Evasion and Denial

[Robert Harris]

"John, do you agree that Nellie reacted by turning to her husband at
291-292 and then pulled him back to her?"

"Bob, there was no shot at 285"

"John, do you agree that every surviving passenger in the limo started to
react in the same 1/6th of a second?"

"Bob, nobody was ducking at 285"

"John, do you think Alvarez was wrong in claiming that there was a loud
noise at frame 285?"

"Did Alvarez say there was a shot at 285, Bob?"

"John, would you explain why you think no one was startled at 285?"

"No one was startled at 285, Bob."

"John, would you agree that Kellerman carried out these 6 actions within a
single second....?"

"Hello darkness my old friend..."

"Would you agree that three people in the limo simultaneously dropped
their heads by more than 30 degrees?"

"Hello darkness my old friend..."

"Why do you think that Greer decided to slow the limo then?"

"Hello darkness my old friend..."


"John, why are you evading my questions?"


"Bob, it's not true that I've never responded to you. You pretend that
somebody 'did not repond' when in fact they simply failed to agree
with you."





Robert Harris

[Lanny]

On Monday, March 25, 2013 4:00:50 PM UTC-4, Robert Harris wrote:
> "John, do you agree that Nellie reacted by turning to her husband at
>
> 291-292 and then pulled him back to her?"
>
>
> "Bob, there was no shot at 285"

Are you representing Nellie Connally's pulling Gov. Connally to her at
frames 291 - 292 as an example of an "involuntary startle reaction" that
substantiates the presence of a loud auditory stimulus at frame 285?

Because when I previously cited her testimony wherein she described this
action as being a willfully conscious decision based on her observations
of his condition and NOT an involuntary neurological reaction, you denied
characterizing it as such. Here is that exchange a few days ago from the
"Nellie and McAdams" thread in this forum:

>> Since Nellie Connally never testified to hearing a gunshot or other loud
>> sound at frame 285(which you say she involuntarily reacted to) then it is
>> equally clear she did not perceive her pulling her husband into her lap as
>> an involuntary reaction to a sound.

>Of course that wasn't a startle reaction and you know very well that I
>never said it was. She didn't start to pull him back until well after
>that third of a second had elapsed, at 291-292.

>> In fact, she specifically described
>> it as a conscious decision to her husband�s condition which she
>> OBSERVED.

>That's because it was indeed, a conscious decision.

So which is it Bob? If it is not an involuntary startle reaction, then it
has no probative value in substantiating a shot at frame 285, and if it
has no value in substantiating a shot at frame 285 then what is the point
in referencing it in association with John's denial of a shot at that
time?

In fact, at the risk of seeming impertinent, you seem to trip over this
issue a lot, Bob. Here is your commentary on it again from a post you made
on March 28, of 2011 in your own forum in the thread titled "Did Mrs.
Connally Hear a Shot at 285?":

>>>And it is the next shot - the one that Mrs. Connally thought, hit her >>>husband that was fired at frame 285 (plus or minus no more than a frame or >>>two). But how can we be so precise?

>>>Researchers have known for nearly a century, that sound levels of 90 >>>decibels or more, will provoke involuntary startle reactions in human >>>subjects, within no more than 1/3rd of a second (6-7 frames) following the >>>noise. And HSCA experts have confirmed that shots from Oswald's rifle, >>>generated levels which would have been 16 times that loud. So, it is not >>>exactly surprising that the limo passengers were startled then.

>>>Each of those reactions began within the same 1/6th of a second, in the >>>range of 290-292. Nellie's began at 291-292, which means the noise had to >>>have been heard no earlier than 285.

>>>Nellie was very specific about how she reacted to that shot and that she >>>turned toward her husband and pulled him back to her after hearing it. In >>>the film (see the first animation) we see her doing exactly that just after >>>291.

>>>"I reached over to pull him toward me."

More recently, you tackled this subject again in your forum on January
27th of this year in the thread titled "Nellie Connally - confirms the
shot at 285":

>>>Nellie Connally - confirms the shot at 285
>>>« on: January 27, 2013, 07:43:44 AM »

>>>This animation, from the Zapruder film, should allay any remaining doubts. >>>As you watch, please pay close attention to the frame numbers. She looks >>>back and sees JFK at about frame 260. She then hears the next shot at frame >>>285 and clearly reacts to it at 290-291, turning to her husband and then >>>pulling him back to her - exactly as she said she did.

>>>Also notice,that her reaction is simultaneous with dramatic reactions by >>>every other surviving passenger in the limo.

>>>That animation is in extreme slow motion. If you want to see it at real life >>>speed, click on this link,

>>> Reactions to the shot at frame 285

>>>The reactions all began in the range of 290-292, or within the same 1/6th of >>>a second of one another. Experts have confirmed that such reactions must >>>begin with no more than one third of a second, or in this case, six Zapruder >>>frames. Therefore, the reactions could not have been to a noise prior to >>>frame 285.

Once again, your attribution of Nellie Connally "pulling her husband to
her" is associated with that action happening "within the same 1/6th of a
second" of the reactions of other limo occupants. That time constraint,
of course, only has meaning within the context of an "involuntary startle
reaction."

Now please don't get all testy with me and accuse me of bad faith in this
regard. Finding your statements on the internet is relatively easy, and
they are not in dispute. Discerning what you really mean can be a bit
more challenging, and for that I need your help.

As always, TIA.




Lanny

[Robert Harris]

Lanny wrote:
> On Monday, March 25, 2013 4:00:50 PM UTC-4, Robert Harris wrote:
>> "John, do you agree that Nellie reacted by turning to her husband at
>>
>> 291-292 and then pulled him back to her?"
>>
>>
>> "Bob, there was no shot at 285"
>
>
> Are you representing Nellie Connally's pulling Gov. Connally to her at
> frames 291 - 292 as an example of an "involuntary startle reaction" that
> substantiates the presence of a loud auditory stimulus at frame 285?

I am "representing" what I just said. She turned toward her husband at
290-291 *AND THEN* pulled him back to her.

*AND THEN* means afterward or later in the sequence of her actions. Why
do I have to explain this to you?

>
> Because when I previously cited her testimony wherein she described this
> action as being a willfully conscious decision based on her observations
> of his condition and NOT an involuntary neurological reaction, you denied
> characterizing it as such. Here is that exchange a few days ago from the

> "Nellie and McAdams" th"read in this forum:

>
>>> Since Nellie Connally never testified to hearing a gunshot or other loud
>>> sound at frame 285(which you say she involuntarily reacted to) then it is
>>> equally clear she did not perceive her pulling her husband into her lap as
>>> an involuntary reaction to a sound.
>
>> Of course that wasn't a startle reaction and you know very well that I
>> never said it was. She didn't start to pull him back until well after
>> that third of a second had elapsed, at 291-292.
>
>>> In fact, she specifically described

>>> it as a conscious decision to her husband�s condition which she

>>> OBSERVED.
>
>> That's because it was indeed, a conscious decision.
>
> So which is it Bob?

It is exactly what I said. "it was indeed, a conscious decision."

> If it is not an involuntary startle reaction, then it
> has no probative value in substantiating a shot at frame 285

Yes it does. Mrs. Connally specifically stated that she heard a shot and
then turned to her husband and pulled him back to her. Obviously, that
was the shot at 285.

Her startle reaction was in dropping her head by a tad more than 30
degrees in perfect unison with reactions by the other surviving
passengers, as I have pointed out a zillion times. But that only lasted
for no more than a third of a second. It was after that, that she pulled
him back.


>, and if it
> has no value in substantiating a shot at framIe 285 then what is the point

> in referencing it in association with John's denial of a shot at that
> time?

The point, as I just tried to explain to you, is that she was crystal
clear that these reactions were in direct response to the gunshot that
she believed, wounded her husband.

I can't believe you don't get this.

>
> In fact, at the risk of seeming impertinent, you seem to trip over this
> issue a lot, Bob.

I didn't trip over anything Lanny. You are just desperate to "get Harris".

I already explained all this to you in another thread. She did not begin
to pull her husband back to her until well after that 1/3rd second
boundary had passed. Therefore, it was not a startle reaction.

She was indeed, startled however, as we can see by her dropping her head
within the same 1/6th of a second as the others.

Her VOLUNTARY reactions that followed, are significant because she
stated that she did that almost immediately following a gunshot, and
because we can see that she did it, right after the startle reactions.

This is what makes Nellie such a perfect witness. Not only did she SAY
she heard that shot, but we can corroborate her in the film and
corroborate the sequence of events she described, both before and after
the shot.

I'm sorry you misunderstood me. In almost 20 years of posting about
this, you are the first to have this problem.




Robert Harris

[Lanny]

> >>> it as a conscious decision to her husband�s condition which she

Again, thanks for the clarification that Mrs. Connally’s pulling her
husband to her was NOT a startle reaction. Thanks also for your response
to my earlier post in the "McAdams and Nellie" thread. I am in the
process of preparing a detailed response to that post, but will not be
posting it on this forum.

Please look for it in the next day or two on “alt.conspiracy.jfk”

>
> She was indeed, startled however, as we can see by her dropping her head
>
> within the same 1/6th of a second as the others.
>
>
>
> Her VOLUNTARY reactions that followed, are significant because she
>
> stated that she did that almost immediately following a gunshot, and
>
> because we can see that she did it, right after the startle reactions.
>
>
>
> This is what makes Nellie such a perfect witness. Not only did she SAY
>
> she heard that shot, but we can corroborate her in the film and
>
> corroborate the sequence of events she described, both before and after
>
> the shot.
>
>
>
> I'm sorry you misunderstood me. In almost 20 years of posting about
>
> this, you are the first to have this problem.
>
>

With all due respects, Bob, it is not my problem that on at least two
prior occasions you chose to address Nellie Connally’s “startle
reaction” to an alleged auditory stimulus at Z-frame 285 with a physical
action that you now agree was NOT a startle reaction, but which you
described quite differently in those prior statements.

It is not my problem that in both of your the statements which I cited,
the only “reaction” of Mrs. Connally which you discuss is that of
pulling Governor Connally to her. The lowering of her head is not
mentioned in either post.

It is also not my problem that her act of pulling her husband to her which
you now say “did not begin...until well after that 1/3rd second boundary
had passed” is described by you in your prior statements as having
“began at 291 – 292” or “reacts to it at 290 – 291” or “is

simultaneous with dramatic reactions by every other surviving

passenger.”

I am attaching those verbatim quotes from your forum with links so that
anyone here can go back and read them for themselves.

“Each of those reactions began within the same 1/6th of a second, in the
range of 290 – 292. Nellie’s began at 291 – 292, which means the

noise had to have been heard no earlier than 285. Nellie was very
specific about how she reacted to that shot and that she turned toward her
husband and pulled him back to her after hearing it. In the film (see the

first animation) we see her doing exactly that just after 291.” Did Mrs.
Connally Hear a Shot at 285? (3/28/11 @ 12:55:24 pm).

“She then hears the next shot at frame 285 and clearly reacts to it at

290-291, turning to her husband and then pulling him back to her - exactly
as she said she did.

Also notice, that her reaction is simultaneous with dramatic reactions by
every other surviving passenger in the limo. Nellie Connally - confirms
the shot at 285 (1/27/13 @ 07:43:44)

I really do not feel I bear the responsibility for this misunderstanding,
Bob, and I would like to put my belief to the test. You have great
support among the members of your forum, some of whom you and I hold in
mutual respect. Since you made it clear to those forum members that it
was my decision and mine alone to leave the forum, would you have any
objection to my rejoining the group briefly and for the purpose of
reexamining the startle reactions as we have discussed them here and in
light of your previous posts on this issue?

If I have distorted or misrepresented your commentary on this matter, I am
sure one or more of those contributors will not hesitate to call me on it.

I would value their input.

Lanny

[Robert Harris]

Lanny, you are confusing two different arguments.

One, is that Mrs. Connally and the others who reacted then, were startled.

The other is, that she described a sequence of events, before and after
285 that we can confirm in the Zapruder film.

So, when I say that she reacted to the shot by turning to her husband and
then pulling him back to her, I am making the latter argument.

When I state that she dropped her head in unison with two other
passengers, I am referring a startle reaction.

You can read every post I ever made, since 1995 and you will NEVER find me
stating that she pulled her husband back to her because she was startled.

If you wish to blame me for something, blame me for not being clear
enough, although I do have to wonder why no one else ever seems to
interpret my statements the way you do:-)


Robert Harris

>>>>> it as a conscious decision to her husband???s condition which she

> Again, thanks for the clarification that Mrs. Connally?s pulling her

> husband to her was NOT a startle reaction. Thanks also for your response
> to my earlier post in the "McAdams and Nellie" thread. I am in the
> process of preparing a detailed response to that post, but will not be
> posting it on this forum.
>

> Please look for it in the next day or two on ?alt.conspiracy.jfk?

>
>
>
>>
>> She was indeed, startled however, as we can see by her dropping her head
>>
>> within the same 1/6th of a second as the others.
>>
>>
>>
>> Her VOLUNTARY reactions that followed, are significant because she
>>
>> stated that she did that almost immediately following a gunshot, and
>>
>> because we can see that she did it, right after the startle reactions.
>>
>>
>>
>> This is what makes Nellie such a perfect witness. Not only did she SAY
>>
>> she heard that shot, but we can corroborate her in the film and
>>
>> corroborate the sequence of events she described, both before and after
>>
>> the shot.
>>
>>
>>
>> I'm sorry you misunderstood me. In almost 20 years of posting about
>>
>> this, you are the first to have this problem.
>>
>>
>
> With all due respects, Bob, it is not my problem that on at least two

> prior occasions you chose to address Nellie Connally?s ?startle
> reaction? to an alleged auditory stimulus at Z-frame 285 with a physical

> action that you now agree was NOT a startle reaction, but which you
> described quite differently in those prior statements.
>
> It is not my problem that in both of your the statements which I cited,

> the only ?reaction? of Mrs. Connally which you discuss is that of

> pulling Governor Connally to her. The lowering of her head is not
> mentioned in either post.
>
> It is also not my problem that her act of pulling her husband to her which

> you now say ?did not begin...until well after that 1/3rd second boundary
> had passed? is described by you in your prior statements as having
> ?began at 291 ? 292? or ?reacts to it at 290 ? 291? or ?is

> simultaneous with dramatic reactions by every other surviving

> passenger.?

>
> I am attaching those verbatim quotes from your forum with links so that
> anyone here can go back and read them for themselves.
>

> ?Each of those reactions began within the same 1/6th of a second, in the
> range of 290 ? 292. Nellie?s began at 291 ? 292, which means the

> noise had to have been heard no earlier than 285. Nellie was very
> specific about how she reacted to that shot and that she turned toward her
> husband and pulled him back to her after hearing it. In the film (see the

> first animation) we see her doing exactly that just after 291.? Did Mrs.

> Connally Hear a Shot at 285? (3/28/11 @ 12:55:24 pm).
>

> ?She then hears the next shot at frame 285 and clearly reacts to it at

[Anthony Marsh]

>>>>> it as a conscious decision to her husband???s condition which she

> Again, thanks for the clarification that Mrs. Connally?s pulling her

> husband to her was NOT a startle reaction. Thanks also for your response
> to my earlier post in the "McAdams and Nellie" thread. I am in the
> process of preparing a detailed response to that post, but will not be
> posting it on this forum.
>

> Please look for it in the next day or two on ?alt.conspiracy.jfk?

>
>
>
>>
>> She was indeed, startled however, as we can see by her dropping her head
>>
>> within the same 1/6th of a second as the others.
>>
>>
>>
>> Her VOLUNTARY reactions that followed, are significant because she
>>
>> stated that she did that almost immediately following a gunshot, and
>>
>> because we can see that she did it, right after the startle reactions.
>>
>>
>>
>> This is what makes Nellie such a perfect witness. Not only did she SAY
>>
>> she heard that shot, but we can corroborate her in the film and
>>
>> corroborate the sequence of events she described, both before and after
>>
>> the shot.
>>
>>
>>
>> I'm sorry you misunderstood me. In almost 20 years of posting about
>>
>> this, you are the first to have this problem.
>>
>>
>
> With all due respects, Bob, it is not my problem that on at least two

> prior occasions you chose to address Nellie Connally?s ?startle
> reaction? to an alleged auditory stimulus at Z-frame 285 with a physical

> action that you now agree was NOT a startle reaction, but which you
> described quite differently in those prior statements.
>

I am not sure how the science is supposed to work or even if there is a
science involved. So if I see ANY startle reaction by anyone then that
proves that there was a shot then? So therefore there must have been
hundreds of shots. Right?

> It is not my problem that in both of your the statements which I cited,

> the only ?reaction? of Mrs. Connally which you discuss is that of

> pulling Governor Connally to her. The lowering of her head is not
> mentioned in either post.
>
> It is also not my problem that her act of pulling her husband to her which

> you now say ?did not begin...until well after that 1/3rd second boundary
> had passed? is described by you in your prior statements as having
> ?began at 291 ? 292? or ?reacts to it at 290 ? 291? or ?is

> simultaneous with dramatic reactions by every other surviving

> passenger.?

>
> I am attaching those verbatim quotes from your forum with links so that
> anyone here can go back and read them for themselves.
>

> ?Each of those reactions began within the same 1/6th of a second, in the

> range of 290 ? 292. Nellie?s began at 291 ? 292, which means the

> noise had to have been heard no earlier than 285. Nellie was very
> specific about how she reacted to that shot and that she turned toward her
> husband and pulled him back to her after hearing it. In the film (see the

> first animation) we see her doing exactly that just after 291.? Did Mrs.

> Connally Hear a Shot at 285? (3/28/11 @ 12:55:24 pm).
>

> ?She then hears the next shot at frame 285 and clearly reacts to it at

[Robert Harris]

Well, the other day, you couldn't seen any startle reactions and all. So
now you see "hundreds"??? What happened Tony? New pair of glasses?

I only see obvious startle reactions twice in the Zapruder film - once
beginning at 290 and once beginning at 315.

Those were the result of the only two shots that could have come from
unsuppressed, high powered rifles.




Robert Harris

[Anthony Marsh]

I said, if I wanted to play your phony games.

> I only see obvious startle reactions twice in the Zapruder film - once
> beginning at 290 and once beginning at 315.
>

The Alvarez theory was based on jiggles in the Zapruder film.
I see hundreds of jiggles in the Zapruder film.

[Lanny]

The science is that any sudden noise above 90 db typically evokes an involuntary neurological reaction with a latency preceding the response of no more than one third of a second.

Harris insists that the various movements of the limo occupants within one third of a second from an auditory event which Dr. Luis Alvarez identified at frame 285 in his applied theory of "jitter analysis" on the Zapruder film are startle reactions to a gunshot. The movements alone, however, do not establish gunfire. Only a loud noise. It is the additional testimony of the witnesses, as Harris would be the first to emphasize, that supports his conclusions of shots despite the opinion of Alvarez that the camera jitter by Zapruder at that point in the film was not consistent with a gunshot.

If Harris stopped there, he might ALMOST have a valid argument.

The problem is that my reading of the witness testimony (and I'd be willing to bet yours too) is that every person in that vehicle who wasn't shot either knew an assassination or some other grave anomaly was in progress BEFORE whatever alleged event, if any, occurred at frame 285.

That knowledge immediately renders their "reactions" suspect as to whether they stem from an auditory or visual stimulus along with the sudden awareness of their being under attack. This possibility is not acknowledged by Bob Harris in any forum post or YouTube video I have seen.

But wait. There's more.

He also uses the apparent absence of startle reactions by the limo occupants to argue that NO ONE heard the shot at or about Z-frame 222 which wounded JFK and possibly Gov. Connally. This despite the lavishly lauded scientific acumen of Dr. Luis Alvarez that a camera jitter by Zapruder at this general time period WAS, indeed, indicative of a gunshot. Says Harris: "False positive."

But a far more serious omission, imho, is one that I have never seen him admit or correct until I challenged him in this thread. That is, that the science of auditory stimulus response that established the 90 db threshold and the 1/3 of a second latency, also established that the most common, generalized "startle reaction" to the threshold stimulus is normally nothing more than a muscle flinch of the face, arms, neck or shoulders. The reaction is not typically apparent to an independent observer at all. That is precisely why Alvarez invented his camera jitter analysis -- so that a flinch by Zapruder that even his assistant Marilyn Sitzman might not have noticed would likely show up in the film nonetheless.

Not only that, but the science also clearly establishes the very real possibility of habituation -- that the frequent repetition of the stimulus (sometimes in as few as five or six occurrences) mutes the response to where it may disappear altogether. Mrs. Connally and Mrs. Kennedy allude to that phenomenon by their reference to the motorcycle backfires as a frequent accompaniment to official motorcades.

It is also why you don't find Alvarez using the observable physical reactions of the earwitness as a check on his analysis, much less using them to rule out the possibility of a clearly audible 90+ db shot altogether thus "all but proving" the use of silencer-equipped weapons to inflict the President's back wound.

And despite Bob's insistence that this is all a misunderstanding based on my misinterpretation of his prior explanations of scientific facts he has been on board with all along, I have yet to hear him admit that the observable "lack of reactions" of the limo occupants at frame 222 - 225 are obviously insufficient in and of themselves to determine whether or not a loud rifle report occurred at that point.

Given his most recent commentary in this thread, I would expect that admission to be forthcoming at any moment now.

[Lanny]

Well, you've done it again, Bob. I'm all confused.

On March 23, in the McAdams and Nellie thread, Robert Harris wrote:

Scientists and psychologists have confirmed that startle reactions can
invoke a wide range of reactions, many of which are certainly consistent
with what we see at 290-292. But some are not even visible. Testing is
usually carried out by connecting various wires and probes to a subject
to determine his heart rate, blood pressure and other internal
functions. Obviously, none of that is applicable to this situation.

But there is a point at which startle reactions are so overt and obvious
that we don't need expert confirmation. Do you think we need a panel of
medical experts to tell us that JFK's head was blown apart at 313?

On March 28 in the thread "Evasion and Denial" Robert Harris wrote:


> I only see obvious startle reactions twice in the Zapruder film - once
>
> beginning at 290 and once beginning at 315.
>
>
>
> Those were the result of the only two shots that could have come from
>
> unsuppressed, high powered rifles.
>

In the first statement above you fully recognize the scientific finding that some startle reactions to a stimulus above 90 db are INVISIBLE (because it is only at and above 90 db where we expect to find involuntary startle reactions at all). And by "some," I assume you recognize the established science that says the most "generalized" startle reactions are of such non-observable subtlety, which I take to mean the "average" startle reaction, if not "most."

Then in the second statement you unequivocally state (or obliquely imply -- choose whichever characterization casts you in the most favorable light)
that BECAUSE startle reactions are only "OBVIOUS" at 290 and 315 of the Zapruder film, these are the "ONLY" two points in time where shots "COULD" have come from "unsuppressed, high-powered rifles."

So I guess the question, Bob, is at what scientifically established decibel threshold is it that involuntary startle reactions MUST be "overtly obvious"?

This appears to be the scientific nugget I'm missing, and I'm damned if I can find it anywhere.

Is it 95 db? 108.5? 121.3? 130? If there is a point at which I can reliably throw out the blood pressure cuff and the EKG machine and simply declare, "that gesture, that backward glance, that arabesque -- THAT, my friend, was a startle reaction" -- then where the hell is it?

And not to put too fine a point on it, but let's keep in mind we're not just trying to find the decibel level at which startle reactions become obvious. What you really are suggesting is that it is possible to perform the exercise in reverse order -- THAT a particular subset of undefined movements out of all those possible means we have arrived at or surpassed a given decibel threshold.

So please don't avoid the issue by relying on the worst case scenario. I will freely admit that I am likely to spill whatever I'm drinking if a 747 jet liner comes down in my backyard.

I simply will not admit that a scientific discipline that establishes a minimum standard for when INVISIBLE startle reactions will likely occur will leave undefined and open to individually subjective preference the upper limit at which those same INVISIBLE reactions give way to irrefutable panic.

[Anthony Marsh]

Oh really? Can you cite the journal and quote it for us? No, I didn't
think you could. You are relying solely on Alvarez.

> Harris insists that the various movements of the limo occupants within one third of a second from an auditory event which Dr. Luis Alvarez identified at frame 285 in his applied theory of "jitter analysis" on the Zapruder film are startle reactions to a gunshot. The movements alone, however, do not establish gunfire. Only a loud noise. It is the additional testimony of the witnesses, as Harris would be the first to emphasize, that supports his conclusions of shots despite the opinion of Alvarez that the camera jitter by Zapruder at that point in the film was not consistent with a gunshot.
>

Something like that. But there is a vast difference between a jiggle in
the Zapruder film and turning around to see where the shots came from.

> If Harris stopped there, he might ALMOST have a valid argument.
>

Harris stole and misused the theory from Alvarez.

> The problem is that my reading of the witness testimony (and I'd be willing to bet yours too) is that every person in that vehicle who wasn't shot either knew an assassination or some other grave anomaly was in progress BEFORE whatever alleged event, if any, occurred at frame 285.
>
> That knowledge immediately renders their "reactions" suspect as to whether they stem from an auditory or visual stimulus along with the sudden awareness of their being under attack. This possibility is not acknowledged by Bob Harris in any forum post or YouTube video I have seen.
>
> But wait. There's more.
>
> He also uses the apparent absence of startle reactions by the limo occupants to argue that NO ONE heard the shot at or about Z-frame 222 which wounded JFK and possibly Gov. Connally. This despite the lavishly lauded scientific acumen of Dr. Luis Alvarez that a camera jitter by Zapruder at this general time period WAS, indeed, indicative of a gunshot. Says Harris: "False positive."
>

Why do you pick Z-222? Why can't you WC defenders get together and agree
on one frame for your SBT? Not much of a theory when you keep changing the
frame every day.

> But a far more serious omission, imho, is one that I have never seen him admit or correct until I challenged him in this thread. That is, that the science of auditory stimulus response that established the 90 db threshold and the 1/3 of a second latency, also established that the most common, generalized "startle reaction" to the threshold stimulus is normally nothing more than a muscle flinch of the face, arms, neck or shoulders. The reaction is not typically apparent to an independent observer at all. That is precisely why Alvarez invented his camera jitter analysis -- so that a flinch by Zapruder that even his assistant Marilyn Sitzman might not have noticed would likely show up in the film nonetheless.
>

Ever see someone's hands fly up when you fire a gun near them?
How many milliseconds does that take?
Do you understand the difference between the shock wave and the muzzle
blast? Do you know how many milliseconds are there between the shock
wave and the muzzle blast? Can you calculate the angle of the cone of
the shockwave? Was Zapruder within the cone for the shot from the TSBD?
Assume it hit something or someone in the limo. SHOW me the angle.

> Not only that, but the science also clearly establishes the very real possibility of habituation -- that the frequent repetition of the stimulus (sometimes in as few as five or six occurrences) mutes the response to where it may disappear altogether. Mrs. Connally and Mrs. Kennedy allude to that phenomenon by their reference to the motorcycle backfires as a frequent accompaniment to official motorcades.
>
> It is also why you don't find Alvarez using the observable physical reactions of the earwitness as a check on his analysis, much less using them to rule out the possibility of a clearly audible 90+ db shot altogether thus "all but proving" the use of silencer-equipped weapons to inflict the President's back wound.
>

Alvarez did not apply his theory to the spectators, only to the Zapruder
film. What did you think of the HSCA's three jiggle analyses?

> And despite Bob's insistence that this is all a misunderstanding based on my misinterpretation of his prior explanations of scientific facts he has been on board with all along, I have yet to hear him admit that the observable "lack of reactions" of the limo occupants at frame 222 - 225 are obviously insufficient in and of themselves to determine whether or not a loud rifle report occurred at that point.
>

Unfortunately I think you see through him all too well.

[Robert Harris]

>
>
> Well, you've done it again, Bob. I'm all confused.

Lanny, I doubt that even your nutter compadres would deny that in fact,
YOU are the one who's done it again:-)

>
> On March 23, in the McAdams and Nellie thread, Robert Harris wrote:
>
> Scientists and psychologists have confirmed that startle reactions can
> invoke a wide range of reactions, many of which are certainly consistent
> with what we see at 290-292. But some are not even visible. Testing is
> usually carried out by connecting various wires and probes to a subject
> to determine his heart rate, blood pressure and other internal
> functions. Obviously, none of that is applicable to this situation.
>
> But there is a point at which startle reactions are so overt and obvious
> that we don't need expert confirmation. Do you think we need a panel of
> medical experts to tell us that JFK's head was blown apart at 313?

Yes, that is correct and you did a fine job of copying that statement!

>
>
> On March 28 in the thread "Evasion and Denial" Robert Harris wrote:
>
>
>> I only see obvious startle reactions twice in the Zapruder film - once
>>
>> beginning at 290 and once beginning at 315.
>>
>>
>>
>> Those were the result of the only two shots that could have come from
>>
>> unsuppressed, high powered rifles.
>>
>
> In the first statement above you fully recognize the scientific finding that some startle reactions to a stimulus above 90 db are INVISIBLE (because it is only at and above 90 db where we expect to find involuntary startle reactions at all). And by "some," I assume you recognize the established science that says the most "generalized" startle reactions are of such non-observable subtlety, which I take to mean the "average" startle reaction, if not "most."

You are correct Lanny. MOST startle reactions are much less dramatic and
often, invisible to those who observe them.

But as I'm sure you know, the primary factor in the degree of reaction
is the sound level. For example, if you hear a backfire across the road,
you might barely flinch, but if a firecracker goes off, four inches from
your ear, you will probably be jumping out of your scivvies.

That's why just about everyone we can see, visibly reacted to the bomb
in Atlanta. If however, we could have seen people who were say twice as
far from the blast, we would probably have seen much less overt
reactions and some people who we could not see reacting at all.

I do hope this doesn't further confuse you:-)

>
> Then in the second statement you unequivocally state (or obliquely imply -- choose whichever characterization casts you in the most favorable light)
> that BECAUSE startle reactions are only "OBVIOUS" at 290 and 315 of the Zapruder film, these are the "ONLY" two points in time where shots "COULD" have come from "unsuppressed, high-powered rifles."

Hmm... actually, you might have me on that one. If indeed a shot was
fired from a high powered rifle, that was say, 500 feet from the limo
and the bullet did not pass within 10 feet of the President, then I
suppose it is possible that it would not have provoked visible startle
reactions.

>
> So I guess the question, Bob, is at what scientifically established decibel threshold is it that involuntary startle reactions MUST be "overtly obvious"?

If there is one, I have no idea what it is. But fortunately for us, we
don't need that information, since the limo passengers told us exactly
when shots were fired that were loud enough to startle them to that
degree, and when they were not.

>
> This appears to be the scientific nugget I'm missing, and I'm damned if I can find it anywhere.

Neither can I, Lanny.

But the bottom line question is, did Oswald fire all the shots.

What we know for sure is, that if he fired shots at 160, 223 and 313,
then the limo passengers would have heard higher sound levels from the
first shots than from the final ones, because they were closer to the
muzzle. And as you pointed out yourself, in the jfkhistory forum, they
would have become more desensitized with each succeeding shot.

The total lack of overt reactions to the shots prior to 285, combined
with the fact that only one of them was even noticed by most witnesses,
and that the solitary, early shot that was heard, was not recognized as
a gunshot by most witnesses, pretty much answers this question for us;
don't you think?

Oswald might have fired either the shot at 285 or the one at 313. But he
did not fire any shots prior to those.





Robert Harris

[Robert Harris]

> >
> >
> > I am not sure how the science is supposed to work or even if there is a
> >
> > science involved. So if I see ANY startle reaction by anyone then that
> >
> > proves that there was a shot then? So therefore there must have been
> >
> > hundreds of shots. Right?
> >
> The science is that any sudden noise above 90 db typically evokes an
> involuntary neurological reaction with a latency preceding the response of no
> more than one third of a second.
>
> Harris insists that the various movements of the limo occupants within one
> third of a second from an auditory event which Dr. Luis Alvarez identified at
> frame 285 in his applied theory of "jitter analysis" on the Zapruder film are
> startle reactions to a gunshot. The movements alone, however, do not
> establish gunfire.

Lanny, before we continue, would you mind answering a question that I
repeatedly asked you in the jfkhistory forum and once in this newsgroup?

Do you believe we can accurately determine that the people in this video
were startled by a loud noise, or do we need a panel of experts to decide
for us?

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

And do you believe that we need experts to tell us that in the middle of a
shooting, these people were not at the very least, startled by some kind
of loud noise?

Do you see three of them simultaneously dropping their heads by over 30
degrees, and Bill Greer spinning around at near inhuman speed as he slowed
the limo?

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

Do you see Roy Kellerman, simultaneously ducking, twisting his head to the
right and raising his hand to his ear, and then raising back up, turning
his head forward and dropping his hand - all six of those motions, within
a single second???

This is in slow motion:

http://jfkhistory.com/royducks.gif

Does it bother you at all, that this happened as he was hearing a flurry
of shots come into the car??

My questions are simply Lanny - each of them only require a simple yes or
no. Why do I have such a hard time getting you to answer them?





Robert Harris

[Jason Burke]

Creepy thing, is that Harris, is nowhere, near an expert, on the matter.
Yet he insists on, trying to bully everyone, with his, nonsense.

[Lanny]

The following is cited from Milicent Cranor's article "Neurology and
Jiggle Analysis" from the November - December 1999 issue of "Fairplay"
magazine. For some reason I'm having trouble pasting active links in this
forum, so I'm not sure if this will work, but you should not have any
trouble finding the article.

http://spot.acorn.net/jfkplace/09/fp.back_issues/31st_Issue/jiggle.html

The following figures come from a study by Brown et al, published in the
British journal, Brain. (2) The authors tested the latency period (time it
takes to respond) of the auditory startle reflex in 12 healthy volunteers
ranging in age from 18 to 80 years. While relaxing in a chair, the
subjects were randomly treated about every 20 minutes to a tone burst of
124 decibels, the equivalent BANG! of a car backfire 20 feet away. The
average latency period of the relevant muscle groups in milliseconds:

Neck: 58 m/s (range 40-136 m/s)

Paraspinal muscles: 60 m/s (range: 48-120 m/s)

Forearm Flexors: 82 m/s (range: 60-200 m/s)

Forearm Extensors: 73 m/s (range 62-173 m/s)

Thumb: 99 m/s (range 75-179 m/s)

Back of Hand: 99 m/s (range 72-176 m/s)

The authors concluded:

"The most generalized startle response to the standard sound stimulus
employed consisted of eye closure, grimacing, neck flexion, trunk flexion,
slight abduction of the arms, flexion of the elbows and pronation of the
forearms. There was considerable variation in the degree to which this
response was expressed, and in some subjects only eye closure and flexion
of the neck was apparent." (2)

> > Harris insists that the various movements of the limo occupants within one third of a second from an auditory event which Dr. Luis Alvarez identified at frame 285 in his applied theory of "jitter analysis" on the Zapruder film are startle reactions to a gunshot. The movements alone, however, do not establish gunfire. Only a loud noise. It is the additional testimony of the witnesses, as Harris would be the first to emphasize, that supports his conclusions of shots despite the opinion of Alvarez that the camera jitter by Zapruder at that point in the film was not consistent with a gunshot.
>
> >
>
>
> Something like that. But there is a vast difference between a jiggle in
>
> the Zapruder film and turning around to see where the shots came from.
>

I don't believe the Alvarez theory or even the misuse of it by Harris
makes any representation about where the shots came from. The sole
purpose, as I understand it, is to pinpoint the number of shots and
distribute them accurately as possible on the Zapruder timeline.

>
>
>
> > If Harris stopped there, he might ALMOST have a valid argument.
>
> >
>
>
>
> Harris stole and misused the theory from Alvarez.
>

Precisely. And that is the primary reason I am here. I have my own
reservations about the accuracy of Alvarez's theory. Cranor's article
impeaches it fairly well. I am not here as an Alvarez defender other than
to demand that whoever purports to use his theory or, for that matter, ANY
piece of evidence, that they do so accurately and in good faith.

>
> > The problem is that my reading of the witness testimony (and I'd be willing to bet yours too) is that every person in that vehicle who wasn't shot either knew an assassination or some other grave anomaly was in progress BEFORE whatever alleged event, if any, occurred at frame 285.
>

> > That knowledge immediately renders their "reactions" suspect as to whether they stem from an auditory or visual stimulus along with the sudden awareness of their being under attack. This possibility is not acknowledged by Bob Harris in any forum post or YouTube video I have seen.
>
> >
> > But wait. There's more.
>
> >
> > He also uses the apparent absence of startle reactions by the limo occupants to argue that NO ONE heard the shot at or about Z-frame 222 which wounded JFK and possibly Gov. Connally. This despite the lavishly lauded scientific acumen of Dr. Luis Alvarez that a camera jitter by Zapruder at this general time period WAS, indeed, indicative of a gunshot. Says Harris: "False positive."
>
> >
>
> Why do you pick Z-222? Why can't you WC defenders get together and agree
>
> on one frame for your SBT? Not much of a theory when you keep changing the
>
> frame every day.
>

I picked frame 222 because it is in the range of plus or minus 10 frames
wherein Alvarez says a shot likely occurred according to his analysis and
which also begins the applicable period where Harris would point to the
LACK of startle reactions from the other limo passengers. Not that the
lack of those visible reactions matter in the least, but if I am inclined
to debate whatever Harris is alleging, then I need to look in the correct
spot.

Again, I am not here trying to sell a particular theory. Not the SBT or
any other. I happen to believe in Oswald as a lone assassin, but I'm not
passionate about it. I'll listen to almost anybody as long as I don't
think they are trying to bullshit me or anyone else. That's when I start
to get pissed off.

>
>
> > But a far more serious omission, imho, is one that I have never seen him admit or correct until I challenged him in this thread. That is, that the science of auditory stimulus response that established the 90 db threshold and the 1/3 of a second latency, also established that the most common, generalized "startle reaction" to the threshold stimulus is normally nothing more than a muscle flinch of the face, arms, neck or shoulders. The reaction is not typically apparent to an independent observer at all. That is precisely why Alvarez invented his camera jitter analysis -- so that a flinch by Zapruder that even his assistant Marilyn Sitzman might not have noticed would likely show up in the film nonetheless.
>
> >
>
>
> Ever see someone's hands fly up when you fire a gun near them?
>
> How many milliseconds does that take?
>
> Do you understand the difference between the shock wave and the muzzle
>
> blast? Do you know how many milliseconds are there between the shock
>
> wave and the muzzle blast? Can you calculate the angle of the cone of
>
> the shockwave? Was Zapruder within the cone for the shot from the TSBD?
>
> Assume it hit something or someone in the limo. SHOW me the angle.
>

Again, those are all issues upon which Alvarez, researchers Brown, et. al.
and Cranor might have excellent opinions. I do not. But if I ran into
someone who tried to tell me that the Brown study in the "Brain" journal
proved that victims of "startle reactions" soiled their underwear 70% of
the time, I would be of the strong opinion that that individual would be a
liar.

>
>
> > Not only that, but the science also clearly establishes the very real possibility of habituation -- that the frequent repetition of the stimulus (sometimes in as few as five or six occurrences) mutes the response to where it may disappear altogether. Mrs. Connally and Mrs. Kennedy allude to that phenomenon by their reference to the motorcycle backfires as a frequent accompaniment to official motorcades.
>
> >
>
> > It is also why you don't find Alvarez using the observable physical reactions of the earwitness as a check on his analysis, much less using them to rule out the possibility of a clearly audible 90+ db shot altogether thus "all but proving" the use of silencer-equipped weapons to inflict the President's back wound.
>
> >
>
>
> Alvarez did not apply his theory to the spectators, only to the Zapruder
>
> film. What did you think of the HSCA's three jiggle analyses?
>
>

Of course he didn't. And Bob Harris should not have either. As for the
HSCA, I find it difficult to believe that President Kennedy was first
wounded between frames 189-197 as the photographic panel argued. The
reactions of he and Gov. Connally immediately after coming back into view
from behind the Stemmons Freeway sign are, for me, more compelling. In
the grand scheme of things, I'm not certain how much it matters.

[Lanny]

Without scientific documentation that specifically support the assertions
you make, nothing could be less relevant to this discussion than what you
“suppose” is or is not possible.

Your uncompromising statement that unsuppressed, high-powered rifles could
have only been fired at those points in the Zapruder film where startle
reactions are “OBVIOUS” is a speculative opinion unsupported by
scientific fact.

> >
>
> > So I guess the question, Bob, is at what scientifically established decibel threshold is it that involuntary startle reactions MUST be "overtly obvious"?
>
>
>
> If there is one, I have no idea what it is. But fortunately for us, we
>
> don't need that information, since the limo passengers told us exactly
>
> when shots were fired that were loud enough to startle them to that
>
> degree, and when they were not.
>
>
>
> >
>
> > This appears to be the scientific nugget I'm missing, and I'm damned if I can find it anywhere.
>
>
>
> Neither can I, Lanny.
>
>
>
> But the bottom line question is, did Oswald fire all the shots.
>

Not to me. To me the bottom line is whether people are representing
evidence fairly and in an honest context of what a thorough presentation
of all that evidence would support.

In fact, my outrage with respect to those instances when I feel evidence
is not being presented fairly is probably very similar to the same outrage
some conspiracy theorists might feel when they believe they’ve
encountered evidence that their government has lied to them.

Perhaps you know that feeling.

>
> What we know for sure is, that if he fired shots at 160, 223 and 313,
>
> then the limo passengers would have heard higher sound levels from the
>
> first shots than from the final ones, because they were closer to the
>
> muzzle. And as you pointed out yourself, in the jfkhistory forum, they
>
> would have become more desensitized with each succeeding shot.
>
>
>
> The total lack of overt reactions to the shots prior to 285, combined
>
> with the fact that only one of them was even noticed by most witnesses,
>
> and that the solitary, early shot that was heard, was not recognized as
>
> a gunshot by most witnesses, pretty much answers this question for us;
>
> don't you think?
>

No. If I thought any of that were actually true, I would not be here
disputing your virtually every word.

[Lanny]

On Friday, March 29, 2013 10:09:57 PM UTC-4, Robert Harris wrote:
> > >
>
> > >
>
> > > I am not sure how the science is supposed to work or even if there is a
>
> > >
>
> > > science involved. So if I see ANY startle reaction by anyone then that
>
> > >
>
> > > proves that there was a shot then? So therefore there must have been
>
> > >
>
> > > hundreds of shots. Right?
>
> > >
>
> > The science is that any sudden noise above 90 db typically evokes an
>
> > involuntary neurological reaction with a latency preceding the response of no
>
> > more than one third of a second.
>
> >
>
> > Harris insists that the various movements of the limo occupants within one
>
> > third of a second from an auditory event which Dr. Luis Alvarez identified at
>
> > frame 285 in his applied theory of "jitter analysis" on the Zapruder film are
>
> > startle reactions to a gunshot. The movements alone, however, do not
>
> > establish gunfire.
>
>
>
> Lanny, before we continue, would you mind answering a question that I
>
> repeatedly asked you in the jfkhistory forum and once in this newsgroup?
>
>
>
> Do you believe we can accurately determine that the people in this video
>
> were startled by a loud noise, or do we need a panel of experts to decide
>
> for us?
>
>
>
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DSXjbiDD0rY
>
>

Yes, I believe we could probably accurately make that determination.
What I don’t believe is that it is particularly helpful in making the
determinations we need to make with regard to when shots were or were not
fired in the Kennedy assassination.

In marked contrast to Atlanta, the “bomb” went off in Dealey Plaza a
full three seconds before Z-frame 285, and everyone in that limo knew it
no later than Z-frame 280.

JFK and Governor Connally knew it as soon as they were wounded in the
range of Z-frames 222 – 230. Perhaps you disagree.

Nellie Connally knew it no later than Z-frame 234. She told us that
specifically in her Warren Commission testimony, but you choose to believe
that her statements about when she did and did not look back at President
Kennedy are more persuasive than her actual examination of the Zapruder
film and her reactions in it. You speculate a scenario of confusion on
her part as to when her husband was wounded – a confusion to which she
has never once indicated she experienced.

Roy Kellerman knew it as early as Z-frame 269, but no later than frame 279
where he is fully turned and looking into the backseat at an obviously
wounded President who he said he heard exclaim just seconds before, “My
God, I am hit.”

William Greer never looked into the backseat of the limo until hearing the
second of what he thought were two consecutive motorcycle backfires,
“And I glanced over my shoulder. And I saw Governor Connally like he was
starting to fall. Then I realized there was something wrong.” You can
prattle away all you want about his super-human head snap at frames
291-292 and the slowing down of the limo, but the man’s first look over
his shoulder was in response to the second of what we unarguably know were
two unsuppressed gunshots loud enough to be mistaken for motorcycle
backfires, both of which occurred prior to Z-frame 285.

>
> And do you believe that we need experts to tell us that in the middle of a
>
> shooting, these people were not at the very least, startled by some kind
>
> of loud noise?
>
>

Of course we don’t need experts to tell us the limo occupants are
startled well before Z-285. Two women are holding their husbands who have
just been shot and are gravely injured. Two Secret Service agents have
just become aware that they have somehow failed in their protection
duties.

But if we are to pinpoint the precise moment that any of these people
suffer an ADDITIONAL instance of being startled by an auditory stimulus
ALONE and of sufficient intensity to be suggestive of a gunshot, then we
need a reliable method of discriminating between the obvious shock and
horror of their general circumstance from those reactions you allege are
caused by an auditory stimulus at frame 285.

And you don’t have a methodology or evidence that would allow us to do
that. Furthermore, your extraction of select witness testimony in support
of your argument is easily refuted by those portions of the same testimony
you fail to cite.

> Do you see three of them simultaneously dropping their heads by over 30
>
> degrees, and Bill Greer spinning around at near inhuman speed as he slowed
>
> the limo?
>
>
>
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7GH5pGQy6yI
>
>
>
> Do you see Roy Kellerman, simultaneously ducking, twisting his head to the
>
> right and raising his hand to his ear, and then raising back up, turning
>
> his head forward and dropping his hand - all six of those motions, within
>
> a single second???
>
>
>
> This is in slow motion:
>
>
>
> http://jfkhistory.com/royducks.gif
>
>
>
> Does it bother you at all, that this happened as he was hearing a flurry
>
> of shots come into the car??
>
>
>
> My questions are simply Lanny - each of them only require a simple yes or
>
> no. Why do I have such a hard time getting you to answer them?
>

I just did answer them. Let me repeat it. You have no evidence
whatsoever that any actions of the limo occupants after the assassination
begins are due SOLELY to an auditory stimulus as opposed to the
unspeakable horror of the assassination itself.

And you have no methodology or evidence that would allow us to reliably
make that determination.

Speaking of unanswered questions, you did not answer my previous question
as to whether you would object if I rejoined your forum for the express
purpose of revisiting these issues with your membership in order to see if
they might misinterpret your descriptions of what were and were not
“startle reactions” in the same manner you’ve suggested that I did.

It is a very simple question. It only requires a simple yes or no. Why
do I have such a hard time getting you to answer it?

[David Von Pein]

JASON BURKE SAID:

Creepy thing, is that Harris, is nowhere, near an expert, on the
matter. Yet he insists on, trying to bully everyone, with his,
nonsense.

DAVID VON PEIN SAYS:

L,O,L

I, love, it.

[Robert Harris]

In article <84128ac0-8831-4269...@googlegroups.com>,

> ?suppose? is or is not possible.

>
> Your uncompromising statement that unsuppressed, high-powered rifles could
> have only been fired at those points in the Zapruder film where startle

> reactions are ?OBVIOUS? is a speculative opinion unsupported by
> scientific fact.

Lanny, you just replied to my statement, fully acknowledging that it was
possible for high powered rifle shots to be fired that did not produce
dramatic reactions among the limo passengers.

So, why are you calling my analysis "uncompromising", after I just
compromised:-)

You seem to be upset that I agreed with you. Is it possible that you had
big plans to accuse me of being closed minded, or some similar, evil
attribute?

My argument is really quite simple, Lanny. The limo passengers exhibited
no startle reactions to the shots prior to 285 and their own statements
confirmed that those shots either went entirely unheard or were not loud
enough to appear to be gunshots.

I concluded from that, that those shots did not come from an unsuppressed,
high powered rifle.

Beginning at 290 and 315, the limo passengers reacted dramatically,
simultaneously ducking, spinning around, etc. And their statements
confirmed that they did indeed, hear high powered rifle shots then.

I concluded from that, that those shots came from high powered,
unsuppressed rifles.

Your position as I understand it is, that we are incapable of deciding for
ourselves whether we are seeing startle reactions or not. But if you
genuinely believed that, why would you continue to evade my questions
about reactions such as those, to the bombing in Atlanta??

If you actually believed that we cannot make an accurate determination of
when a noise occurred, based on the reactions of bystanders, you would
have been EAGER to tell us that you could not determine that in the CNN
video I posted.

You have also evaded numerous other, very important questions, Lanny. I
think you do that, because to provide a plausible answer, you would have
to admit that you are wrong.

But you can prove me wrong, Lanny. If I ask you a few very relevant
questions, will you agree to answer them sincerely, concisely and to the
best of your ability??

Will you agree to address each of the questions I ask you??

I hope you agree to do that Lanny. I'm pretty sure that will put an end to
our little "debate".







Robert Harris

[Anthony Marsh]

On 3/30/2013 10:19 AM, Lanny wrote:
> On Friday, March 29, 2013 10:09:57 PM UTC-4, Robert Harris wrote:
>>>>
>>
>>>>
>>
>>>> I am not sure how the science is supposed to work or even if there is a
>>
>>>>
>>
>>>> science involved. So if I see ANY startle reaction by anyone then that
>>
>>>>
>>
>>>> proves that there was a shot then? So therefore there must have been
>>
>>>>
>>
>>>> hundreds of shots. Right?
>>
>>>>
>>
>>> The science is that any sudden noise above 90 db typically evokes an
>>
>>> involuntary neurological reaction with a latency preceding the response of no
>>
>>> more than one third of a second.
>>
>>>
>>
>>> Harris insists that the various movements of the limo occupants within one
>>
>>> third of a second from an auditory event which Dr. Luis Alvarez identified at
>>
>>> frame 285 in his applied theory of "jitter analysis" on the Zapruder film are
>>
>>> startle reactions to a gunshot. The movements alone, however, do not
>>
>>> establish gunfire.
>>
>>
>>
>> Lanny, before we continue, would you mind answering a question that I
>>
>> repeatedly asked you in the jfkhistory forum and once in this newsgroup?
>>
>>
>>
>> Do you believe we can accurately determine that the people in this video
>>
>> were startled by a loud noise, or do we need a panel of experts to decide
>>
>> for us?
>>
>>
>>
>> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DSXjbiDD0rY
>>
>>
>
> Yes, I believe we could probably accurately make that determination.

> What I don�t believe is that it is particularly helpful in making the

> determinations we need to make with regard to when shots were or were not
> fired in the Kennedy assassination.
>

> In marked contrast to Atlanta, the �bomb� went off in Dealey Plaza a

> full three seconds before Z-frame 285, and everyone in that limo knew it
> no later than Z-frame 280.
>

I understand what you are trying to do (cover up), but I don't
understand what you are trying to say. What 'bomb' went off 3 seconds
before Z-285?
3 seconds is 55 frames. 55 frames earlier than Z-285 is frame 230.
So you SEE a shot at Z-230? Then you can't be a WC defender.

What book on physiology tells you that people are not startled by a loud
noise until 3 seconds later? What experiments have you done to show that
people consciously wait 3 seconds before being startled by a loud noise?
Have you used a loud air horn like the ones that fans use at a football
game to startle someone? How many seconds do they wait to be startled?

> JFK and Governor Connally knew it as soon as they were wounded in the

> range of Z-frames 222 � 230. Perhaps you disagree.
>

Oh, so how you have a range of possible frames? Talk about back
pedalling. Why limit it 222? The WC said it could have been anywhere
from 210 to 225. So did Bugliosi. If you really want to be a WC defender
then you should stick with their 210 to 225.
I'd like to see you diagram and explain your SBT at frame 230.
Can you explain how the bullet exiting JFK's throat goes through his
hands up in front of his throat to then hit Connally? Do you ever think
before you type? No, I didn't think so.
Why would JFK throw his hands up in front of his throat before he was hit?
Do you agree with Zapruder that he was just joking?

> Nellie Connally knew it no later than Z-frame 234. She told us that
> specifically in her Warren Commission testimony, but you choose to believe
> that her statements about when she did and did not look back at President
> Kennedy are more persuasive than her actual examination of the Zapruder
> film and her reactions in it. You speculate a scenario of confusion on

> her part as to when her husband was wounded � a confusion to which she

> has never once indicated she experienced.
>

Harris does not have anyone it at Z-285.

> Roy Kellerman knew it as early as Z-frame 269, but no later than frame 279
> where he is fully turned and looking into the backseat at an obviously

> wounded President who he said he heard exclaim just seconds before, �My
> God, I am hit.�
>

JFK could not have said anything with a torn trachea. Kellerman was
hallucinating. A good trait for a SS agent.

> William Greer never looked into the backseat of the limo until hearing the
> second of what he thought were two consecutive motorcycle backfires,

> �And I glanced over my shoulder. And I saw Governor Connally like he was
> starting to fall. Then I realized there was something wrong.� You can

> prattle away all you want about his super-human head snap at frames

> 291-292 and the slowing down of the limo, but the man�s first look over

> his shoulder was in response to the second of what we unarguably know were
> two unsuppressed gunshots loud enough to be mistaken for motorcycle
> backfires, both of which occurred prior to Z-frame 285.
>

Did Greer specify any particular frames? Why didn't he turn to look
until after Z-300? If it's a startle reaction why not at Z-240?

>
>>
>> And do you believe that we need experts to tell us that in the middle of a
>>
>> shooting, these people were not at the very least, startled by some kind
>>
>> of loud noise?
>>
>>
>

> Of course we don�t need experts to tell us the limo occupants are

> startled well before Z-285. Two women are holding their husbands who have
> just been shot and are gravely injured. Two Secret Service agents have
> just become aware that they have somehow failed in their protection
> duties.

As if those were the only shots.
Take a look at the Altgens photo which is equal approximately to Z-255.
THREE SS agents in the followup car are looking backwards toward the TSBD.

>
> But if we are to pinpoint the precise moment that any of these people
> suffer an ADDITIONAL instance of being startled by an auditory stimulus
> ALONE and of sufficient intensity to be suggestive of a gunshot, then we
> need a reliable method of discriminating between the obvious shock and
> horror of their general circumstance from those reactions you allege are
> caused by an auditory stimulus at frame 285.
>

> And you don�t have a methodology or evidence that would allow us to do

> that. Furthermore, your extraction of select witness testimony in support
> of your argument is easily refuted by those portions of the same testimony
> you fail to cite.
>

He doesn't need no dam methodology. He's not a damn scientist.

>
>
>> Do you see three of them simultaneously dropping their heads by over 30
>>
>> degrees, and Bill Greer spinning around at near inhuman speed as he slowed
>>
>> the limo?
>>
>>
>>
>> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7GH5pGQy6yI
>>
>>
>>
>> Do you see Roy Kellerman, simultaneously ducking, twisting his head to the
>>
>> right and raising his hand to his ear, and then raising back up, turning
>>
>> his head forward and dropping his hand - all six of those motions, within
>>
>> a single second???
>>
>>
>>
>> This is in slow motion:
>>
>>
>>
>> http://jfkhistory.com/royducks.gif
>>
>>
>>
>> Does it bother you at all, that this happened as he was hearing a flurry
>>
>> of shots come into the car??
>>
>>
>>
>> My questions are simply Lanny - each of them only require a simple yes or
>>
>> no. Why do I have such a hard time getting you to answer them?
>>
>
> I just did answer them. Let me repeat it. You have no evidence
> whatsoever that any actions of the limo occupants after the assassination
> begins are due SOLELY to an auditory stimulus as opposed to the
> unspeakable horror of the assassination itself.
>

But you won't answer his specific questions. That would be stooping to
his level and no self-respecting WC defender would do that.

> And you have no methodology or evidence that would allow us to reliably
> make that determination.
>
> Speaking of unanswered questions, you did not answer my previous question
> as to whether you would object if I rejoined your forum for the express
> purpose of revisiting these issues with your membership in order to see if
> they might misinterpret your descriptions of what were and were not

> �startle reactions� in the same manner you�ve suggested that I did.

>
> It is a very simple question. It only requires a simple yes or no. Why
> do I have such a hard time getting you to answer it?
>

Why can't you answer a simple question with a simple yes or no?
Why are you always so evasive?

[Anthony Marsh]

Harris's sole purpose is to prove conspiracy by any backdoor means he
can. If someone's shoelace is untied that alone proves conspiracy to
him. So he imagines that there was a shot at Z-285 which is too close to
Z-313 to be fired by one rifle, hence conspiracy.

>>
>>
>>
>>> If Harris stopped there, he might ALMOST have a valid argument.
>>
>>>
>>
>>
>>
>> Harris stole and misused the theory from Alvarez.
>>
>
> Precisely. And that is the primary reason I am here. I have my own
> reservations about the accuracy of Alvarez's theory. Cranor's article
> impeaches it fairly well. I am not here as an Alvarez defender other than
> to demand that whoever purports to use his theory or, for that matter, ANY
> piece of evidence, that they do so accurately and in good faith.
>
>>
>>> The problem is that my reading of the witness testimony (and I'd be willing to bet yours too) is that every person in that vehicle who wasn't shot either knew an assassination or some other grave anomaly was in progress BEFORE whatever alleged event, if any, occurred at frame 285.
>>
>
>>> That knowledge immediately renders their "reactions" suspect as to whether they stem from an auditory or visual stimulus along with the sudden awareness of their being under attack. This possibility is not acknowledged by Bob Harris in any forum post or YouTube video I have seen.
>>
>>>
>>> But wait. There's more.
>>
>>>
>>> He also uses the apparent absence of startle reactions by the limo occupants to argue that NO ONE heard the shot at or about Z-frame 222 which wounded JFK and possibly Gov. Connally. This despite the lavishly lauded scientific acumen of Dr. Luis Alvarez that a camera jitter by Zapruder at this general time period WAS, indeed, indicative of a gunshot. Says Harris: "False positive."
>>
>>>
>>
>> Why do you pick Z-222? Why can't you WC defenders get together and agree
>>
>> on one frame for your SBT? Not much of a theory when you keep changing the
>>
>> frame every day.
>>
>
> I picked frame 222 because it is in the range of plus or minus 10 frames
> wherein Alvarez says a shot likely occurred according to his analysis and
> which also begins the applicable period where Harris would point to the
> LACK of startle reactions from the other limo passengers. Not that the
> lack of those visible reactions matter in the least, but if I am inclined
> to debate whatever Harris is alleging, then I need to look in the correct
> spot.
>

So you don't really believe there was a SBT shot at Z-222. But do you
think there could be a shot 10 frames after the jiggle?

> Again, I am not here trying to sell a particular theory. Not the SBT or
> any other. I happen to believe in Oswald as a lone assassin, but I'm not
> passionate about it. I'll listen to almost anybody as long as I don't
> think they are trying to bullshit me or anyone else. That's when I start
> to get pissed off.

Sure, sure, as if we really believe you. We know what you are up to.

[Robert Harris]

Lanny wrote:
> On Friday, March 29, 2013 10:09:57 PM UTC-4, Robert Harris wrote:
>>>>
>>
>>>>
>>
>>>> I am not sure how the science is supposed to work or even if there is a
>>
>>>>
>>
>>>> science involved. So if I see ANY startle reaction by anyone then that
>>
>>>>
>>
>>>> proves that there was a shot then? So therefore there must have been
>>
>>>>
>>
>>>> hundreds of shots. Right?
>>
>>>>
>>
>>> The science is that any sudden noise above 90 db typically evokes an
>>
>>> involuntary neurological reaction with a latency preceding the response of no
>>
>>> more than one third of a second.
>>
>>>
>>
>>> Harris insists that the various movements of the limo occupants within one
>>
>>> third of a second from an auditory event which Dr. Luis Alvarez identified at
>>
>>> frame 285 in his applied theory of "jitter analysis" on the Zapruder film are
>>
>>> startle reactions to a gunshot. The movements alone, however, do not
>>
>>> establish gunfire.
>>
>>
>>
>> Lanny, before we continue, would you mind answering a question that I
>>
>> repeatedly asked you in the jfkhistory forum and once in this newsgroup?
>>
>>
>>
>> Do you believe we can accurately determine that the people in this video
>>
>> were startled by a loud noise, or do we need a panel of experts to decide
>>
>> for us?
>>
>>
>>
>> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DSXjbiDD0rY
>>
>>
>
> Yes, I believe we could probably accurately make that determination.

Thank you Lanny. And it only took five tries to get a reply:-)


> What I don�t believe is that it is particularly helpful in making the

> determinations we need to make with regard to when shots were or were not
> fired in the Kennedy assassination.
>

> In marked contrast to Atlanta, the �bomb� went off in Dealey Plaza a

> full three seconds before Z-frame 285, and everyone in that limo knew it
> no later than Z-frame 280.

A "bomb"??? The witnesses only heard one early noise, Lanny. Are you
suggesting that there was only one shot fired, prior to 285?

And if so, do you believe that was a shot at 223, or prior to that?

>
> JFK and Governor Connally knew it as soon as they were wounded in the

> range of Z-frames 222 � 230. Perhaps you disagree.

LOL!! I suspect they knew that they got shot. Of course, I don't have
scientific confirmation of that fact, so I guess we'll just never know!

>
> Nellie Connally knew it no later than Z-frame 234.

That's not what she said, Lanny.

She said she heard a noise that she did not recognize as a gunshot. She
only realized they were being attacked, after she looked back and saw
JFK in distress, which happened at about 259. This is from her HSCA
testimony.

"I heard a noise that I didn't think of as a gunshot. I just heard a
disturbing noise and turned to my right from where I thought the noise
had come and looked in the back and saw the President clutch his neck
with both hands."

Any arguments?

> She told us that
> specifically in her Warren Commission testimony,

She said no such thing. This is from her WC testimony;

"I heard a noise, and not being an expert rifleman, I was not aware that
it was a rifle. It was just a frightening noise, and it came from the
right. I turned over my right shoulder and looked back, and saw the
President as he had both hands at his neck."

Lanny do you suppose it would be a good idea to actually read a
witness's testimony before blurting out things that they never said?

> but you choose to believe
> that her statements about when she did and did not look back at President
> Kennedy are more persuasive than her actual examination of the Zapruder
> film and her reactions in it.

This is utter nonsense. She was spot on accurate about when she heard
that first noise/shot, as well as the two shots that followed. In fact,
her testimony, combined with her visual actions provide a rock solid
proof of the shot at 285.

> You speculate a scenario of confusion on

> her part as to when her husband was wounded � a confusion to which she

> has never once indicated she experienced.

It is not "confusion". It was a mistake that you and I in her position
would have made if we had been in her shoes that day. More importantly,
her mistake provides a powerful corroboration for the fact that like her
husband, she never heard the shot at 223.

The single shot that she reported hearing, prior to looking back at JFK
could only have been the same shot that Jackie heard, which as she
(Jackie) testified, provoked her to turn to her right, toward her
husband. She began that turn at 170. Several other witnesses also
confirmed that she turned to her right, in response to that first rather
weak shot.

SA Hickey similarly stated that he began to turn to his right in
response to the first shot her heard. We see him start that turn in 190's.

JFK also reacted, simultaneous with his wife. I explain his reaction as
well as hers, in this brief presentation,

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OXAL27c5kbg&playnext=1&list=PLBB063983D7AF4FDA&feature=results_main

No one heard 223, Lanny - neither John Connally, nor anyone else.

>
> Roy Kellerman knew it as early as Z-frame 269, but no later than frame 279
> where he is fully turned and looking into the backseat at an obviously

> wounded President who he said he heard exclaim just seconds before, �My
> God, I am hit.�

I don't understand your point. Like the others, he heard a single, early
shot and then no others prior to the very end, when he heard a "flurry"
of "at least" two shots.

>
> William Greer never looked into the backseat of the limo until hearing the
> second of what he thought were two consecutive motorcycle backfires,

Lanny, I'm sure you wouldn't just make something like that up. But I
don't remember that part of his testimony. Would you mind posting a
verbatim cite in which he said he heard "two consecutive motorcycle
backfires"?



> �And I glanced over my shoulder. And I saw Governor Connally like he was
> starting to fall. Then I realized there was something wrong.�

Yes, he did exactly that. We can see him do it in the film.

> You can
> prattle away all you want about his super-human head snap at frames
> 291-292 and the slowing down of the limo,

Thank you Lanny. I do appreciate you giving me permission to "prattle"
on, just as Dr. Luis Alvarez did.

But tell me, why do you suppose he spun around that fast and then slowed
the limo??

A bad case of cramps?

And why did he testify to hearing the same pattern that most others did,
of a shot, then a delay and then closely bunched shots at the end?

Mr. SPECTER. To the best of your ability to recollect and estimate, how
much time elapsed from the first noise which you have described as being
similar to the backfire of a motor vehicle until you heard the second noise?

Mr. GREER. It seems a matter of seconds, I really couldn't say. Three or
four seconds.

Mr. SPECTER. How much time elapsed, to the best of your ability to
estimate and recollect, between the time of the second noise and the
time of the third noise?

Mr. GREER. The last two seemed to be just simultaneously, one behind the
other


> but the man�s first look over

> his shoulder was in response to the second of what we unarguably know were
> two unsuppressed gunshots loud enough to be mistaken for motorcycle
> backfires, both of which occurred prior to Z-frame 285.

We have contradictory statements from a witness. Now, we can either try
to resolve that contradiction by choosing the statement that best
supports our own position, or we can go with the statement that matches
most of the other witnesses.

We can also consider whether one or the other statement is likely to
have been in error. Greer turned to the rear twice - once before 285 and
once after. Do you really think it is unlikely that he could have made a
simple error?

>
>
>>
>> And do you believe that we need experts to tell us that in the middle of a
>>
>> shooting, these people were not at the very least, startled by some kind
>>
>> of loud noise?
>>
>>
>

> Of course we don�t need experts to tell us the limo occupants are

> startled well before Z-285. Two women are holding their husbands who have
> just been shot and are gravely injured. Two Secret Service agents have
> just become aware that they have somehow failed in their protection
> duties.

Lanny, is there some reason that you are pretending to not know what
kind of startle reactions we are talking about?

And this from someone who is giving me a lecture on integrity:-)

There were no startle reactions prior to frame 285. If you disagree,
just post the frame numbers in which you see people simultaneously
ducking, spinning around, etc.


>

> But if we are to pinpoint the precise moment that any of these people
> suffer an ADDITIONAL instance of being startled by an auditory stimulus
> ALONE and of sufficient intensity to be suggestive of a gunshot, then we
> need a reliable method of discriminating between the obvious shock and
> horror of their general circumstance from those reactions you allege are
> caused by an auditory stimulus at frame 285.

LOL!! This is pathetic, Lanny.

There comes a point in which I cannot reply honestly without breaking
several of the newsgroup's rules.





Robert Harris

[Sandy McCroskey]

On 3/25/13 4:00 PM, Robert Harris wrote:
> "John, do you agree that Nellie reacted by turning to her husband at
> 291-292 and then pulled him back to her?"
>

> "Bob, there was no shot at 285"
>

Exactly what are you asking John here, Bob?
Anybody can see at what Z-frame Nellie turns toward her husband.
You are asking John if this is a reaction: "Do you agree that Nellie
reacted..."
It's funny, the way you phrase the question makes it sound like you're
asking merely if John can see those actions, as any seeing person could,
and that it simply follows like day after night that this is a
"reaction" and any idiot could see that.

However, lots of people who are not idiots at all do not agree with you
that Nellie's turning was a startle reaction, let alone a reaction to a
shot, which is what you think occurred six frames before 291-292.
You don't mention that last detail in your question, I suppose to give
the impression that your theory rests on what you take to be a
scientific discernment of a startle reaction and not your notion that a
shot must have occurred at 285.

So if you are quoting John verbatim here, in response to that exact
question, he simply cut to the chase.

Since you also quote him, below, as saying, "Bob, nobody was ducking at
285" and "No one was startled at 285, Bob," you cannot accuse him of not
answering that question.

Your other questions, re Kellerman etc., are equally loaded and
deliberately obtuse, pretending not to hear the answers John has already
given, just because you don't like them.

You run the same routine on everybody. We can see you coming from a mile
away. I don't have anything else to say to you.


/sandy

[Lanny]

On Saturday, March 30, 2013 10:36:01 PM UTC-4, Anthony Marsh wrote:
> On 3/30/2013 10:19 AM, Lanny wrote:
>
> > On Friday, March 29, 2013 10:09:57 PM UTC-4, Robert Harris wrote:
>
> >>>>
>
> >>
>
> >>>>
>
> >>
>
> >>>> I am not sure how the science is supposed to work or even if there is a
>
> >>
>
> >>>>
>
> >>
>
> >>>> science involved. So if I see ANY startle reaction by anyone then that
>
> >>
>
> >>>>
>
> >>
>
> >>>> proves that there was a shot then? So therefore there must have been
>
> >>
>
> >>>>
>
> >>
>
> >>>> hundreds of shots. Right?
>
> >>
>
> >>>>
>
> >>
>
> >>> The science is that any sudden noise above 90 db typically evokes an
>
> >>
>
> >>> involuntary neurological reaction with a latency preceding the response of no
>
> >>
>
> >>> more than one third of a second.
>
> >>
>
> >>>
>
> >>
>
> >>> Harris insists that the various movements of the limo occupants within one
>
> >>
>
> >>> third of a second from an auditory event which Dr. Luis Alvarez identified at
>
> >>
>
> >>> frame 285 in his applied theory of "jitter analysis" on the Zapruder film are
>
> >>
>
> >>> startle reactions to a gunshot. The movements alone, however, do not
>
> >>
>
> >>> establish gunfire.
>
> >>
>
> >>
>
> >>
>
> >> Lanny, before we continue, would you mind answering a question that I
>
> >>
>
> >> repeatedly asked you in the jfkhistory forum and once in this newsgroup?
>
> >>
>
> >>
>
> >>
>
> >> Do you believe we can accurately determine that the people in this video
>
> >>
>
> >> were startled by a loud noise, or do we need a panel of experts to decide
>
> >>
>
> >> for us?
>
> >>
>
> >>
>
> >>
>
> >> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DSXjbiDD0rY
>
> >>
>
> >>
>
> >
>
> > Yes, I believe we could probably accurately make that determination.
>

> > What I don’t believe is that it is particularly helpful in making the

>
> > determinations we need to make with regard to when shots were or were not
>
> > fired in the Kennedy assassination.
>
> >
>

> > In marked contrast to Atlanta, the “bomb” went off in Dealey Plaza a

>
> > full three seconds before Z-frame 285, and everyone in that limo knew it
>
> > no later than Z-frame 280.
>
> >
>
>
>
> I understand what you are trying to do (cover up), but I don't
>
> understand what you are trying to say. What 'bomb' went off 3 seconds
>
> before Z-285?
>
> 3 seconds is 55 frames. 55 frames earlier than Z-285 is frame 230.
>
> So you SEE a shot at Z-230? Then you can't be a WC defender.
>
>
>
> What book on physiology tells you that people are not startled by a loud
>
> noise until 3 seconds later? What experiments have you done to show that
>
> people consciously wait 3 seconds before being startled by a loud noise?
>
> Have you used a loud air horn like the ones that fans use at a football
>
> game to startle someone? How many seconds do they wait to be startled?
>

For God's sakes Marsh, have you never heard of a metaphor??? Harris is
running around here screaming about the stupid "startle reactions" of
people at the bombing at the Atlanta Olympics, and I was simply making the
point that the "bomb" <<<(metaphor) in Dallas had "gone off" <<< (another
metaphor) as soon as the assassin(s) started shooting, and that once THAT
happened NO ONE (Harris most particularly) could say for certain that any
VISIBLE startle reaction was due to a loud noise/gunshot auditory stimulus
vs. the visible horror having the President and the Governor of Texas
slaughtered in broad daylight.

Okay?

>
>
>
> > JFK and Governor Connally knew it as soon as they were wounded in the
>

> > range of Z-frames 222 – 230. Perhaps you disagree.

>
> >
>
>
>
> Oh, so how you have a range of possible frames? Talk about back
>
> pedalling. Why limit it 222? The WC said it could have been anywhere
>
> from 210 to 225. So did Bugliosi. If you really want to be a WC defender
>
> then you should stick with their 210 to 225.
>
> I'd like to see you diagram and explain your SBT at frame 230.
>
> Can you explain how the bullet exiting JFK's throat goes through his
>
> hands up in front of his throat to then hit Connally? Do you ever think
>
> before you type? No, I didn't think so.
>
> Why would JFK throw his hands up in front of his throat before he was hit?
>
> Do you agree with Zapruder that he was just joking?
>

What is wrong with you? JFK was first shot AT OR JUST BEFORE he emerged
from the Stemmons Freeway sign. I have seen several versions of the
Zapruder film on YouTube whose frame counters are "off" by a frame or two.
I am simply trying to take that into account AND anyone else who might
believe Connally was hit by a separate shot. I tend not to believe JFK
was hit at frame 210 because that would mean he waited more than half a
second to display the Thornburn reflex (or whatever you believe he was
doing with his hands).

The idea that he was first shot at frame 225 seems too long to me. He was
already reacting to the shot by then. On second thought, to hell with it.

Why don't YOU just tell me when he was first shot. It will save us a lot
of time.

>
>
>
> > Nellie Connally knew it no later than Z-frame 234. She told us that
>
> > specifically in her Warren Commission testimony, but you choose to believe
>
> > that her statements about when she did and did not look back at President
>
> > Kennedy are more persuasive than her actual examination of the Zapruder
>
> > film and her reactions in it. You speculate a scenario of confusion on
>

> > her part as to when her husband was wounded – a confusion to which she

>
> > has never once indicated she experienced.
>
> >
>
>
>
> Harris does not have anyone it at Z-285.
>
>
>
> > Roy Kellerman knew it as early as Z-frame 269, but no later than frame 279
>
> > where he is fully turned and looking into the backseat at an obviously
>

> > wounded President who he said he heard exclaim just seconds before, “My
>
> > God, I am hit.”
>
> >
>
>
>

> JFK could not have said anything with a torn trachea. Kellerman was
>
> hallucinating. A good trait for a SS agent.
>

I-am-simply-reminding-Bob-Harris --of--- Kellerman's --- testimony
---of---- noises --- before --- frame 285.

>
>
> > William Greer never looked into the backseat of the limo until hearing the
>
> > second of what he thought were two consecutive motorcycle backfires,
>

> > “And I glanced over my shoulder. And I saw Governor Connally like he was
>
> > starting to fall. Then I realized there was something wrong.” You can

>
> > prattle away all you want about his super-human head snap at frames
>

> > 291-292 and the slowing down of the limo, but the man’s first look over

>
> > his shoulder was in response to the second of what we unarguably know were
>
> > two unsuppressed gunshots loud enough to be mistaken for motorcycle
>
> > backfires, both of which occurred prior to Z-frame 285.
>
> >
>
>
>
> Did Greer specify any particular frames? Why didn't he turn to look
>
> until after Z-300? If it's a startle reaction why not at Z-240?
>

Due to the top of the windshield, I cannot see Greer's face until frame
280. At that time, he is already looking into the backseat of the car.
He may have looked long before then. I only know that he is looking
backwards prior to frame 285 and as a result of TWO loud noises he mistook
for motorcycle backfires. ERGO, contrary to Harris' constant rant, there
were sufficiently loud noises prior to frame 285 which not only could have
been but almost CERTAINLY WERE rifle shots.

I am simply refuting the nonsense that "NO ONE HEARD" the shot that first
wounded President Kennedy.

Please don't argue with ME when I am arguing with someone else if you
can't keep up with the argument he and I are having!!

> >
>
> >>
>
> >> And do you believe that we need experts to tell us that in the middle of a
>
> >>
>
> >> shooting, these people were not at the very least, startled by some kind
>
> >>
>
> >> of loud noise?
>
> >>
>
> >>
>
> >
>

> > Of course we don’t need experts to tell us the limo occupants are

>
> > startled well before Z-285. Two women are holding their husbands who have
>
> > just been shot and are gravely injured. Two Secret Service agents have
>
> > just become aware that they have somehow failed in their protection
>
> > duties.
>
>
>
> As if those were the only shots.
>
> Take a look at the Altgens photo which is equal approximately to Z-255.
>
> THREE SS agents in the followup car are looking backwards toward the TSBD.
>
>

Yes, but unless their testimony is specific about the loudness of what
they heard, Harris will simply argue that they heard the bullet which hit
the pavement and were not actually startled by a muzzle blast, blah, blah
& blah.

> >
>
> > But if we are to pinpoint the precise moment that any of these people
>
> > suffer an ADDITIONAL instance of being startled by an auditory stimulus
>
> > ALONE and of sufficient intensity to be suggestive of a gunshot, then we
>
> > need a reliable method of discriminating between the obvious shock and
>
> > horror of their general circumstance from those reactions you allege are
>
> > caused by an auditory stimulus at frame 285.
>
> >
>

> > And you don’t have a methodology or evidence that would allow us to do

> > “startle reactions” in the same manner you’ve suggested that I did.

[Lanny]

No. Like I said before, I come neither to praise Alvarez OR to bury him -- but that was one foot in a pretty deep hole.

[Lanny]

On Saturday, March 30, 2013 10:43:34 PM UTC-4, Robert Harris wrote:
> Lanny wrote:
>
> > On Friday, March 29, 2013 10:09:57 PM UTC-4, Robert Harris wrote:
>
> >>>>
>
> >>
>
> >>>>
>
> >>
>
> >>>> I am not sure how the science is supposed to work or even if there is a
>
> >>
>
> >>>>
>
> >>
>
> >>>> science involved. So if I see ANY startle reaction by anyone then that
>
> >>
>
> >>>>
>
> >>
>
> >>>> proves that there was a shot then? So therefore there must have been
>
> >>
>
> >>>>
>
> >>
>
> >>>> hundreds of shots. Right?
>
> >>
>
> >>>>
>
> >>
>
> >>> The science is that any sudden noise above 90 db typically evokes an
>
> >>
>
> >>> involuntary neurological reaction with a latency preceding the response of no
>
> >>
>
> >>> more than one third of a second.
>
> >>
>
> >>>
>
> >>
>
> >>> Harris insists that the various movements of the limo occupants within one
>
> >>
>
> >>> third of a second from an auditory event which Dr. Luis Alvarez identified at
>
> >>
>
> >>> frame 285 in his applied theory of "jitter analysis" on the Zapruder film are
>
> >>
>
> >>> startle reactions to a gunshot. The movements alone, however, do not
>
> >>
>
> >>> establish gunfire.
>
> >>
>
> >>
>
> >>
>
> >> Lanny, before we continue, would you mind answering a question that I
>
> >>
>
> >> repeatedly asked you in the jfkhistory forum and once in this newsgroup?
>
> >>
>
> >>
>
> >>
>
> >> Do you believe we can accurately determine that the people in this video
>
> >>
>
> >> were startled by a loud noise, or do we need a panel of experts to decide
>
> >>
>
> >> for us?
>
> >>
>
> >>
>
> >>
>
> >> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DSXjbiDD0rY
>
> >>
>
> >>
>
> >
>
> > Yes, I believe we could probably accurately make that determination.
>
>
>
> Thank you Lanny. And it only took five tries to get a reply:-)
>
>
>
>
>

> > What I don’t believe is that it is particularly helpful in making the

>
> > determinations we need to make with regard to when shots were or were not
>
> > fired in the Kennedy assassination.
>
> >
>

> > In marked contrast to Atlanta, the “bomb” went off in Dealey Plaza a

>
> > full three seconds before Z-frame 285, and everyone in that limo knew it
>
> > no later than Z-frame 280.
>
>
>
> A "bomb"??? The witnesses only heard one early noise, Lanny. Are you
>
> suggesting that there was only one shot fired, prior to 285?
>
>
>
> And if so, do you believe that was a shot at 223, or prior to that?
>

Some witnesses heard one shot, others heard two. I'm sure you could find
some that heard nothing and some that heard 10, based on whatever you
wanted to "prove."

>
> >
>
> > JFK and Governor Connally knew it as soon as they were wounded in the
>

> > range of Z-frames 222 – 230. Perhaps you disagree.

>
>
>
> LOL!! I suspect they knew that they got shot. Of course, I don't have
>
> scientific confirmation of that fact, so I guess we'll just never know!
>
>
>
>
>
> >
>
> > Nellie Connally knew it no later than Z-frame 234.
>
>
>
> That's not what she said, Lanny.
>
>
>
> She said she heard a noise that she did not recognize as a gunshot. She
>
> only realized they were being attacked, after she looked back and saw
>
> JFK in distress, which happened at about 259. This is from her HSCA
>
> testimony.
>
>
>
> "I heard a noise that I didn't think of as a gunshot. I just heard a
>
> disturbing noise and turned to my right from where I thought the noise
>
> had come and looked in the back and saw the President clutch his neck
>
> with both hands."
>
>
>
> Any arguments?
>
>

Plenty. I've made most of them in this thread already.

>
>
>
>
>
> > She told us that
>
> > specifically in her Warren Commission testimony,
>
>
>
> She said no such thing. This is from her WC testimony;
>
>
>
> "I heard a noise, and not being an expert rifleman, I was not aware that
>
> it was a rifle. It was just a frightening noise, and it came from the
>
> right. I turned over my right shoulder and looked back, and saw the
>
> President as he had both hands at his neck."
>
>
>
> Lanny do you suppose it would be a good idea to actually read a
>
> witness's testimony before blurting out things that they never said?
>

Why? You don't seem to mind doing it.

>
>
>
>
> > but you choose to believe
>
> > that her statements about when she did and did not look back at President
>
> > Kennedy are more persuasive than her actual examination of the Zapruder
>
> > film and her reactions in it.
>
>
>
> This is utter nonsense. She was spot on accurate about when she heard
>
> that first noise/shot, as well as the two shots that followed. In fact,
>
> her testimony, combined with her visual actions provide a rock solid
>
> proof of the shot at 285.
>
>
>
>
>
> > You speculate a scenario of confusion on
>

> > her part as to when her husband was wounded – a confusion to which she

>
> > has never once indicated she experienced.
>
>
>
> It is not "confusion". It was a mistake that you and I in her position
>
> would have made if we had been in her shoes that day. More importantly,
>
> her mistake provides a powerful corroboration for the fact that like her
>
> husband, she never heard the shot at 223.
>
>
>
> The single shot that she reported hearing, prior to looking back at JFK
>
> could only have been the same shot that Jackie heard, which as she
>
> (Jackie) testified, provoked her to turn to her right, toward her
>
> husband. She began that turn at 170. Several other witnesses also
>
> confirmed that she turned to her right, in response to that first rather
>
> weak shot.
>
>
>
> SA Hickey similarly stated that he began to turn to his right in
>
> response to the first shot her heard. We see him start that turn in 190's.
>
>
>
> JFK also reacted, simultaneous with his wife. I explain his reaction as
>
> well as hers, in this brief presentation,
>
>
>
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OXAL27c5kbg&playnext=1&list=PLBB063983D7AF4FDA&feature=results_main
>
>
>
> No one heard 223, Lanny - neither John Connally, nor anyone else.
>
>
>
>
>
> >
>
> > Roy Kellerman knew it as early as Z-frame 269, but no later than frame 279
>
> > where he is fully turned and looking into the backseat at an obviously
>

> > wounded President who he said he heard exclaim just seconds before, “My
>
> > God, I am hit.”
>
>
>

> I don't understand your point. Like the others, he heard a single, early
>
> shot and then no others prior to the very end, when he heard a "flurry"
>
> of "at least" two shots.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> >
>
> > William Greer never looked into the backseat of the limo until hearing the
>
> > second of what he thought were two consecutive motorcycle backfires,
>
>
>
> Lanny, I'm sure you wouldn't just make something like that up. But I
>
> don't remember that part of his testimony. Would you mind posting a
>
> verbatim cite in which he said he heard "two consecutive motorcycle
>
> backfires"?
>
>

Mr. SPECTER. Now, would you tell us just what occurred as you were
proceeding down Elm Street at that time?

Mr. GREER. Well, when we were going down Elm Street, I heard a noise that
I thought was a backfire of one of the motorcycle policemen. And I
didn't--it did not affect me like anything else. I just thought that it is
what it was. We had had so many motorcycles around us. So I heard this
noise. And I thought that is what it was. And then I heard it again. And I

glanced over my shoulder. And I saw Governor Connally like he was starting

to fall. Then I realized there was something wrong. I tramped on the
accelerator, and at the same time Mr. Kellerman said to me, "Get out of
here fast." And I cannot remember even the other shots or noises that was.
I cannot quite remember any more. I did not see anything happen behind me
any more, because I was occupied with getting away.



This is an awful lot of text for you to get through, Bob. Let me help you.

"So I heard this noise" (first noise) "And then I heard it again" (second
noise) "And I glanced over my shoulder" (FIRST glance over the shoulder
in response to the second noise, all three of which -- two loud noises and
his glance -- occurred BEFORE frame 285. We know this because we see
Greer looking into the backseat at frame 280.)

Okay, your turn to tell me he didn't say any of this.

>
>
>
>
>
> > “And I glanced over my shoulder. And I saw Governor Connally like he was
>
> > starting to fall. Then I realized there was something wrong.”

>
>
>
> Yes, he did exactly that. We can see him do it in the film.
>
>
>
> > You can
>
> > prattle away all you want about his super-human head snap at frames
>
> > 291-292 and the slowing down of the limo,
>
>
>
> Thank you Lanny. I do appreciate you giving me permission to "prattle"
>
> on, just as Dr. Luis Alvarez did.
>
>
>
> But tell me, why do you suppose he spun around that fast and then slowed
>
> the limo??
>
>
>
> A bad case of cramps?
>
>
>
> And why did he testify to hearing the same pattern that most others did,
>
> of a shot, then a delay and then closely bunched shots at the end?
>
>
>
> Mr. SPECTER. To the best of your ability to recollect and estimate, how
>
> much time elapsed from the first noise which you have described as being
>
> similar to the backfire of a motor vehicle until you heard the second noise?
>
>
>
> Mr. GREER. It seems a matter of seconds, I really couldn't say. Three or
>
> four seconds.
>
>
>
> Mr. SPECTER. How much time elapsed, to the best of your ability to
>
> estimate and recollect, between the time of the second noise and the
>
> time of the third noise?
>
>
>
> Mr. GREER. The last two seemed to be just simultaneously, one behind the
>
> other
>
>
>
>
>

> > but the man’s first look over

>
> > his shoulder was in response to the second of what we unarguably know were
>
> > two unsuppressed gunshots loud enough to be mistaken for motorcycle
>
> > backfires, both of which occurred prior to Z-frame 285.
>
>
>
> We have contradictory statements from a witness. Now, we can either try
>
> to resolve that contradiction by choosing the statement that best
>
> supports our own position, or we can go with the statement that matches
>
> most of the other witnesses.
>
>
>
> We can also consider whether one or the other statement is likely to
>
> have been in error. Greer turned to the rear twice - once before 285 and
>
> once after. Do you really think it is unlikely that he could have made a
>
> simple error?
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >>
>
> >> And do you believe that we need experts to tell us that in the middle of a
>
> >>
>
> >> shooting, these people were not at the very least, startled by some kind
>
> >>
>
> >> of loud noise?
>
> >>
>
> >>
>
> >
>

> > Of course we don’t need experts to tell us the limo occupants are

>
> > startled well before Z-285. Two women are holding their husbands who have
>
> > just been shot and are gravely injured. Two Secret Service agents have
>
> > just become aware that they have somehow failed in their protection
>
> > duties.
>
>
>
> Lanny, is there some reason that you are pretending to not know what
>
> kind of startle reactions we are talking about?
>
>
>
> And this from someone who is giving me a lecture on integrity:-)
>
>
>
> There were no startle reactions prior to frame 285. If you disagree,
>
> just post the frame numbers in which you see people simultaneously
>
> ducking, spinning around, etc.
>
>
>
>
>
> >
>
> > But if we are to pinpoint the precise moment that any of these people
>
> > suffer an ADDITIONAL instance of being startled by an auditory stimulus
>
> > ALONE and of sufficient intensity to be suggestive of a gunshot, then we
>
> > need a reliable method of discriminating between the obvious shock and
>
> > horror of their general circumstance from those reactions you allege are
>
> > caused by an auditory stimulus at frame 285.
>
>
>
> LOL!! This is pathetic, Lanny.
>
>
>
> There comes a point in which I cannot reply honestly without breaking
>
> several of the newsgroup's rules.
>

Maybe you'd like to step outside to alt.conspiracy.jfk.

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

On Saturday, March 30, 2013 10:43:34 PM UTC-4, Robert Harris wrote:
> Lanny wrote:
>
> > On Friday, March 29, 2013 10:09:57 PM UTC-4, Robert Harris wrote:
>
> >>>>
>
> >>
>
> >>>>
>
> >>
>
> >>>> I am not sure how the science is supposed to work or even if there is a
>
> >>
>
> >>>>
>
> >>
>
> >>>> science involved. So if I see ANY startle reaction by anyone then that
>
> >>
>
> >>>>
>
> >>
>
> >>>> proves that there was a shot then? So therefore there must have been
>
> >>
>
> >>>>
>
> >>
>
> >>>> hundreds of shots. Right?
>
> >>
>
> >>>>
>
> >>
>
> >>> The science is that any sudden noise above 90 db typically evokes an
>
> >>
>
> >>> involuntary neurological reaction with a latency preceding the response of no
>
> >>
>
> >>> more than one third of a second.
>
> >>
>
> >>>
>
> >>
>
> >>> Harris insists that the various movements of the limo occupants within one
>
> >>
>
> >>> third of a second from an auditory event which Dr. Luis Alvarez identified at
>
> >>
>
> >>> frame 285 in his applied theory of "jitter analysis" on the Zapruder film are
>
> >>
>
> >>> startle reactions to a gunshot. The movements alone, however, do not
>
> >>
>
> >>> establish gunfire.
>
> >>
>
> >>
>
> >>
>
> >> Lanny, before we continue, would you mind answering a question that I
>
> >>
>
> >> repeatedly asked you in the jfkhistory forum and once in this newsgroup?
>
> >>
>
> >>
>
> >>
>
> >> Do you believe we can accurately determine that the people in this video
>
> >>
>
> >> were startled by a loud noise, or do we need a panel of experts to decide
>
> >>
>
> >> for us?
>
> >>
>
> >>
>
> >>
>
> >> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DSXjbiDD0rY
>
> >>
>
> >>
>
> >
>
> > Yes, I believe we could probably accurately make that determination.
>
>
>
> Thank you Lanny. And it only took five tries to get a reply:-)
>
>
>
>
>

> > What I don’t believe is that it is particularly helpful in making the

>
> > determinations we need to make with regard to when shots were or were not
>
> > fired in the Kennedy assassination.
>
> >
>

> > In marked contrast to Atlanta, the “bomb” went off in Dealey Plaza a

>
> > full three seconds before Z-frame 285, and everyone in that limo knew it
>
> > no later than Z-frame 280.
>
>
>
> A "bomb"??? The witnesses only heard one early noise, Lanny. Are you
>
> suggesting that there was only one shot fired, prior to 285?
>
>
>
> And if so, do you believe that was a shot at 223, or prior to that?
>
>
>
> >
>
> > JFK and Governor Connally knew it as soon as they were wounded in the
>

> > range of Z-frames 222 – 230. Perhaps you disagree.

> > her part as to when her husband was wounded – a confusion to which she

>
> > has never once indicated she experienced.
>
>
>
> It is not "confusion". It was a mistake that you and I in her position
>
> would have made if we had been in her shoes that day. More importantly,
>
> her mistake provides a powerful corroboration for the fact that like her
>
> husband, she never heard the shot at 223.
>
>
>
> The single shot that she reported hearing, prior to looking back at JFK
>
> could only have been the same shot that Jackie heard, which as she
>
> (Jackie) testified, provoked her to turn to her right, toward her
>
> husband. She began that turn at 170. Several other witnesses also
>
> confirmed that she turned to her right, in response to that first rather
>
> weak shot.
>
>
>
> SA Hickey similarly stated that he began to turn to his right in
>
> response to the first shot her heard. We see him start that turn in 190's.
>
>
>
> JFK also reacted, simultaneous with his wife. I explain his reaction as
>
> well as hers, in this brief presentation,
>
>
>
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OXAL27c5kbg&playnext=1&list=PLBB063983D7AF4FDA&feature=results_main
>
>
>
> No one heard 223, Lanny - neither John Connally, nor anyone else.
>
>
>
>
>
> >
>
> > Roy Kellerman knew it as early as Z-frame 269, but no later than frame 279
>
> > where he is fully turned and looking into the backseat at an obviously
>

> > wounded President who he said he heard exclaim just seconds before, “My
>
> > God, I am hit.”
>
>
>

> I don't understand your point. Like the others, he heard a single, early
>
> shot and then no others prior to the very end, when he heard a "flurry"
>
> of "at least" two shots.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> >
>
> > William Greer never looked into the backseat of the limo until hearing the
>
> > second of what he thought were two consecutive motorcycle backfires,
>
>
>
> Lanny, I'm sure you wouldn't just make something like that up. But I
>
> don't remember that part of his testimony. Would you mind posting a
>
> verbatim cite in which he said he heard "two consecutive motorcycle
>
> backfires"?
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

> > “And I glanced over my shoulder. And I saw Governor Connally like he was
>
> > starting to fall. Then I realized there was something wrong.”

>
>
>
> Yes, he did exactly that. We can see him do it in the film.
>
>
>
> > You can
>
> > prattle away all you want about his super-human head snap at frames
>
> > 291-292 and the slowing down of the limo,
>
>
>
> Thank you Lanny. I do appreciate you giving me permission to "prattle"
>
> on, just as Dr. Luis Alvarez did.
>
>
>
> But tell me, why do you suppose he spun around that fast and then slowed
>
> the limo??
>
>
>
> A bad case of cramps?
>
>
>
> And why did he testify to hearing the same pattern that most others did,
>
> of a shot, then a delay and then closely bunched shots at the end?
>
>
>
> Mr. SPECTER. To the best of your ability to recollect and estimate, how
>
> much time elapsed from the first noise which you have described as being
>
> similar to the backfire of a motor vehicle until you heard the second noise?
>
>
>
> Mr. GREER. It seems a matter of seconds, I really couldn't say. Three or
>
> four seconds.
>
>
>
> Mr. SPECTER. How much time elapsed, to the best of your ability to
>
> estimate and recollect, between the time of the second noise and the
>
> time of the third noise?
>
>
>
> Mr. GREER. The last two seemed to be just simultaneously, one behind the
>
> other
>
>
>
>
>

> > but the man’s first look over

>
> > his shoulder was in response to the second of what we unarguably know were
>
> > two unsuppressed gunshots loud enough to be mistaken for motorcycle
>
> > backfires, both of which occurred prior to Z-frame 285.
>
>
>
> We have contradictory statements from a witness. Now, we can either try
>
> to resolve that contradiction by choosing the statement that best
>
> supports our own position, or we can go with the statement that matches
>
> most of the other witnesses.
>
>
>
> We can also consider whether one or the other statement is likely to
>
> have been in error. Greer turned to the rear twice - once before 285 and
>
> once after. Do you really think it is unlikely that he could have made a
>
> simple error?
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >>
>
> >> And do you believe that we need experts to tell us that in the middle of a
>
> >>
>
> >> shooting, these people were not at the very least, startled by some kind
>
> >>
>
> >> of loud noise?
>
> >>
>
> >>
>
> >
>

> > Of course we don’t need experts to tell us the limo occupants are

[Robert Harris]

Sandy McCroskey wrote:
> On 3/25/13 4:00 PM, Robert Harris wrote:
>> "John, do you agree that Nellie reacted by turning to her husband at
>> 291-292 and then pulled him back to her?"
>>
>
>> "Bob, there was no shot at 285"
>>
>
>
> Exactly what are you asking John here, Bob?

I asked John, "do you agree that Nellie reacted by turning to her

husband at 291-292 and then pulled him back to her?"

I really thought that was pretty clear.

> Anybody can see at what Z-frame Nellie turns toward her husband.

Well, apparently John can't, otherwise he would have answered, don't you
think?

> You are asking John if this is a reaction: "Do you agree that Nellie
> reacted..."
> It's funny, the way you phrase the question makes it sound like you're
> asking merely if John can see those actions, as any seeing person could,
> and that it simply follows like day after night that this is a
> "reaction" and any idiot could see that.

Sandy, you seem to think that if you read a lot of extra stuff into my
statement, you can then attack your own fabrication:-)

Nellie said that it was when she heard that shot, that she turned to her
husband and pulled him back to her. She said she never again looked back
at JFK.

..john of course, refuses to answer because he will then be forced to
deal with the fact that she did indeed, hear a shot then, and that her
reaction occurred within the same 1/6th of a second of the reaction of
every other surviving passenger.

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

>
> However, lots of people who are not idiots at all do not agree with you
> that Nellie's turning was a startle reaction, let alone a reaction to a
> shot, which is what you think occurred six frames before 291-292.

This is not about what I think or other people who are not idiots think.
It's about what Mrs. Connally heard. She was there and we were not.

Now you might accuse her of just being confused and having a false
memory about that shot, except that we can see her react to it in the
film - exactly as she testified and in perfect unison with four others
who were riding with her.

> You don't mention that last detail in your question

What "detail"? That some people do not agree with me?? I think he
already knew that, although I am not at all convinced that he is among
them:-)

> I suppose to give
> the impression that your theory rests on what you take to be a
> scientific discernment of a startle reaction and not your notion that a
> shot must have occurred at 285.

Sheesh, what a sleazeball I must be!! But then, these terrible motives
have nothing to do with anything I ever did or said, do they?

They are purely the fabrications of someone else:-)

>
> So if you are quoting John verbatim here, in response to that exact
> question, he simply cut to the chase.

Bullshit!!

The "chase" is the question. And he evades the question because he knows
it will sink the LN ship.

His evasions began in 1995, when he said he couldn't look at the 285
reactions because the projector at Marquette was broken. Later, he
refused to let me send him the first digital copy of the Zapruder film I
had. These BTW, were back in the days when we partnered to operate and
moderate a newsgroup and we were very much on speaking terms.






Robert Harris

[Sandy McCroskey]

On 3/31/13 6:01 PM, Robert Harris wrote:
> Sandy McCroskey wrote:
>> On 3/25/13 4:00 PM, Robert Harris wrote:
>>> "John, do you agree that Nellie reacted by turning to her husband at
>>> 291-292 and then pulled him back to her?"
>>>
>>
>>> "Bob, there was no shot at 285"
>>>
>>
>>
>> Exactly what are you asking John here, Bob?
>
>
> I asked John, "do you agree that Nellie reacted by turning to her
> husband at 291-292 and then pulled him back to her?"
>
> I really thought that was pretty clear.
>
>
>> Anybody can see at what Z-frame Nellie turns toward her husband.
>
> Well, apparently John can't, otherwise he would have answered, don't you
> think?
>

You just proved my point (which you obviously didn't understand).
You didn't ask him if John could see that. Anyone with eyes can.
You asked me if he agreed "that Nellie reacted."

>
>> You are asking John if this is a reaction: "Do you agree that Nellie
>> reacted..."
>> It's funny, the way you phrase the question makes it sound like you're
>> asking merely if John can see those actions, as any seeing person could,
>> and that it simply follows like day after night that this is a
>> "reaction" and any idiot could see that.
>
> Sandy, you seem to think that if you read a lot of extra stuff into my
> statement, you can then attack your own fabrication:-)
>

"Extra stuff"? "Fabrication"?

If you were asking if John could see Nellie's motions, you might as well
be asking if he was blind. But if that's all you meant to say, you should
reword the question. I can't imagine why anyone would ask that, though.
I'm sure if John were blind it would be mentioned somewhere on the web. He
doesn't appear in photos wearing dark glasses.

What you actually asked, and the only thing in your sentence that is an
actual sentence, as well as what your sentence grammatically denotes that
you are asking, was whether John agreed "that Nellie reacted"--to what,
you don't say. But we know you think she was reacting to the sound of a
shot.

> Nellie said that it was when she heard that shot, that she turned to her
> husband and pulled him back to her. She said she never again looked back
> at JFK.
>
> ..john of course, refuses to answer because he will then be forced to
> deal with the fact that she did indeed, hear a shot then, and that her
> reaction occurred within the same 1/6th of a second of the reaction of
> every other surviving passenger.
>

"Refuse to answer"...?!

What incredible nonsense. As I pointed out.

I can't imagine what more of answer you could want.

John said that no, she wasn't reacting; no, nobody ducked (so that
includes Kellerman); no, nobody "reacted" within the same 1/6h of a a
second. John doesn't agree with you. He sees what you see. His
*interpretation* is different. Lots of people don't agree with your
*interpretation.* Get used to it.

> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7GH5pGQy6yI
>
>
>>
>> However, lots of people who are not idiots at all do not agree with you
>> that Nellie's turning was a startle reaction, let alone a reaction to a
>> shot, which is what you think occurred six frames before 291-292.
>
> This is not about what I think or other people who are not idiots think.
> It's about what Mrs. Connally heard. She was there and we were not.
>
> Now you might accuse her of just being confused and having a false
> memory about that shot, except that we can see her react to it in the
> film - exactly as she testified and in perfect unison with four others
> who were riding with her.
>
>> You don't mention that last detail in your question
>
> What "detail"? That some people do not agree with me?? I think he
> already knew that, although I am not at all convinced that he is among
> them:-)
>

No, the "detail" of what you think Nellie was reacting to, since you
interpret her actions as a "reaction" to something very specific five
frames earlier. You asked only if John agreed Nellie was "reacting" and
left out what you think she is reacting to.

It may seem odd that you asked if John agreed Nellie was "reacting"
without stating what she was reacting to, but that's how you phrased
your question.

>
>> I suppose to give
>> the impression that your theory rests on what you take to be a
>> scientific discernment of a startle reaction and not your notion that a
>> shot must have occurred at 285.
>
> Sheesh, what a sleazeball I must be!! But then, these terrible motives
> have nothing to do with anything I ever did or said, do they?
>
> They are purely the fabrications of someone else:-)
>

It's very funny that you don't even realize what you were saying and I
have to point it out to you.

>>
>> So if you are quoting John verbatim here, in response to that exact
>> question, he simply cut to the chase.
>
> Bullshit!!
>
> The "chase" is the question. And he evades the question because he knows
> it will sink the LN ship.
>

If you meant to ask merely if John could see Nellie's actions, that
would be merely a rhetorical question, as anyone who is not blind can
see them.

John answered your real question.

He told you he didn't think Nellie was "reacting."
And he answered that question more than once, phrasing it different ways
that come to the same thing, but you still don't acknowledge it.

This will my last post to you, Bob, at least for a long while. It will
be easy for me not to respond to the inevitable barrage of invective you
will throw my way, if experience is any guide... I'm getting ready to go
to Europe Wednesday, and I'll be very busy for a couple weeks. I've
never seen Rome!

/Sandy

[Sandy McCroskey]

On 3/31/13 10:36 PM, Sandy McCroskey wrote:
> On 3/31/13 6:01 PM, Robert Harris wrote:
>> Sandy McCroskey wrote:
>>> On 3/25/13 4:00 PM, Robert Harris wrote:
>>>> "John, do you agree that Nellie reacted by turning to her husband at
>>>> 291-292 and then pulled him back to her?"
>>>>
>>>
>>>> "Bob, there was no shot at 285"
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Exactly what are you asking John here, Bob?
>>
>>
>> I asked John, "do you agree that Nellie reacted by turning to her
>> husband at 291-292 and then pulled him back to her?"
>>
>> I really thought that was pretty clear.
>>
>>
>>> Anybody can see at what Z-frame Nellie turns toward her husband.
>>
>> Well, apparently John can't, otherwise he would have answered, don't you
>> think?
>>
>
> You just proved my point (which you obviously didn't understand).
> You didn't ask him if John could see that. Anyone with eyes can.
> You asked me if he agreed "that Nellie reacted."
>

I meant (of course) you asked HIM if he agreed "that Nellie reacted."

/sm

[Robert Harris]

Lanny wrote:
> On Saturday, March 30, 2013 10:43:34 PM UTC-4, Robert Harris wrote:
>> Lanny wrote:
>>
>>> On Friday, March 29, 2013 10:09:57 PM UTC-4, Robert Harris wrote:
>>
>>>>>>
>>
>>>>
>>
>>>>>>
>>
>>>>
>>
>>>>>> I am not sure how the science is supposed to work or even if there is a
>>
>>>>
>>
>>>>>>
>>
>>>>
>>
>>>>>> science involved. So if I see ANY startle reaction by anyone then that
>>
>>>>
>>
>>>>>>
>>
>>>>
>>
>>>>>> proves that there was a shot then? So therefore there must have been
>>
>>>>
>>
>>>>>>
>>
>>>>
>>
>>>>>> hundreds of shots. Right?
>>
>>>>
>>
>>>>>>
>>
>>>>
>>
>>>>> The science is that any sudden noise above 90 db typically evokes an
>>
>>>>
>>
>>>>> involuntary neurological reaction with a latency preceding the response of no
>>
>>>>
>>
>>>>> more than one third of a second.
>>
>>>>
>>
>>>>>
>>
>>>>
>>
>>>>> Harris insists that the various movements of the limo occupants within one
>>
>>>>
>>
>>>>> third of a second from an auditory event which Dr. Luis Alvarez identified at
>>
>>>>
>>
>>>>> frame 285 in his applied theory of "jitter analysis" on the Zapruder film are
>>
>>>>
>>
>>>>> startle reactions to a gunshot. The movements alone, however, do not
>>
>>>>
>>
>>>>> establish gunfire.
>>
>>>>
>>
>>>>
>>
>>>>
>>
>>>> Lanny, before we continue, would you mind answering a question that I
>>
>>>>
>>
>>>> repeatedly asked you in the jfkhistory forum and once in this newsgroup?
>>
>>>>
>>
>>>>
>>
>>>>
>>
>>>> Do you believe we can accurately determine that the people in this video
>>
>>>>
>>
>>>> were startled by a loud noise, or do we need a panel of experts to decide
>>
>>>>
>>
>>>> for us?
>>
>>>>
>>
>>>>
>>
>>>>
>>
>>>> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DSXjbiDD0rY
>>
>>>>
>>
>>>>
>>
>>>
>>
>>> Yes, I believe we could probably accurately make that determination.
>>
>>
>>
>> Thank you Lanny. And it only took five tries to get a reply:-)
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>

>>> What I don?t believe is that it is particularly helpful in making the

>>
>>> determinations we need to make with regard to when shots were or were not
>>
>>> fired in the Kennedy assassination.
>>
>>>
>>

>>> In marked contrast to Atlanta, the ?bomb? went off in Dealey Plaza a

>>
>>> full three seconds before Z-frame 285, and everyone in that limo knew it
>>
>>> no later than Z-frame 280.
>>
>>
>>
>> A "bomb"??? The witnesses only heard one early noise, Lanny. Are you
>>
>> suggesting that there was only one shot fired, prior to 285?
>>
>>
>>
>> And if so, do you believe that was a shot at 223, or prior to that?
>>
>
> Some witnesses heard one shot, others heard two. I'm sure you could find
> some that heard nothing and some that heard 10, based on whatever you
> wanted to "prove."

May I take that to be another evasion, Lanny?

Are you actually going to claim that it was even possible that there was
only one early shot that day, in the hope that you can out me??

>
>>
>>>
>>
>>> JFK and Governor Connally knew it as soon as they were wounded in the
>>

>>> range of Z-frames 222 ? 230. Perhaps you disagree.

>>
>>
>>
>> LOL!! I suspect they knew that they got shot. Of course, I don't have
>>
>> scientific confirmation of that fact, so I guess we'll just never know!
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>>
>>
>>> Nellie Connally knew it no later than Z-frame 234.
>>
>>
>>
>> That's not what she said, Lanny.
>>
>>
>>
>> She said she heard a noise that she did not recognize as a gunshot. She
>>
>> only realized they were being attacked, after she looked back and saw
>>
>> JFK in distress, which happened at about 259. This is from her HSCA
>>
>> testimony.
>>
>>
>>
>> "I heard a noise that I didn't think of as a gunshot. I just heard a
>>
>> disturbing noise and turned to my right from where I thought the noise
>>
>> had come and looked in the back and saw the President clutch his neck
>>
>> with both hands."
>>
>>
>>
>> Any arguments?
>>
>>
>
> Plenty. I've made most of them in this thread already.

No sir, you made no "arguments" about this, whatsoever, except for your
misrepresentation.

You said that Mrs. Connally knew that JFK and John Connally were wounded,
by frame 234. Not only is that untrue, but she didn't even know that there
had been a gunshot, prior to her looking back at JFK.

And THAT happened at frame 259.

Now, I am not beating you up over this in order to "get Lanny". I am doing
it because it is mind bogglingly important that like most others, she only
heard one "noise", prior to frame 259 which didn't sound like a gunshot.

Of the five people who survived that attack, EVERY ONE OF THEM CONFIRMED
THAT THEY HEARD JUST ONE NOISE PRIOR TO THE VERY END OF THE ATTACK. And
none of them realized that that one noise was a gunshot, except John
Connally.

>
>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>> She told us that
>>
>>> specifically in her Warren Commission testimony,
>>
>>
>>
>> She said no such thing. This is from her WC testimony;
>>
>>
>>
>> "I heard a noise, and not being an expert rifleman, I was not aware that
>>
>> it was a rifle. It was just a frightening noise, and it came from the
>>
>> right. I turned over my right shoulder and looked back, and saw the
>>
>> President as he had both hands at his neck."
>>
>>
>>
>> Lanny do you suppose it would be a good idea to actually read a
>>
>> witness's testimony before blurting out things that they never said?
>>
>
> Why? You don't seem to mind doing it.

Lanny, you are really sounding desperate.

You were wrong again, weren't you?

>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>> but you choose to believe
>>
>>> that her statements about when she did and did not look back at President
>>
>>> Kennedy are more persuasive than her actual examination of the Zapruder
>>
>>> film and her reactions in it.
>>
>>
>>
>> This is utter nonsense. She was spot on accurate about when she heard
>>
>> that first noise/shot, as well as the two shots that followed. In fact,
>>
>> her testimony, combined with her visual actions provide a rock solid
>>
>> proof of the shot at 285.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>> You speculate a scenario of confusion on
>>

>>> her part as to when her husband was wounded ? a confusion to which she

>>
>>> has never once indicated she experienced.
>>
>>
>>
>> It is not "confusion". It was a mistake that you and I in her position
>>
>> would have made if we had been in her shoes that day. More importantly,
>>
>> her mistake provides a powerful corroboration for the fact that like her
>>
>> husband, she never heard the shot at 223.

May I presume Lanny, that your silence is an acknowledgement that I am
correct?

>>
>>
>>
>> The single shot that she reported hearing, prior to looking back at JFK
>>
>> could only have been the same shot that Jackie heard, which as she
>>
>> (Jackie) testified, provoked her to turn to her right, toward her
>>
>> husband. She began that turn at 170. Several other witnesses also
>>
>> confirmed that she turned to her right, in response to that first rather
>>
>> weak shot.

Are you starting to get the picture, Lanny?

It is important, not only that the witnesses only heard one early shot,
but that they heard the shot that was prior to 223, probably circa 160.

That's why John Connally, who was hit by the 223 shot, never heard it.

"It is not conceivable to me that I could have been hit by the first
bullet, and then I felt the blow from something which was obviously a
bullet, which I assumed was a bullet, and I never heard the second shot,
didn't hear it."

So, like most other witnesses, and every other surviving witness in the
limo, JBC only heard ONE early shot.

Lanny, do you suppose that the reason you believe that I lack integrity,
is actually due to your lack of understanding of the case and the witnesses?

You have expressed outrage over my claim that no one heard the 223 shot.
But there is simply no other logical conclusion that one can come to.

>>
>>
>>
>> SA Hickey similarly stated that he began to turn to his right in
>>
>> response to the first shot her heard. We see him start that turn in 190's.

Hickey provides more corroboration.

He heard that single, early shot and then nothing else, prior to the
very end of the attack. He said there was "practically no time element"
between that last two that he heard.

>>
>>
>>
>> JFK also reacted, simultaneous with his wife. I explain his reaction as
>>
>> well as hers, in this brief presentation,
>>
>>
>>
>> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OXAL27c5kbg&playnext=1&list=PLBB063983D7AF4FDA&feature=results_main
>>
>>
>>
>> No one heard 223, Lanny - neither John Connally, nor anyone else.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>>
>>
>>> Roy Kellerman knew it as early as Z-frame 269, but no later than frame 279
>>
>>> where he is fully turned and looking into the backseat at an obviously
>>

>>> wounded President who he said he heard exclaim just seconds before, ?My
>>
>>> God, I am hit.?

>>
>>
>>
>> I don't understand your point. Like the others, he heard a single, early
>>
>> shot and then no others prior to the very end, when he heard a "flurry"
>>
>> of "at least" two shots.

Kellerman is another one. First, a single early shot and then closely
bunched shots at the end, which he said were much different than the
first one.

Why would I do that. You provided a citation that supports your claim,
and I appreciate that.

I'm sorry but I hold no grudge against you, though I suppose I should:-)

I guess it's obvious that our agendas are much different.

>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>> ?And I glanced over my shoulder. And I saw Governor Connally like he was
>>
>>> starting to fall. Then I realized there was something wrong.?

>>
>>
>>
>> Yes, he did exactly that. We can see him do it in the film.
>>
>>
>>
>>> You can
>>
>>> prattle away all you want about his super-human head snap at frames
>>
>>> 291-292 and the slowing down of the limo,
>>
>>
>>
>> Thank you Lanny. I do appreciate you giving me permission to "prattle"
>>
>> on, just as Dr. Luis Alvarez did.
>>
>>
>>
>> But tell me, why do you suppose he spun around that fast and then slowed
>>
>> the limo??
>>
>>
>>
>> A bad case of cramps?

Lanny?

Why do you suppose he spun around that fast and then slowed the limo??

>>
>>
>>
>> And why did he testify to hearing the same pattern that most others did,
>>
>> of a shot, then a delay and then closely bunched shots at the end?
>>
>>
>>
>> Mr. SPECTER. To the best of your ability to recollect and estimate, how
>>
>> much time elapsed from the first noise which you have described as being
>>
>> similar to the backfire of a motor vehicle until you heard the second noise?
>>
>>
>>
>> Mr. GREER. It seems a matter of seconds, I really couldn't say. Three or
>>
>> four seconds.
>>
>>
>>
>> Mr. SPECTER. How much time elapsed, to the best of your ability to
>>
>> estimate and recollect, between the time of the second noise and the
>>
>> time of the third noise?
>>
>>
>>
>> Mr. GREER. The last two seemed to be just simultaneously, one behind the
>>
>> other
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>

>>> but the man?s first look over

>>
>>> his shoulder was in response to the second of what we unarguably know were
>>
>>> two unsuppressed gunshots loud enough to be mistaken for motorcycle
>>
>>> backfires, both of which occurred prior to Z-frame 285.
>>
>>
>>
>> We have contradictory statements from a witness. Now, we can either try
>>
>> to resolve that contradiction by choosing the statement that best
>>
>> supports our own position, or we can go with the statement that matches
>>
>> most of the other witnesses.
>>
>>
>>
>> We can also consider whether one or the other statement is likely to
>>
>> have been in error. Greer turned to the rear twice - once before 285 and
>>
>> once after. Do you really think it is unlikely that he could have made a
>>
>> simple error?

In addition to the fact that his "near simultaneous" statement matched
with most of the other witnesses, there are also those reactions.

It makes sense that he would be panicked by a high powered rifle shot,
Lanny. He did nothing even remotely like that, immediately following 160
or 223.

>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>>
>>
>>>
>>
>>>>
>>
>>>> And do you believe that we need experts to tell us that in the middle of a
>>
>>>>
>>
>>>> shooting, these people were not at the very least, startled by some kind
>>
>>>>
>>
>>>> of loud noise?

Lanny?



>>
>>>>
>>
>>>>
>>
>>>
>>
>>> Of course we don?t need experts to tell us the limo occupants are

>>
>>> startled well before Z-285. Two women are holding their husbands who have
>>
>>> just been shot and are gravely injured. Two Secret Service agents have
>>
>>> just become aware that they have somehow failed in their protection
>>
>>> duties.
>>
>>
>>
>> Lanny, is there some reason that you are pretending to not know what
>>
>> kind of startle reactions we are talking about?
>>
>>
>>
>> And this from someone who is giving me a lecture on integrity:-)
>>
>>
>>
>> There were no startle reactions prior to frame 285. If you disagree,
>>
>> just post the frame numbers in which you see people simultaneously
>>
>> ducking, spinning around, etc.

You made this same ludicrous claim in the JFKHistory forum, Lanny.

And like here, you evaded my request for frame numbers.

Why is that, Lanny?

>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>>
>>
>>> But if we are to pinpoint the precise moment that any of these people
>>
>>> suffer an ADDITIONAL instance of being startled by an auditory stimulus
>>
>>> ALONE and of sufficient intensity to be suggestive of a gunshot, then we
>>
>>> need a reliable method of discriminating between the obvious shock and
>>
>>> horror of their general circumstance from those reactions you allege are
>>
>>> caused by an auditory stimulus at frame 285.
>>
>>
>>
>> LOL!! This is pathetic, Lanny.
>>
>>
>>
>> There comes a point in which I cannot reply honestly without breaking
>>
>> several of the newsgroup's rules.
>>
>
> Maybe you'd like to step outside to alt.conspiracy.jfk.

ROFLMAO!!

My friend, I just proved you wrong on almost every assertion you just
made. What would you do in the nuthouse? Insult my mother??





Robert Harris

[Robert Harris]

Sandy McCroskey wrote:
> On 3/31/13 6:01 PM, Robert Harris wrote:
>> Sandy McCroskey wrote:
>>> On 3/25/13 4:00 PM, Robert Harris wrote:
>>>> "John, do you agree that Nellie reacted by turning to her husband at
>>>> 291-292 and then pulled him back to her?"
>>>>
>>>
>>>> "Bob, there was no shot at 285"
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Exactly what are you asking John here, Bob?
>>
>>
>> I asked John, "do you agree that Nellie reacted by turning to her
>> husband at 291-292 and then pulled him back to her?"
>>
>> I really thought that was pretty clear.
>>
>>
>>> Anybody can see at what Z-frame Nellie turns toward her husband.
>>
>> Well, apparently John can't, otherwise he would have answered, don't you
>> think?
>>
>
> You just proved my point (which you obviously didn't understand).
> You didn't ask him if John could see that. Anyone with eyes can.
> You asked me if he agreed "that Nellie reacted."

Then all he had to do was say he didn't believe she "reacted".. duh.

But the problem he had was, that she herself said that she did that in
reaction to a gunshot.

His other problem is that her reaction began in perfect unison with
reactions by every other surviving person in the limo.

That puts him in a pretty hopeless position:-)

>
>
>>
>>> You are asking John if this is a reaction: "Do you agree that Nellie
>>> reacted..."

Yes, that is true and you didn't even have to say it three times:-)

But .john knows he cannot defend that position.

>>> It's funny, the way you phrase the question makes it sound like you're
>>> asking merely if John can see those actions, as any seeing person could,
>>> and that it simply follows like day after night that this is a
>>> "reaction" and any idiot could see that.
>>
>> Sandy, you seem to think that if you read a lot of extra stuff into my
>> statement, you can then attack your own fabrication:-)
>>
>
> "Extra stuff"? "Fabrication"?
>
> If you were asking if John could see Nellie's motions, you might as well
> be asking if he was blind. But if that's all you meant to say, you
> should reword the question.

No, I asked the question precisely the way I wanted to ask it.

What is really sad is that someone with a Phd. from Harvard has to let
others speak for him.


Robert Harris

[Anthony Marsh]

On 3/31/2013 5:59 PM, Lanny wrote:
> On Saturday, March 30, 2013 10:43:34 PM UTC-4, Robert Harris wrote:
>> Lanny wrote:
>>
>>> On Friday, March 29, 2013 10:09:57 PM UTC-4, Robert Harris wrote:
>>
>>>>>>
>>
>>>>
>>
>>>>>>
>>
>>>>
>>
>>>>>> I am not sure how the science is supposed to work or even if there is a
>>
>>>>
>>
>>>>>>
>>
>>>>
>>
>>>>>> science involved. So if I see ANY startle reaction by anyone then that
>>
>>>>
>>
>>>>>>
>>
>>>>
>>
>>>>>> proves that there was a shot then? So therefore there must have been
>>
>>>>
>>
>>>>>>
>>
>>>>
>>
>>>>>> hundreds of shots. Right?
>>
>>>>
>>
>>>>>>
>>
>>>>
>>
>>>>> The science is that any sudden noise above 90 db typically evokes an
>>
>>>>
>>
>>>>> involuntary neurological reaction with a latency preceding the response of no
>>
>>>>
>>
>>>>> more than one third of a second.
>>
>>>>
>>
>>>>>
>>
>>>>
>>
>>>>> Harris insists that the various movements of the limo occupants within one
>>
>>>>
>>
>>>>> third of a second from an auditory event which Dr. Luis Alvarez identified at
>>
>>>>
>>
>>>>> frame 285 in his applied theory of "jitter analysis" on the Zapruder film are
>>
>>>>
>>
>>>>> startle reactions to a gunshot. The movements alone, however, do not
>>
>>>>
>>
>>>>> establish gunfire.
>>
>>>>
>>
>>>>
>>
>>>>
>>
>>>> Lanny, before we continue, would you mind answering a question that I
>>
>>>>
>>
>>>> repeatedly asked you in the jfkhistory forum and once in this newsgroup?
>>
>>>>
>>
>>>>
>>
>>>>
>>
>>>> Do you believe we can accurately determine that the people in this video
>>
>>>>
>>
>>>> were startled by a loud noise, or do we need a panel of experts to decide
>>
>>>>
>>
>>>> for us?
>>
>>>>
>>
>>>>
>>
>>>>
>>
>>>> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DSXjbiDD0rY
>>
>>>>
>>
>>>>
>>
>>>
>>
>>> Yes, I believe we could probably accurately make that determination.
>>
>>
>>
>> Thank you Lanny. And it only took five tries to get a reply:-)
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>

>>> What I don�t believe is that it is particularly helpful in making the

>>
>>> determinations we need to make with regard to when shots were or were not
>>
>>> fired in the Kennedy assassination.
>>
>>>
>>

>>> In marked contrast to Atlanta, the �bomb� went off in Dealey Plaza a

>>
>>> full three seconds before Z-frame 285, and everyone in that limo knew it
>>
>>> no later than Z-frame 280.
>>
>>
>>
>> A "bomb"??? The witnesses only heard one early noise, Lanny. Are you
>>
>> suggesting that there was only one shot fired, prior to 285?
>>
>>
>>
>> And if so, do you believe that was a shot at 223, or prior to that?
>>
>
> Some witnesses heard one shot, others heard two. I'm sure you could find
> some that heard nothing and some that heard 10, based on whatever you
> wanted to "prove."

Cool. Then list for us the witnesses who heard only one shot or two. And
those who heard none and those who heard 10.

>
>>
>>>
>>
>>> JFK and Governor Connally knew it as soon as they were wounded in the
>>

>>> range of Z-frames 222 � 230. Perhaps you disagree.

>>> her part as to when her husband was wounded � a confusion to which she

>>
>>> has never once indicated she experienced.
>>
>>
>>
>> It is not "confusion". It was a mistake that you and I in her position
>>
>> would have made if we had been in her shoes that day. More importantly,
>>
>> her mistake provides a powerful corroboration for the fact that like her
>>
>> husband, she never heard the shot at 223.
>>
>>
>>
>> The single shot that she reported hearing, prior to looking back at JFK
>>
>> could only have been the same shot that Jackie heard, which as she
>>
>> (Jackie) testified, provoked her to turn to her right, toward her
>>
>> husband. She began that turn at 170. Several other witnesses also
>>
>> confirmed that she turned to her right, in response to that first rather
>>
>> weak shot.
>>
>>
>>
>> SA Hickey similarly stated that he began to turn to his right in
>>
>> response to the first shot her heard. We see him start that turn in 190's.
>>
>>
>>
>> JFK also reacted, simultaneous with his wife. I explain his reaction as
>>
>> well as hers, in this brief presentation,
>>
>>
>>
>> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OXAL27c5kbg&playnext=1&list=PLBB063983D7AF4FDA&feature=results_main
>>
>>
>>
>> No one heard 223, Lanny - neither John Connally, nor anyone else.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>>
>>
>>> Roy Kellerman knew it as early as Z-frame 269, but no later than frame 279
>>
>>> where he is fully turned and looking into the backseat at an obviously
>>

>>> wounded President who he said he heard exclaim just seconds before, �My
>>
>>> God, I am hit.�
>>
>>
>>

>>> �And I glanced over my shoulder. And I saw Governor Connally like he was
>>
>>> starting to fall. Then I realized there was something wrong.�

>>
>>
>>
>> Yes, he did exactly that. We can see him do it in the film.
>>
>>
>>
>>> You can
>>
>>> prattle away all you want about his super-human head snap at frames
>>
>>> 291-292 and the slowing down of the limo,
>>
>>
>>
>> Thank you Lanny. I do appreciate you giving me permission to "prattle"
>>
>> on, just as Dr. Luis Alvarez did.
>>
>>
>>
>> But tell me, why do you suppose he spun around that fast and then slowed
>>
>> the limo??
>>
>>
>>
>> A bad case of cramps?
>>
>>
>>
>> And why did he testify to hearing the same pattern that most others did,
>>
>> of a shot, then a delay and then closely bunched shots at the end?
>>
>>
>>
>> Mr. SPECTER. To the best of your ability to recollect and estimate, how
>>
>> much time elapsed from the first noise which you have described as being
>>
>> similar to the backfire of a motor vehicle until you heard the second noise?
>>
>>
>>
>> Mr. GREER. It seems a matter of seconds, I really couldn't say. Three or
>>
>> four seconds.
>>
>>
>>
>> Mr. SPECTER. How much time elapsed, to the best of your ability to
>>
>> estimate and recollect, between the time of the second noise and the
>>
>> time of the third noise?
>>
>>
>>
>> Mr. GREER. The last two seemed to be just simultaneously, one behind the
>>
>> other
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>

>>> but the man�s first look over

>>
>>> his shoulder was in response to the second of what we unarguably know were
>>
>>> two unsuppressed gunshots loud enough to be mistaken for motorcycle
>>
>>> backfires, both of which occurred prior to Z-frame 285.
>>
>>
>>
>> We have contradictory statements from a witness. Now, we can either try
>>
>> to resolve that contradiction by choosing the statement that best
>>
>> supports our own position, or we can go with the statement that matches
>>
>> most of the other witnesses.
>>
>>
>>
>> We can also consider whether one or the other statement is likely to
>>
>> have been in error. Greer turned to the rear twice - once before 285 and
>>
>> once after. Do you really think it is unlikely that he could have made a
>>
>> simple error?
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>>
>>
>>>
>>
>>>>
>>
>>>> And do you believe that we need experts to tell us that in the middle of a
>>
>>>>
>>
>>>> shooting, these people were not at the very least, startled by some kind
>>
>>>>
>>
>>>> of loud noise?
>>
>>>>
>>
>>>>
>>
>>>
>>

>>> Of course we don�t need experts to tell us the limo occupants are

>>> What I don�t believe is that it is particularly helpful in making the

>>
>>> determinations we need to make with regard to when shots were or were not
>>
>>> fired in the Kennedy assassination.
>>
>>>
>>

>>> In marked contrast to Atlanta, the �bomb� went off in Dealey Plaza a

>>
>>> full three seconds before Z-frame 285, and everyone in that limo knew it
>>
>>> no later than Z-frame 280.
>>
>>
>>
>> A "bomb"??? The witnesses only heard one early noise, Lanny. Are you
>>
>> suggesting that there was only one shot fired, prior to 285?
>>
>>
>>
>> And if so, do you believe that was a shot at 223, or prior to that?
>>
>>
>>
>>>
>>
>>> JFK and Governor Connally knew it as soon as they were wounded in the
>>

>>> range of Z-frames 222 � 230. Perhaps you disagree.

>>> her part as to when her husband was wounded � a confusion to which she

>>
>>> has never once indicated she experienced.
>>
>>
>>
>> It is not "confusion". It was a mistake that you and I in her position
>>
>> would have made if we had been in her shoes that day. More importantly,
>>
>> her mistake provides a powerful corroboration for the fact that like her
>>
>> husband, she never heard the shot at 223.
>>
>>
>>
>> The single shot that she reported hearing, prior to looking back at JFK
>>
>> could only have been the same shot that Jackie heard, which as she
>>
>> (Jackie) testified, provoked her to turn to her right, toward her
>>
>> husband. She began that turn at 170. Several other witnesses also
>>
>> confirmed that she turned to her right, in response to that first rather
>>
>> weak shot.
>>
>>
>>
>> SA Hickey similarly stated that he began to turn to his right in
>>
>> response to the first shot her heard. We see him start that turn in 190's.
>>
>>
>>
>> JFK also reacted, simultaneous with his wife. I explain his reaction as
>>
>> well as hers, in this brief presentation,
>>
>>
>>
>> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OXAL27c5kbg&playnext=1&list=PLBB063983D7AF4FDA&feature=results_main
>>
>>
>>
>> No one heard 223, Lanny - neither John Connally, nor anyone else.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>>
>>
>>> Roy Kellerman knew it as early as Z-frame 269, but no later than frame 279
>>
>>> where he is fully turned and looking into the backseat at an obviously
>>

>>> wounded President who he said he heard exclaim just seconds before, �My
>>
>>> God, I am hit.�
>>
>>
>>

>> I don't understand your point. Like the others, he heard a single, early
>>
>> shot and then no others prior to the very end, when he heard a "flurry"
>>
>> of "at least" two shots.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>>
>>
>>> William Greer never looked into the backseat of the limo until hearing the
>>
>>> second of what he thought were two consecutive motorcycle backfires,
>>
>>
>>
>> Lanny, I'm sure you wouldn't just make something like that up. But I
>>
>> don't remember that part of his testimony. Would you mind posting a
>>
>> verbatim cite in which he said he heard "two consecutive motorcycle
>>
>> backfires"?
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>

>>> �And I glanced over my shoulder. And I saw Governor Connally like he was
>>
>>> starting to fall. Then I realized there was something wrong.�

>>
>>
>>
>> Yes, he did exactly that. We can see him do it in the film.
>>
>>
>>
>>> You can
>>
>>> prattle away all you want about his super-human head snap at frames
>>
>>> 291-292 and the slowing down of the limo,
>>
>>
>>
>> Thank you Lanny. I do appreciate you giving me permission to "prattle"
>>
>> on, just as Dr. Luis Alvarez did.
>>
>>
>>
>> But tell me, why do you suppose he spun around that fast and then slowed
>>
>> the limo??
>>
>>
>>
>> A bad case of cramps?
>>
>>
>>
>> And why did he testify to hearing the same pattern that most others did,
>>
>> of a shot, then a delay and then closely bunched shots at the end?
>>
>>
>>
>> Mr. SPECTER. To the best of your ability to recollect and estimate, how
>>
>> much time elapsed from the first noise which you have described as being
>>
>> similar to the backfire of a motor vehicle until you heard the second noise?
>>
>>
>>
>> Mr. GREER. It seems a matter of seconds, I really couldn't say. Three or
>>
>> four seconds.
>>
>>
>>
>> Mr. SPECTER. How much time elapsed, to the best of your ability to
>>
>> estimate and recollect, between the time of the second noise and the
>>
>> time of the third noise?
>>
>>
>>
>> Mr. GREER. The last two seemed to be just simultaneously, one behind the
>>
>> other
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>

>>> but the man�s first look over

>>
>>> his shoulder was in response to the second of what we unarguably know were
>>
>>> two unsuppressed gunshots loud enough to be mistaken for motorcycle
>>
>>> backfires, both of which occurred prior to Z-frame 285.
>>
>>
>>
>> We have contradictory statements from a witness. Now, we can either try
>>
>> to resolve that contradiction by choosing the statement that best
>>
>> supports our own position, or we can go with the statement that matches
>>
>> most of the other witnesses.
>>
>>
>>
>> We can also consider whether one or the other statement is likely to
>>
>> have been in error. Greer turned to the rear twice - once before 285 and
>>
>> once after. Do you really think it is unlikely that he could have made a
>>
>> simple error?
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>>
>>
>>>
>>
>>>>
>>
>>>> And do you believe that we need experts to tell us that in the middle of a
>>
>>>>
>>
>>>> shooting, these people were not at the very least, startled by some kind
>>
>>>>
>>
>>>> of loud noise?
>>
>>>>
>>
>>>>
>>
>>>
>>

>>> Of course we don�t need experts to tell us the limo occupants are

[Anthony Marsh]

On 3/31/2013 5:49 PM, Lanny wrote:
> On Saturday, March 30, 2013 10:36:01 PM UTC-4, Anthony Marsh wrote:
>> On 3/30/2013 10:19 AM, Lanny wrote:
>>
>>> On Friday, March 29, 2013 10:09:57 PM UTC-4, Robert Harris wrote:
>>
>>>>>>
>>
>>>>
>>
>>>>>>
>>
>>>>
>>
>>>>>> I am not sure how the science is supposed to work or even if there is a
>>
>>>>
>>
>>>>>>
>>
>>>>
>>
>>>>>> science involved. So if I see ANY startle reaction by anyone then that
>>
>>>>
>>
>>>>>>
>>
>>>>
>>
>>>>>> proves that there was a shot then? So therefore there must have been
>>
>>>>
>>
>>>>>>
>>
>>>>
>>
>>>>>> hundreds of shots. Right?
>>
>>>>
>>
>>>>>>
>>
>>>>
>>
>>>>> The science is that any sudden noise above 90 db typically evokes an
>>
>>>>
>>
>>>>> involuntary neurological reaction with a latency preceding the response of no
>>
>>>>
>>
>>>>> more than one third of a second.
>>
>>>>
>>
>>>>>
>>
>>>>
>>
>>>>> Harris insists that the various movements of the limo occupants within one
>>
>>>>
>>
>>>>> third of a second from an auditory event which Dr. Luis Alvarez identified at
>>
>>>>
>>
>>>>> frame 285 in his applied theory of "jitter analysis" on the Zapruder film are
>>
>>>>
>>
>>>>> startle reactions to a gunshot. The movements alone, however, do not
>>
>>>>
>>
>>>>> establish gunfire.
>>
>>>>
>>
>>>>
>>
>>>>
>>
>>>> Lanny, before we continue, would you mind answering a question that I
>>
>>>>
>>
>>>> repeatedly asked you in the jfkhistory forum and once in this newsgroup?
>>
>>>>
>>
>>>>
>>
>>>>
>>
>>>> Do you believe we can accurately determine that the people in this video
>>
>>>>
>>
>>>> were startled by a loud noise, or do we need a panel of experts to decide
>>
>>>>
>>
>>>> for us?
>>
>>>>
>>
>>>>
>>
>>>>
>>
>>>> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DSXjbiDD0rY
>>
>>>>
>>
>>>>
>>
>>>
>>
>>> Yes, I believe we could probably accurately make that determination.
>>

>>> What I don?t believe is that it is particularly helpful in making the

>>
>>> determinations we need to make with regard to when shots were or were not
>>
>>> fired in the Kennedy assassination.
>>
>>>
>>

>>> In marked contrast to Atlanta, the ?bomb? went off in Dealey Plaza a

>>
>>> full three seconds before Z-frame 285, and everyone in that limo knew it
>>
>>> no later than Z-frame 280.
>>
>>>
>>
>>
>>
>> I understand what you are trying to do (cover up), but I don't
>>
>> understand what you are trying to say. What 'bomb' went off 3 seconds
>>
>> before Z-285?
>>
>> 3 seconds is 55 frames. 55 frames earlier than Z-285 is frame 230.
>>
>> So you SEE a shot at Z-230? Then you can't be a WC defender.
>>
>>
>>
>> What book on physiology tells you that people are not startled by a loud
>>
>> noise until 3 seconds later? What experiments have you done to show that
>>
>> people consciously wait 3 seconds before being startled by a loud noise?
>>
>> Have you used a loud air horn like the ones that fans use at a football
>>
>> game to startle someone? How many seconds do they wait to be startled?
>>
>
>
> For God's sakes Marsh, have you never heard of a metaphor??? Harris is
> running around here screaming about the stupid "startle reactions" of
> people at the bombing at the Atlanta Olympics, and I was simply making the
> point that the "bomb" <<<(metaphor) in Dallas had "gone off" <<< (another
> metaphor) as soon as the assassin(s) started shooting, and that once THAT
> happened NO ONE (Harris most particularly) could say for certain that any
> VISIBLE startle reaction was due to a loud noise/gunshot auditory stimulus
> vs. the visible horror having the President and the Governor of Texas
> slaughtered in broad daylight.
>

So your metaphor means you think people took 3 seconds to react to a
gunshot? Name the frame of YOUR gunshot and show me who reacted 3 seconds
later.

But I do like your idea that Zapruder's camera jiggles were emotional
reactions rather than involuntary reflex reactions. That would blow
Alvarez out of the water.

> Okay?
>>
>>
>>
>>> JFK and Governor Connally knew it as soon as they were wounded in the
>>

>>> range of Z-frames 222 ? 230. Perhaps you disagree.

>>> her part as to when her husband was wounded ? a confusion to which she

>>
>>> has never once indicated she experienced.
>>
>>>
>>
>>
>>
>> Harris does not have anyone it at Z-285.
>>
>>
>>
>>> Roy Kellerman knew it as early as Z-frame 269, but no later than frame 279
>>
>>> where he is fully turned and looking into the backseat at an obviously
>>

>>> wounded President who he said he heard exclaim just seconds before, ?My
>>
>>> God, I am hit.?
>>
>>>
>>
>>
>>

>> JFK could not have said anything with a torn trachea. Kellerman was
>>
>> hallucinating. A good trait for a SS agent.
>>
>
> I-am-simply-reminding-Bob-Harris --of--- Kellerman's --- testimony
> ---of---- noises --- before --- frame 285.
>
>
>>
>>
>>> William Greer never looked into the backseat of the limo until hearing the
>>
>>> second of what he thought were two consecutive motorcycle backfires,
>>

>>> ?And I glanced over my shoulder. And I saw Governor Connally like he was
>>
>>> starting to fall. Then I realized there was something wrong.? You can

>>
>>> prattle away all you want about his super-human head snap at frames
>>

>>> 291-292 and the slowing down of the limo, but the man?s first look over

>>
>>> his shoulder was in response to the second of what we unarguably know were
>>
>>> two unsuppressed gunshots loud enough to be mistaken for motorcycle
>>
>>> backfires, both of which occurred prior to Z-frame 285.
>>
>>>
>>
>>
>>
>> Did Greer specify any particular frames? Why didn't he turn to look
>>
>> until after Z-300? If it's a startle reaction why not at Z-240?
>>
>
> Due to the top of the windshield, I cannot see Greer's face until frame
> 280. At that time, he is already looking into the backseat of the car.
> He may have looked long before then. I only know that he is looking
> backwards prior to frame 285 and as a result of TWO loud noises he mistook
> for motorcycle backfires. ERGO, contrary to Harris' constant rant, there
> were sufficiently loud noises prior to frame 285 which not only could have
> been but almost CERTAINLY WERE rifle shots.
>
> I am simply refuting the nonsense that "NO ONE HEARD" the shot that first
> wounded President Kennedy.
>
> Please don't argue with ME when I am arguing with someone else if you
> can't keep up with the argument he and I are having!!
>
>
>>>
>>
>>>>
>>
>>>> And do you believe that we need experts to tell us that in the middle of a
>>
>>>>
>>
>>>> shooting, these people were not at the very least, startled by some kind
>>
>>>>
>>
>>>> of loud noise?
>>
>>>>
>>
>>>>
>>
>>>
>>

>>> Of course we don?t need experts to tell us the limo occupants are

>>
>>> startled well before Z-285. Two women are holding their husbands who have
>>
>>> just been shot and are gravely injured. Two Secret Service agents have
>>
>>> just become aware that they have somehow failed in their protection
>>
>>> duties.
>>
>>
>>
>> As if those were the only shots.
>>
>> Take a look at the Altgens photo which is equal approximately to Z-255.
>>
>> THREE SS agents in the followup car are looking backwards toward the TSBD.
>>
>>
>
> Yes, but unless their testimony is specific about the loudness of what
> they heard, Harris will simply argue that they heard the bullet which hit
> the pavement and were not actually startled by a muzzle blast, blah, blah
> & blah.
>
>>>
>>
>>> But if we are to pinpoint the precise moment that any of these people
>>
>>> suffer an ADDITIONAL instance of being startled by an auditory stimulus
>>
>>> ALONE and of sufficient intensity to be suggestive of a gunshot, then we
>>
>>> need a reliable method of discriminating between the obvious shock and
>>
>>> horror of their general circumstance from those reactions you allege are
>>
>>> caused by an auditory stimulus at frame 285.
>>
>>>
>>

>>> And you don?t have a methodology or evidence that would allow us to do

>>> ?startle reactions? in the same manner you?ve suggested that I did.

[Robert Harris]

Lanny wrote:
> On Saturday, March 30, 2013 10:36:01 PM UTC-4, Anthony Marsh wrote:
>> On 3/30/2013 10:19 AM, Lanny wrote:
>>
>>> On Friday, March 29, 2013 10:09:57 PM UTC-4, Robert Harris wrote:
>>
>>>>>>
>>
>>>>
>>
>>>>>>
>>
>>>>
>>
>>>>>> I am not sure how the science is supposed to work or even if there is a
>>
>>>>
>>
>>>>>>
>>
>>>>
>>
>>>>>> science involved. So if I see ANY startle reaction by anyone then that
>>
>>>>
>>
>>>>>>
>>
>>>>
>>
>>>>>> proves that there was a shot then? So therefore there must have been
>>
>>>>
>>
>>>>>>
>>
>>>>
>>
>>>>>> hundreds of shots. Right?
>>
>>>>
>>
>>>>>>
>>
>>>>
>>
>>>>> The science is that any sudden noise above 90 db typically evokes an
>>
>>>>
>>
>>>>> involuntary neurological reaction with a latency preceding the response of no
>>
>>>>
>>
>>>>> more than one third of a second.
>>
>>>>
>>
>>>>>
>>
>>>>
>>
>>>>> Harris insists that the various movements of the limo occupants within one
>>
>>>>
>>
>>>>> third of a second from an auditory event which Dr. Luis Alvarez identified at
>>
>>>>
>>
>>>>> frame 285 in his applied theory of "jitter analysis" on the Zapruder film are
>>
>>>>
>>
>>>>> startle reactions to a gunshot. The movements alone, however, do not
>>
>>>>
>>
>>>>> establish gunfire.
>>
>>>>
>>
>>>>
>>
>>>>
>>
>>>> Lanny, before we continue, would you mind answering a question that I
>>
>>>>
>>
>>>> repeatedly asked you in the jfkhistory forum and once in this newsgroup?
>>
>>>>
>>
>>>>
>>
>>>>
>>
>>>> Do you believe we can accurately determine that the people in this video
>>
>>>>
>>
>>>> were startled by a loud noise, or do we need a panel of experts to decide
>>
>>>>
>>
>>>> for us?
>>
>>>>
>>
>>>>
>>
>>>>
>>
>>>> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DSXjbiDD0rY
>>
>>>>
>>
>>>>
>>
>>>
>>
>>> Yes, I believe we could probably accurately make that determination.
>>

>>> What I don?t believe is that it is particularly helpful in making the

>>
>>> determinations we need to make with regard to when shots were or were not
>>
>>> fired in the Kennedy assassination.
>>
>>>
>>

>>> In marked contrast to Atlanta, the ?bomb? went off in Dealey Plaza a

>>
>>> full three seconds before Z-frame 285, and everyone in that limo knew it
>>
>>> no later than Z-frame 280.
>>
>>>
>>
>>
>>
>> I understand what you are trying to do (cover up), but I don't
>>
>> understand what you are trying to say. What 'bomb' went off 3 seconds
>>
>> before Z-285?
>>
>> 3 seconds is 55 frames. 55 frames earlier than Z-285 is frame 230.
>>
>> So you SEE a shot at Z-230? Then you can't be a WC defender.
>>
>>
>>
>> What book on physiology tells you that people are not startled by a loud
>>
>> noise until 3 seconds later? What experiments have you done to show that
>>
>> people consciously wait 3 seconds before being startled by a loud noise?
>>
>> Have you used a loud air horn like the ones that fans use at a football
>>
>> game to startle someone? How many seconds do they wait to be startled?
>>
>
>
> For God's sakes Marsh, have you never heard of a metaphor???

If that was supposed to be a metaphor, it was a very poor one. Why would
you call one noise that no one heard, and another that was nonstartling
and not even recognized to be a gunshot, a "bomb"??

The absence of visible startle reactions combined with the witnesses'
statements proves quite clearly that the first two shots came from a
much different kind of weapon than the shots at 285 and 313.

> Harris is
> running around here screamingabout the stupid "startle reactions"

Lanny, do you think this kind of language is impressive to people who
made it through high school??

What is wrong with sticking to the facts and evidence and leaving out
the trashtalk?

> of
> people at the bombing at the Atlanta Olympics, and I was simply making the
> point that the "bomb" <<<(metaphor) in Dallas had "gone off" <<< (another
> metaphor) as soon as the assassin(s) started shooting, and that once THAT
> happened NO ONE (Harris most particularly) could say for certain that any
> VISIBLE startle reaction was due to a loud noise/gunshot auditory stimulus
> vs. the visible horror having the President and the Governor of Texas
> slaughtered in broad daylight.

I will tell you exactly what is wrong with it, Lanny.

Look at the reactions to the apparent shot at 160.

Jackie and JFK reacted to it at frame 170.

Hickey reacted in the 190's.

Nellie reacted in the 230's.

Greer cannot be clearly seen then but seems to have reacted after Nellie
did.

Kellerman began to react by about 250.

The point of all this is, that the reactions were spread out over
roughly 80 frames, or 4-5 seconds. Ergo, they were not startle
reactions, since they could not have all begun within 1/3rd of a second
of the shot.

Do you understand what I am saying, Lanny?

The reactions to 285 and 313 all began within 1/3rd of a second of the
shot and were in almost perfect unison with one another.

Combined with the nature of the reactions (ducking, spinning around,
shielding the ear, etc.) and the statements of the passengers
themselves, this proves that those reactions were to a very loud noise.

The only remaining dispute might be that the noise was something other
than a gunshot. But if that were true, it would have to have been
similar enough to a gunshot to fool the limo passengers (and most others
in DP) and it would have to be something that was totally unique, since
we see no similar reactions, even in the dozens of films from the DCA
collection, showing those people prior to their arrival in DP.

>
> Okay?
>>
>>
>>
>>> JFK and Governor Connally knew it as soon as they were wounded in the
>>

>>> range of Z-frames 222 ? 230. Perhaps you disagree.

>>
>>>
>>
>>
>>
>> Oh, so how you have a range of possible frames? Talk about back
>>
>> pedalling. Why limit it 222? The WC said it could have been anywhere
>>
>> from 210 to 225. So did Bugliosi. If you really want to be a WC defender
>>
>> then you should stick with their 210 to 225.
>>
>> I'd like to see you diagram and explain your SBT at frame 230.
>>
>> Can you explain how the bullet exiting JFK's throat goes through his
>>
>> hands up in front of his throat to then hit Connally? Do you ever think
>>
>> before you type? No, I didn't think so.
>>
>> Why would JFK throw his hands up in front of his throat before he was hit?
>>
>> Do you agree with Zapruder that he was just joking?
>>
>
> What is wrong with you? JFK was first shot AT OR JUST BEFORE he emerged
> from the Stemmons Freeway sign. I have seen several versions of the
> Zapruder film on YouTube whose frame counters are "off" by a frame or two.
> I am simply trying to take that into account AND anyone else who might
> believe Connally was hit by a separate shot. I tend not to believe JFK
> was hit at frame 210 because that would mean he waited more than half a
> second to display the Thornburn reflex (or whatever you believe he was
> doing with his hands).
>
> The idea that he was first shot at frame 225 seems too long to me. He was
> already reacting to the shot by then. On second thought, to hell with it.

It is indeed sad, that this is your attitude about the case. You
previously stated that you didn't care whether Oswald acted alone or not.

That being the case, why do you join forums on this topic? I realize
that you came here, in order to give me my comeupance, but why did you
come to the JFKHistory forum, to begin with?

Your lack of concern about the assassination also reflects in the
obvious fact that you are not familiar with the testimonies of the
witness. And as I'm sure you noticed, that put you in a pretty bad
position to debate.

>
> Why don't YOU just tell me when he was first shot. It will save us a lot
> of time.

Tony is probably not the best person to ask about anything related to
this case:-)

But Connally was definitely hit at 223 and I believe it is highly
probable that JFK was hit then too, by the same bullet.

>
>>
>>
>>
>>> Nellie Connally knew it no later than Z-frame 234. She told us that
>>
>>> specifically in her Warren Commission testimony, but you choose to believe
>>
>>> that her statements about when she did and did not look back at President
>>
>>> Kennedy are more persuasive than her actual examination of the Zapruder
>>
>>> film and her reactions in it. You speculate a scenario of confusion on
>>

>>> her part as to when her husband was wounded ? a confusion to which she

>>
>>> has never once indicated she experienced.
>>
>>>
>>
>>
>>
>> Harris does not have anyone it at Z-285.
>>
>>
>>
>>> Roy Kellerman knew it as early as Z-frame 269, but no later than frame 279
>>
>>> where he is fully turned and looking into the backseat at an obviously
>>

>>> wounded President who he said he heard exclaim just seconds before, ?My
>>
>>> God, I am hit.?
>>
>>>
>>
>>
>>

>> JFK could not have said anything with a torn trachea. Kellerman was
>>
>> hallucinating. A good trait for a SS agent.
>>
>
> I-am-simply-reminding-Bob-Harris --of--- Kellerman's --- testimony
> ---of---- noises --- before --- frame 285.
>
>
>>
>>
>>> William Greer never looked into the backseat of the limo until hearing the
>>
>>> second of what he thought were two consecutive motorcycle backfires,
>>

>>> ?And I glanced over my shoulder. And I saw Governor Connally like he was
>>
>>> starting to fall. Then I realized there was something wrong.? You can

>>
>>> prattle away all you want about his super-human head snap at frames
>>

>>> 291-292 and the slowing down of the limo, but the man?s first look over

>>
>>> his shoulder was in response to the second of what we unarguably know were
>>
>>> two unsuppressed gunshots loud enough to be mistaken for motorcycle
>>
>>> backfires, both of which occurred prior to Z-frame 285.
>>
>>>
>>
>>
>>
>> Did Greer specify any particular frames? Why didn't he turn to look
>>
>> until after Z-300? If it's a startle reaction why not at Z-240?
>>
>
> Due to the top of the windshield, I cannot see Greer's face until frame
> 280. At that time, he is already looking into the backseat of the car.
> He may have looked long before then. I only know that he is looking
> backwards prior to frame 285 and as a result of TWO loud noises he mistook
> for motorcycle backfires. ERGO, contrary to Harris' constant rant, there
> were sufficiently loud noises prior to frame 285 which not only could have
> been but almost CERTAINLY WERE rifle shots.

I explained this to you twice now, Lanny.

You would have Greer being the only person in the limo and almost the
only person in DP, claiming that he heard two shots prior to a single
shot at the end. But he contradicted himself when he said that the
second and third shots were nearly simultaneous.

Furthermore, we see no startle reactions by him, prior to frame 292. And
that reaction was in perfect unison with all the other surviving passengers.

For the third time, Greer turned to the rear TWICE - once before and
once after 285. He was obviously confused about which of the two turns
he was remembering.

>
> I am simply refuting the nonsense that "NO ONE HEARD" the shot that first
> wounded President Kennedy.

Not only is it not nonsense, Lanny, it is a proven fact.

Even the WC admitted that most relevant witnesses only heard one early
shot followed by a delay and then closely bunched shots at the end.

EVERY SURVIVING PASSENGER IN THE LIMOUSINE REPORTED ONLY ONE
NOISE/GUNSHOT. No exceptions - every one of them, even JBC who was hit
by that shot.

How do you explain that, Lanny? Or do you intend to continue to evade
these facts?

>
> Please don't argue with ME when I am arguing with someone else if you
> can't keep up with the argument he and I are having!!

We are not having an "argument". We're having a History lesson. For
almost 20 years, I have seriously studied the case, Lanny. I have a
passion to understand it. By your own admission, you do not.

I think you are a bright and articulate guy. On a level playing field,
you would probably kick my butt in a debate. But the facts, the
testimony, the visual evidence, the science and the logic, are *ALL*
against you.

There is no one on this planet who could defend your side of this
"debate" Lanny. You might as well be arguing that the Earth is flat.






Robert Harris

[Lanny]

Because that’s what you typically do. Why, I have no idea, but no
matter what people tell you, you almost always revert back to your warm,
cozy conclusions with little apparent attempt to seriously consider the
other person’s point of view.

I have TWICE in this thread cited the evidence of Bill Greer hearing TWO
shots PRIOR to frame 285 that he initially mistook for motorcycle
backfires. Had you seriously considered that evidence, you might have
looked it up for yourself to see whether or not I was telling the truth.

But you didn’t do that. Instead, very early in this very post I’m
replying to right now, you made two uncompromising statements about "every
witness" hearing "ONLY ONE early shot." Here are those two statements you
made just in case you forgot them:


“Of the five people who survived that attack, EVERY ONE OF THEM

CONFIRMED THAT THEY HEARD JUST ONE NOISE PRIOR TO THE VERY END OF THE
ATTACK. And none of them realized that that one noise was a gunshot,

except John Connally. “

“It is important, not only that the witnesses only heard one early shot,
but that they heard the shot that was prior to 223, probably circa 160.”


Finally, somehow my allegations about Greer turning around in response to
TWO shots PRIOR to frame 285 got your attention. And by your own
admission, you did not remember that testimony. Here are your exact
words:

>> Lanny, I'm sure you wouldn't just make something like that up. But I
>> don't remember that part of his testimony. Would you mind posting a
>> verbatim cite in which he said he heard "two consecutive motorcycle
>> backfires"?

And so I copied and pasted the relevant Warren Commission testimony from
Bill Greer, whereupon you immediately argued about how he might have been
mistaken, etc. which is fine. At least we hopefully have established that
you understand that Greer said exactly what I told you he said.

But I have a question, Bob, and I want you to think about it very, very
carefully and honestly, at least to yourself. Why did you not remember
that testimony? How is it even remotely possible that you did not
remember that testimony?

The shot at frame 285 and the “totally silent” shot at frame 223 are
lynchpins to your entire Kennedy assassination theories. You have no
trouble reciting every microscopic detail of evidence which supports your
theories. I would think you would be just as conversant on those issues
of evidence (of which there are plenty) that exist in opposition to your
views. Most true experts in their fields have that knowledge. They know
the evidence of their opponents, and they know which of those evidences
are beyond dispute and warrant acquiescence, and which ones remain at the
center of disagreement. And either you don’t have that knowledge (and
glaringly so to the point that I would think you would have the good sense
to be embarrassed) or you simply deny that such indisputable evidence even
exists, which, frankly, should be even more embarrassing.

Here is the thing you aren’t getting, Bob, and it is sailing so far over
your head you couldn’t touch it with a flag pole. NONE OF US want to
discuss issues of substance that are truly in dispute with a person who
refuses to acknowledge the very things that are NOT in dispute like the
verbatim, sworn testimony of various witnesses. It’s simply too
exhausting.

And then when you say things like this:

>> Lanny do you suppose it would be a good idea to actually read a
>> witness's testimony before blurting out things that they never said?

It’s more than just exhausting. It is infuriating. It makes people
like me literally seethe with venom.

Now, I have told you repeatedly that Nellie Connally has testified to
hearing two loud noises prior to frame 285, the first of which she
associated with the wounding of President Kennedy and the second of which
she insisted struck her husband no later (in her words) than the "frames
in the early 230s" Whether she is right or wrong or did not recognize the
noises as gunshots are different issue than the WORDS AND ACCURATE CONTEXT
OF WHAT THE WOMAN SAID ABOUT ASSOCIATING THOSE NOISES WITH THE WOUNDS OF
THE PRESIDENT AND THOSE OF HER HUSBAND.

And you are unmistakably DENYING the words SHE SAID when you say this:

“You said that Mrs. Connally knew that JFK and John Connally were wounded,

by frame 234. Not only is that untrue, but she didn't even know that there
had been a gunshot, prior to her looking back at JFK.”

And this:

>>” She said no such thing. This is from her WC testimony; “

>> "I heard a noise, and not being an expert rifleman, I was not aware that
>> it was a rifle. It was just a frightening noise, and it came from the
>> right. I turned over my right shoulder and looked back, and saw the
>> President as he had both hands at his neck."

Of course, that last citation is correct, but are you aware of her
testimony several pages after that wherein she says that having studied
the Zapruder film on the very morning of her appearance before the
Commission SHE AND HER HUSBAND ARE OF THE OPINION THAT GOVERNOR CONNALLY
WAS SHOT AT FRAME 229, GIVE OR TAKE SEVERAL FRAMES?

If you are aware of that testimony, then you have no business whatsoever
declaring that “she said no such thing” when she most certainly did or
that my MY STATEMENT that SHE BELIEVED President Kennedy and Governor
Connally were wounded by frame 234 is “untrue.” My statement about
WHAT SHE BELIVED is true. Whether her beliefs are true is a separate
issue than whether I have represented her beliefs accurately, and I resent
more than just a little bit your apparent inability or unwillingness to
distinguish between the two.

If you are not aware of that testimony, then I would ask you the same
question I did a few paragraphs ago: Why are you not? How is that
possible?

Now you can blow this off as your least favorite LN whining about trivia,
but I am telling you it is why many people cringe when we see your name on
the title of a new post. It is a major factor in your not getting the
respect I’m sure you believe you deserve.

It certainly isn’t because of the intimidating power of your ….. well,
let’s just say it isn’t for other reasons which I suspect you believe.



Lanny

[Lanny]

NO!!! DAMNIT!

My metaphor means that from the moment the shooting sequence started any
number of people, including those in the limo, experienced BOTH the
"involuntary neurological startle reactions" as defined in the scientific
literature concerning auditory stimulus response as well as the more
protracted, behavioral responses of the shock and horror of being in the
middle of a living nightmare! These latter behavioral responses began
shortly after the shooting started and continued in various manifestations
throughout the remainder of the trip through Dealey Plaza on to Parkland
Hospital and (depending on the individual) perhaps hours later. They are
not technically related to the involuntary neurological responses caused
by sudden loud noises, but certain assassination "researchers" (hint,
hint) like to use them interchangeably with the reflex actions Alvarez was
trying to isolate by focusing on Zapruder's camera jitter.

That is simply bad science, as in NO science at all. As you said in an
earlier post, it is a misuse of Alvarez's theory. That is ALL I am trying
to point out.

[Sandy McCroskey]

On 4/1/13 9:19 PM, Robert Harris wrote:
> Sandy McCroskey wrote:
>> On 3/31/13 6:01 PM, Robert Harris wrote:
>>> Sandy McCroskey wrote:
>>>> On 3/25/13 4:00 PM, Robert Harris wrote:
>>>>> "John, do you agree that Nellie reacted by turning to her husband at
>>>>> 291-292 and then pulled him back to her?"
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> "Bob, there was no shot at 285"
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Exactly what are you asking John here, Bob?
>>>
>>>
>>> I asked John, "do you agree that Nellie reacted by turning to her
>>> husband at 291-292 and then pulled him back to her?"
>>>
>>> I really thought that was pretty clear.
>>>
>>>
>>>> Anybody can see at what Z-frame Nellie turns toward her husband.
>>>
>>> Well, apparently John can't, otherwise he would have answered, don't you
>>> think?
>>>
>>
>> You just proved my point (which you obviously didn't understand).
>> You didn't ask him if John could see that. Anyone with eyes can.
>> You asked me if he agreed "that Nellie reacted."
>
> Then all he had to do was say he didn't believe she "reacted".. duh.
>

That's what he said.
More than once.
You quoted him saying it.

/sm

[Anthony Marsh]

It's what I call the Monty Python excuse. If they are doing a skit and one
of them forgets a line the other will say, "why did you say lemon" and the
other will say, "It was a palindrome."

[Robert Harris]

> Because that?s what you typically do.

Bullshit!!

If that were true, you could cite me, verbatim.

You've been proven wrong on over 90% of your claims and I have yet to hear
you admit it. You just clam up on the issue and then fabricate some other
phony crap.




> Why, I have no idea,but no

> matter what people tell you, you almost always revert back to your warm,
> cozy conclusions with little apparent attempt to seriously consider the

> other person?s point of view.

>
> I have TWICE in this thread cited the evidence of Bill Greer hearing TWO
> shots PRIOR to frame 285 that he initially mistook for motorcycle
> backfires. Had you seriously considered that evidence, you might have
> looked it up for yourself to see whether or not I was telling the truth.
>

> But you didn?t do that. Instead, very early in this very post I?m

> replying to right now, you made two uncompromising statements about "every
> witness" hearing "ONLY ONE early shot." Here are those two statements you
> made just in case you forgot them:
>
>

> ?Of the five people who survived that attack, EVERY ONE OF THEM

> CONFIRMED THAT THEY HEARD JUST ONE NOISE PRIOR TO THE VERY END OF THE
> ATTACK. And none of them realized that that one noise was a gunshot,

> except John Connally. ?
>
> ?It is important, not only that the witnesses only heard one early shot,
> but that they heard the shot that was prior to 223, probably circa 160.?

>
>
> Finally, somehow my allegations about Greer turning around in response to
> TWO shots PRIOR to frame 285 got your attention.

I explained to you THREE times, why we know that Greer was mistaken about
which of his two turns came after the second shot that he heard. But you
continue to ignore his testimony which confirms that he heard exactly the
same pattern that all the other limo passengers heard.

Mr. SPECTER. To the best of your ability to recollect and estimate, how
much time elapsed from the first noise which you have described as being
similar to the backfire of a motor vehicle until you heard the second
noise?

Mr. GREER. It seems a matter of seconds, I really couldn't say. Three or
four seconds.

Mr. SPECTER. How much time elapsed, to the best of your ability to
estimate and recollect, between the time of the second noise and the time
of the third noise?

Mr. GREER. The last two seemed to be just simultaneously, one behind the
other

It is ridiculously obvious that he was mistaken in his other statement,
but you cling to it, not because the evidence supports you, but because it
is the only isolated statement by any of those people, that gives the
appearance of supporting your position.

The notion that you would find fault with me on this issue, just boggles
the mind.

> And by your own
> admission, you did not remember that testimony. Here are your exact
> words:
>
>>> Lanny, I'm sure you wouldn't just make something like that up. But I
>>> don't remember that part of his testimony. Would you mind posting a
>>> verbatim cite in which he said he heard "two consecutive motorcycle
>>> backfires"?
>
> And so I copied and pasted the relevant Warren Commission testimony from
> Bill Greer, whereupon you immediately argued about how he might have been
> mistaken, etc. which is fine. At least we hopefully have established that
> you understand that Greer said exactly what I told you he said.
>
> But I have a question, Bob, and I want you to think about it very, very
> carefully and honestly, at least to yourself. Why did you not remember
> that testimony? How is it even remotely possible that you did not
> remember that testimony?

Lanny, I know this case pretty well, but I have not memorized all the
testimonies. Why are you pretending to be shocked that I have not?

>
> The shot at frame 285 and the ?totally silent? shot at frame 223 are

> lynchpins to your entire Kennedy assassination theories.

That is correct. And I have lost track of the number of times I have
proven that to you.

> You have no
> trouble reciting every microscopic detail of evidence which supports your
> theories.

The statements of the large majority of witnesses, including the people
who reacted to that shot, the analysis of Dr. Alvarez, and the science
which confirms that those people were startled then, are hardly
"microscopic details".

It's sad that you have to resort to demeaning language to compensate for
being wrong on virtually ever issue we have "debated".

> I would think you would be just as conversant on those issues
> of evidence (of which there are plenty) that exist in opposition to your
> views. Most true experts in their fields have that knowledge. They know
> the evidence of their opponents, and they know which of those evidences
> are beyond dispute and warrant acquiescence, and which ones remain at the

> center of disagreement. And either you don?t have that knowledge (and

> glaringly so to the point that I would think you would have the good sense
> to be embarrassed) or you simply deny that such indisputable evidence even
> exists, which, frankly, should be even more embarrassing.

ROFLMAO!!

Wow! You sure know how to squeeze every drop of vitriol out of a simple
request for a citation!

It's strange though, how I morphed from such a dishonest charlatan, to
someone you now expect to be infallible:-)

I'm afraid I am neither of the above, Lanny. I have made my share of
errors over the years and I'm sure I will make more.



>
> Here is the thing you aren?t getting, Bob, and it is sailing so far over
> your head you couldn?t touch it with a flag pole. NONE OF US want to

> discuss issues of substance that are truly in dispute with a person who
> refuses to acknowledge the very things that are NOT in dispute like the

> verbatim, sworn testimony of various witnesses. It?s simply too
> exhausting.

How would it be "exhausting" to simply cite a witness?

Are you now claiming that the reason you can't refute me is that you are
just too "exhausted" to post confirmation for you claims??

>
> And then when you say things like this:
>
>>> Lanny do you suppose it would be a good idea to actually read a
>>> witness's testimony before blurting out things that they never said?
>

> It?s more than just exhausting. It is infuriating. It makes people

> like me literally seethe with venom.

What am I supposed to say when you misrepresent a key witness?

You claimed that she heard two gunshots by frame 234, which was false
and can be easily seen in passages I already cited for you.

>
> Now, I have told you repeatedly that Nellie Connally has testified to

> hearing two loud noises prior to frame 285,the first of which she

> associated with the wounding of President Kennedy and the second of which
> she insisted struck her husband no later (in her words) than the "frames
> in the early 230s" Whether she is right or wrong or did not recognize the
> noises as gunshots are different issue than the WORDS AND ACCURATE CONTEXT
> OF WHAT THE WOMAN SAID ABOUT ASSOCIATING THOSE NOISES WITH THE WOUNDS OF
> THE PRESIDENT AND THOSE OF HER HUSBAND.

What an absolute pile of crap!!

There is not another member of this forum and certainly, no nutters, who
believe that it was possible for her to match the timing of real world
events then with the Zapruder film.

And with only the exception of a few of the most radical CT's there is
no one who believes a shot was fired at 230.

Much more importantly, we know for an absolute fact, that she did not
turn toward JFK until 259. And she was certain that the next two shots
came after that point.

Your attempt to use such a long refuted and illogical argument that
contradicts the proven facts, tells us much more about Lanny than it
does about the failings of Robert Harris.

>
> And you are unmistakably DENYING the words SHE SAID when you say this:
>

> ?You said that Mrs. Connally knew that JFK and John Connally were wounded,

> by frame 234. Not only is that untrue, but she didn't even know that there

> had been a gunshot, prior to her looking back at JFK.?

LOL!!

You don't care that I have repeatedly proven you wrong about this, do
you Lanny.

Let's hold the presses my friend and let me ask you just two very simple
questions, which only require a yes or no answer. After which, we can
continue our "debate".

1. Do you believe that the Connally's opinions about when they heard
shots in the Zapruder film are reliable?

2. Do you believe a shot was fired at 234?


Robert Harris

[Robert Harris]

Lanny, would you mind being a bit more specific about how I misused
Alavarez's analysis?

> makes any representation about where the shots came from. The sole
> purpose, as I understand it, is to pinpoint the number of shots and
> distribute them accurately as possible on the Zapruder timeline.

Then you misunderstood it. Alvarez determined that Zapruder and Greer
were startled by a loud noise at frame 285, not because he was trying to
"distribute" gunshots.

In fact, he tried to argue that the noise at 285 was not a gunshot. His
arguments were:

1. The reactions following 285 were not as pronounced as the those
following 313, and

2. FBI tests had proven that Oswald could not have fired shots at 285
and 313, because they were too close together.

Hopefully, I don't need to refute #2. Obviously, Oswald at the very
least, did not fire both of those shots.

But #1 is interesting, because he was measuring only Zapruder's
blurrings and Greer's reactions, which included him being panicked to
slow the limo.

But the other limo passengers also reacted more dramatically following
313 than 285. That suggests rather strongly, that different rifles were
used.

Perhaps more importantly, it supports the notion that this was the
result of a very loud noise, and that the difference in reactions was
due to differences in the decibel levels of the two shots.

Oswald's rifle was at the low end of what we call, "high powered
rifles". Others, were more than twice as loud. That suggests (not
proves) that the MC was used to fire the 285 shot.


But getting back to your endless accusations. Why would you try to claim
that I "misused" Alvarez's analysis, when you so obviously, did not
understand it?



Robert Harris

[Robert Harris]

I would like to add one other point, re: your argument that Mrs. Connally
testified to a shot at frame 234. This is her actual statement to the
HSCA,

"I am not going to argue with a ballistic expert or acoustics expert about
the precise time or the frame of the Zapruder films, I can't tell you
precisely whether it is frame 231 or 234, when the first evidence shows
that I am reacting to the shot."

What is extremely important here, is that she does not equate this with
any first hand perceptions. She is saying that she looked at the film,
searching "the first evidence" that shows when *SHE* (not JBC) reacted to
the shot that wounded her husband.

Keeping in mind that she was looking at a much better copy of the film
than we have access to today, tell me when she first began to look to the
rear. Frame number please.

What did you get, Lanny?

Yep, that's right. It was frame 234, give or take no more than a single
frame. My friend, she saw exactly the same thing we see:-) She was
searching for HER first reaction and she spotted it at exactly the point
in which SHE first reacted.

Therefore this was not a first hand perception. She came to her belief
solely, by looking at the Zapruder film.

In terms of our "debate" what is even more important is, that she DID NOT
state that she heard two rifle shots by frame 234. She only stated that
she saw herself begin to react at app. 234.

"I can't tell you precisely whether it is frame 231 or 234, when the first
evidence shows that I am reacting to the shot."

You need to stop paraphrasing witnesses, Lanny. Cite them verbatim, so you
won't have to go through this kind of abuse any more:-)




Robert Harris

[Anthony Marsh]

We are only talking about the startle reflexes. Not emotional responses.
When you pick up a hat pan and jerk your hand away that is a relfex,
Extremely fast. Not like you stand around for 5 seconds trying to figure
out why it is so hot and deciding what to do. In Dealey Plaza many people
did not react to the first shot or thought it was a firecracker or
backfire. Some knew immediately that there were gunshots and it was an
assassination.

> shortly after the shooting started and continued in various manifestations
> throughout the remainder of the trip through Dealey Plaza on to Parkland
> Hospital and (depending on the individual) perhaps hours later. They are

You are being very silly, intentionally. You are trying to sidetrack the
discussion by talking about something other than the topic.
If you want to discuss people's emotional responses, start your own thread.

> not technically related to the involuntary neurological responses caused
> by sudden loud noises, but certain assassination "researchers" (hint,
> hint) like to use them interchangeably with the reflex actions Alvarez was
> trying to isolate by focusing on Zapruder's camera jitter.
>

I think I mentioned a long time ago that Harris is misusing the Alvarez
theory. Maybe it would help if you actually read what Alvarez said
himself. And read the HSCA's jiggle analysis.

> That is simply bad science, as in NO science at all. As you said in an
> earlier post, it is a misuse of Alvarez's theory. That is ALL I am trying
> to point out.
>

Fine, then just say DITTO.
But don't make up your own wacky theory that the occupants thought about
the shot for 3 seconds before deciding to all react in unison.
And you still are not brave enough to tell me when YOUR shot was fired
exactly three seconds before Harris's Z-286 shot. Math too hard for you?

[Lanny]

I feel sorry for you. I really do.

And I'm done with you for this thread, and hopefully forever.

Go get your attention from someone else.

[Lanny]

I have. In both cases.

>
>
>
> > That is simply bad science, as in NO science at all. As you said in an
>
> > earlier post, it is a misuse of Alvarez's theory. That is ALL I am trying
>
> > to point out.
>
> >
>
>
>
> Fine, then just say DITTO.
>
> But don't make up your own wacky theory that the occupants thought about
>
> the shot for 3 seconds before deciding to all react in unison.
>
> And you still are not brave enough to tell me when YOUR shot was fired
>
> exactly three seconds before Harris's Z-286 shot. Math too hard for you?
>

We have obviously had a major communications failure, and because I
believe you are a reasonable person, I really want to try to clear it up.
I hope you will allow me to correct any mistakes I made by "starting
over," so to speak.

When I used my metaphor of the "bomb going off" a full three seconds
before frame 285, I did not mean EXACTLY three seconds. I should have
said "at least" three seconds.

Assuming, the oft estimated speed of Zapruder's camera at 18.3 frames per
sec., exactly three seconds prior to frame 285 would be 54.9 frames sooner
-- namely frame 230.

I certainly do not believe that the first shot at the Presidential
motorcade occurred at frame 230.

I do not believe that the first shot that wounded the President occurred
at frame 230.

I most emphatically do not believe that anyone "waited to respond" to
gunfire (regardless of when those shots were fired) for three seconds,
five seconds or any period of time other than that of the maximum
"involuntary neurological reaction time" as established by reputable
scientific studies. It is worth remembering that Dr. Alvarez, in his
published paper, estimated the "expected (human) neuromuscular" reaction
time as between 1/4 and 1/3 of a second -- a range of between 4.575 and
6.1 frames from gunshot until initiation of a cameraman's accompanying
camera jitter. For Zapruder, Alvarez split the difference and assumed five
frames for an arbitrary latency.

It is further worth noting that the Brown study in the British journal
"Brain" published a wide range of reaction times for different muscle
groups and that the maximum displayed latency to the 124 db auditory
stimulus was 200 milliseconds for forearm flexor muscles -- 3.663 frames
per second. This was one of the criticisms of Alvarez's assumption in his
"jitter analysis." His assumed reaction times may have been too slow.

Finally, the same Brown study noted that the "generalized startle
response" to the 124 db stimulus consisted of minimally demonstrative
muscle contractions that were not likely discernible by an independent
observer. This not a direct quote from the study, but rather what I
believe to be a fair summation of one of the central findings. All of
these reaction factoids are gleaned from the Milicent Cranor article
available here:

http://spot.acorn.net/jfkplace/09/fp.back_issues/31st_Issue/jiggle.html

The extent of the "minimally demonstrative" muscle contractions is
reasonably demonstrated at the 9:55 mark in this excerpt of the 1967 CBS
documentary on the Warren Report:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kZgGDb5eXKo&feature=relmfu

It is my belief that President Kennedy (and most likely Governor Connally
as well) was first wounded by a clearly audible high powered rifle shot of
approximately 130 db at street level (per HSCA tests) at Zapruder frame
222 -- EXACTLY 3.442 seconds prior to frame 285.

It is my belief that no movements or actions of the limo's non-wounded
occupants are objective probative evidence of when any shots were fired
regardless of whether or not they can be described as occurring "in
unison." It is my belief that the testimony of Governor and Mrs. Connally
as well as that of William Greer is sufficient to conclude that none of
these individuals is on record as hearing a gunshot at frame 285.

It is my belief that the testimony of Governor and Mrs. Connally, William
Greer and Roy Kellerman regarding their awareness of loud noises (that
with hindsight can only be reasonably understood to have been gunfire), is
confirmed at various points in the Zapruder film to have occurred prior to
frame 285, thus discrediting any suggestion that the shot which first
struck the President was not heard by any Dealey Plaza witnesses.

I hope this clears up any confusion I may have inadvertently created
regarding my beliefs about auditory stimulus response, the shot at frame
222 and the lack of evidence for the shot at frame 285.

[Bud]

<snicker> This applies to almost everything you write, Tony.

> ...
>
> read more »

[Robert Harris]

>>
>> You don't care that I have repeatedly proven you wrong about this, do
>>
>> you Lanny.
>>
>>
>>
>> Let's hold the presses my friend and let me ask you just two very simple
>>
>> questions, which only require a yes or no answer. After which, we can
>>
>> continue our "debate".
>>
>>
>>
>> 1. Do you believe that the Connally's opinions about when they heard
>>
>> shots in the Zapruder film are reliable?
>>
>>
>>
>> 2. Do you believe a shot was fired at 234?
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> Robert Harris
>
> I feel sorry for you. I really do.
>
> And I'm done with you for this thread, and hopefully forever.
>
> Go get your attention from someone else.

You seem to have all of this backward, Lanny. You specifically stated that
your purpose in this forum was to attack me. And true to your word, you
went after my analysis on Nellie Connally.

Obviously, I was not the one seeking attention:-)

I think the reason you bailed was that you didn't want to answer my
questions about your apparent belief that John Connally was hit at 234. I
doubt that I am the only one who was disappointed by your decision to
employ that argument.

There was a shot at 285, Lanny. Back in 1995 I decided that this was a
waste of time and I was about to delete all the JFK stuff from my
computer, when for some reason I decided to take another look at the
digital copy of the Zfilm that I had recently hijacked from the old Medio
CD.

I remember watching Nellie and feeling sorry for her. Obviously, the
nutters were right that these witnesses were hopelessly confused. How
could she not realize that her husband was wounded before she looked back
at JFK?

And then I got it.

At the time I didn't know that Alvarez had confirmed a loud noise at 285
and I didn't even know that most of the relevant witnesses had heard
closely bunched shots at the end of the attack. I just knew, based solely
on Nellie's testimony, combined with her reactions, and the reactions of
those around her, that she had just heard the shot that she mistakenly
believed, wounded her husband.

In my earliest posts on the subject, I suggested that the shot was fired
at about 284.








Robert Harris