/kellerman2.gif
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> >
>
> >>
>
> >>
>
> >> After you answer I will answer your question in detail.
>
> >
>
> > You question assumes something as true that is untrue. You need to establish that your assumption that the LN theory is predicated on this issue for your question to be valid.
>
>
>
> Nonsense.

I know, yet that was your position.

Heres what you said...

"You all know what my explanation for that is. But now it's your turn.
Surely, there is someone in this newsgroup who has enough faith in the LN
theory, that he will defend it."

It`s false to say that the LN theory rests, rises, falls or is in any
way impacted by the movements seen in that video.

>
> We can discuss the significance of Kellerman's reactions after we
>
> confirm that they were as described.

Perhaps we can proceed in an honest manner after you concede that LN
theory isn`t impacted by what you think you see in crappy video.

[Robert Harris]

Thank you john!

Sometimes an insult is just so outrageously accurate that you have to post
it.

(Your check is in the mail)





Robert Harris

[OHLeeRedux]

Robert Harris
- show quoted text -

Sandy, you are much too intelligent to make a statement like that.

People don't *randomly* do the things Kellerman did in that fraction of
a second.

And do I really have to talk about the timing of those reactions - again?

You are one of the few people who has had to the courage to discuss this
stuff with me in depth. I respect that.

But the penalty for you, is that by now, you must understand the details
of all this.

Maybe it's time to come out?

Think of the rewards! You will be despised by everyone in the world of the
JFK case!

You will be accused of being bribed, while getting nothing for your
honesty!

And you will be accused of secretly being Robert Harris!



It just doesn't get any better than that!





Robert Harris

This is disturbing.

[Mitch Todd]

"Robert Harris" wrote in message

news:SKCdnTxc8KNVSfbO...@earthlink.com...

Me not understand "geekspeak?" You should know me better than
that, Bob! Anyway, do you honestly believe that the car travelled
at an exact, constant 12 mph before instantaneously decelerating
to a constant 8 mph? I hope not. Alvarez didn't either, but then
he understood the more complex reality underlying those neat lines.
What you see is a linear extrapolation of a more complex set of
calculations based on a set of Alvarez' measurements. That's why
he weasel-words the exact length and position of the deceleration
("decelerated suddenly for ABOUT 0.5 sec (10 frames), centered
at ABOUT frame 299"). Neither quantity is set in stone. Only a fool
would take it so specifically.

>>> And in fact, the reason he lifted his foot from the gas was that he
>>> too was startled by the 285 shot. That's why he testified that the
>>> second and third shots were fired, "simultaneously, one right after
>>> the other".
>>
>> Not according to Alvarez: "I was bothered for some time by the weaker
>> set of pulses lasting a shorter time, that show in Fig. 3, from
>> frames 290 through 298. They don't look like the ones that seemed
>> clearly associated with bullets".
>
>Look at his chart:
>
>http://jfkhistory.com/alvarezchart.jpg
>
>The 290 blips are certainly as intense as the earlier ones, which we know
>today, were false positives.
>
>Notice also that the 290 blip contains a small peak to the left and then a
>larger peak to the right, just as the one at 318 did and unlike the two
>earlier ones.
>
>Alvarez was a genius, but sadly, he was also a nutter.
>
>His measurements were flawless, his *opinions* - not so great.

You've picked a bad time to accuse Alvarez of being a liar,
don't you think?

Now, I've been around a lot of scientists in my time. Even
spent a month as a friend's field assistant. If you were to
walk up to a gaggle of scientists and say, "hey, that guy's
numbers are totally, like, flawless," they would think one
of three things:

1) you are an idiot
2) "that guy" is a fraud (don't be that guy!)
3) numbers one and two combined

Measurements are messy in the real world. That's why
junior G-man scientists and engineers spend a lot of
time at university taking classes in prob-n'-stat.

But since you brought it up, look at this chart, helpfully
prepared by our friends at the HSCA (you have to unbreak
the link):

http://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/hsca/
reportvols/vol6/html/HSCA_Vol6_0016b.htm

It has an unbroken version of Alvarez's graph for Morgan
Freeman-approved Easy Reading. It also has two other
panning error graphs placed back to back on the same
line, both using a unique technique. Now, If I assume
that JFK and JBC were both hit by the same bullet in the
early 220's, I should expect to see Zapruder react to
any corresponding gunshot sound in the latter 220's.
Curiously enough, there just happens to be a significant
event right about frame 227 in all three graphs, with
the Zapruder graph peaking positive at the same time as
the Hartman and Scott graphs register their peaks. If
that were the case, then I'd also expect to see the same
alignment of peaks a few frames after 313....which is
exactly what the graphs show. So, were there a frame
285 shot, I'd expect to see the same thing happen. But
that's not quite what we see. It's not as sharp or as
high amplitude as the peaks that occur at the other two
instants. The Alvrarez jounce is also a bit out of phase
of it's Hartmann and and Scott counterparts, unlike
the other two events. It just doesn't quite fit in.

[BT George]

Snippage

>> Very perceptive of Bob folks! He seems to at last realize the logical
>> folly of what he has managed to prove---at best---after all these years.
>> :-)
>
>
>Stop changing the subject.
>
>

Says the master of the art!

>You suggested that Kellerman was the only one of the six people who
>reacted simultaneously, to have been startled. That is not just
>fallacious, it is hilariously ridiculous.
>
>Why don't you tell us who is the *ONLY* person in this little video, to
>have been startled:-)
>
>https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DSXjbiDD0rY
>
>>

So it's Bob's theory that a bomb went off in Dealey Plaza on 11-22-63?

Interesting new assassination theory, that! :-)

>>>
>>>>
>>>> Jackie's movements? Not a chance. *WAY* too smooth.
>>>
>>> Uh huh.
>>>
>>> Nothing like subjective opinion eh? I mean we can claim to personally
>>> see or not see anything, so long as we don't have to prove it, right?
>>>
>>>
>>
>> Why not?
>
>Because that is a extremely poor way to determine reality. And it is
>frequently subject to prejudice, as is obvious in your case.
>
>

LOL! *My* subjective opinion is subject to prejudice! I'll say one thing
for Bob, he knows best how to decry what *HE* has mastered.

>> Just when has Bob ever "proved" to *YOU* dear Lurker and Viewer,
>> that Jackie's movements look anything like an *INVOLUNTARY* shot startle
>> reaction?
>
>That's because "Bob" doesn't subject people to his personal, subjective
>opinion. "Bob" produces verifiable, measurable facts which prove his
>arguments. Mrs. Kennedy dropped her head in perfect unison with Mrs.
>Connally and Roy Kellerman.
>
>http://jfkhistory.com/angles285.jpg
>
>

Yes. Verifiable and measurable facts which he then often proceeds to
interpret incorrectly/debatablely and from which he virtually ALWAYS draws
the *WRONG* conclusions from.

Lurker and viewer *YOU* decide if that is correct or no.

Then maybe he should find one folks. ...'Cause *HE* sure hasn't figured
it out correctly yet! :-)

BT George

[Anthony Marsh]

On 5/8/2014 7:23 PM, Robert Harris wrote:
> Sandy McCroskey wrote:
>> On 5/6/14 5:50 PM, Robert Harris wrote:
>>> Hey! You guys claim that I "spam" the newsgroup.
>>>
>>> So, here's your chance to even the score. Let's hear *YOUR* explanation?
>>>
>>> No one seems to dispute my claim that Roy Kellerman raised his left hand
>>> to his hear for less than 1/3rd of one second, as he was dropping his
>>> head downward.
>>>
>>> http://jfkhistory.com/kellerman2.gif
>>>
>>> You all know what my explanation for that is. But now it's your turn.
>>> Surely, there is someone in this newsgroup who has enough faith in the
>>> LN theory, that he will defend it.
>>>
>>> The floor is yours.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Robert Harris
>>>
>>
>> Why must there be an "explanation" for every little motion a person
>> makes at such a moment?
>>
>> But to some people... nothing is random. Everything is a clue.
>
> Sandy, you are much too intelligent to make a statement like that.
>

It's easier to demonize than to debate. No heavy lifting.

[Sandy McCroskey]

On 5/8/14 7:23 PM, Robert Harris wrote:
> Sandy McCroskey wrote:
>> On 5/6/14 5:50 PM, Robert Harris wrote:
>>> Hey! You guys claim that I "spam" the newsgroup.
>>>
>>> So, here's your chance to even the score. Let's hear *YOUR* explanation?
>>>
>>> No one seems to dispute my claim that Roy Kellerman raised his left hand
>>> to his hear for less than 1/3rd of one second, as he was dropping his
>>> head downward.
>>>
>>> http://jfkhistory.com/kellerman2.gif
>>>
>>> You all know what my explanation for that is. But now it's your turn.
>>> Surely, there is someone in this newsgroup who has enough faith in the
>>> LN theory, that he will defend it.
>>>
>>> The floor is yours.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Robert Harris
>>>
>>
>> Why must there be an "explanation" for every little motion a person
>> makes at such a moment?
>>
>> But to some people... nothing is random. Everything is a clue.
>
> Sandy, you are much too intelligent to make a statement like that.
>
> People don't *randomly* do the things Kellerman did in that fraction of
> a second.
>

Why not?

> And do I really have to talk about the timing of those reactions - again?
>



> You are one of the few people who has had to the courage to discuss this
> stuff with me in depth. I respect that.
>
> But the penalty for you, is that by now, you must understand the details
> of all this.
>
> Maybe it's time to come out?
>
> Think of the rewards! You will be despised by everyone in the world of
> the JFK case!
>
> You will be accused of being bribed, while getting nothing for your
> honesty!
>
> And you will be accused of secretly being Robert Harris!
>
>
>
> It just doesn't get any better than that!
>
>

I can't make any sense of the above ramblings.