Bob Wails...

[BT George]

...about me (supposedly) never posting an argument, when he keeps running
from several that are made. Like below, this is one of many dozen posts
I've made with undeniable substance that Bob either completely ignores or
snips and only answers what he wishes to.

All I got in answer to this was some *ludicris* complaint that somehow my
opinion about the possible meanings of Roy Kellerman are irrelevant, when
all Bob ever does is post his indefensible opinion that we should
interpret the movements the movements of the other passengers as
*involuntary* startles when he knows---as I point out below that he is
pretty much alone in this dilusuon.

So since I *know* Bob cannot *wait* to tackle those "softballs" I'm always
throwing at him, here it is again. He will "doubtless" refute my
contentions with the peer reviewed scientific corroboration or expert
consensus that proves that he and "Ott" are in their claims about these
visible passenger movements. :-)


May 6me
- show quoted text -
Asked and answered in this post---for one:

https://groups.google.com/d/msg/alt.assassination.jfk/gSCImh2OIGg/f451QsbXsPsJ

Bob will say it doesn't address this, but my opinion on the possible
meanings, and significance, of Kellerman's movements are *clearly* spelled
out therein.

But I'll say it again folks, I'm more interested in why the rest of the
limo. passengers make no (zero) movements that would qualify as
*involuntary* startles?

Indeed other than Alvarez and Strocio (who are physicists not a
neurologists) I'm not quite sure who else, but Robert Harris and "Ott
Rovgeisha" have ever even suspected that they might have been. And even
Alvarez didn't believe the cause to be a gunshot, so he disagrees with Bob
and "Ott" on that too.

Contra Bob, Alvarez mentions *only* the blur by Zapruder and the limo's
abruptly slowing down at this point (apparently due to Greer's taking his
foot off the gas) as factors. And it is from both of these only, that he
*infers* the existence of an *involuntary* startle. But NEVER does he
appeal to the *visible* motions of *any* of the limousine's passengers.

And of course, we know that there are false positives on camera blurs, and
we also know that Greer had been frantically turning to the back just
frames earlier and was about to do so again. Thus there is *NO* reason to
assume that it was not Greer's frantic distraction with what was going on
in the back---which he had at this point clearly not yet figured
out---that caused him to take his foot off the accelerator. (...Which is
a pretty darn understandable reaction when one is starting to whip his
head and torso around towards the rear, while still driving forward and
hoping not to risk losing control of the vehicle's direction while doing
so.)

Zapruder, likewise, was panning his camera and trying to keep it tracking
the vehicle while, doubtlessly, starting to mentally absorb the amazing
scene that was unfolding in his viewfinder. Under such circumstances, how
could the possibility for producing a false positive be anything other
than pretty high?

Even pro-CT Strocio failed to directly appeal to any visible *motions* on
the part of the limo passengers when stating his reasons for believing
that there very well *might* have been a shot at this point. ...Still
just Bob and "Ott".

And Strocio even made note of the following statement by the HSCA
Photographic Panel:

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

In short, *no* experts see anything significant in Kellermans' or anyone
else's *visible* motions at or near Z285. ...Still just Bob and "Ott".
:-)

BT George