Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.
Dismiss
Max Holland believes Oswald fired 3 shots in 11 seconds
40 views
Skip to first unread message
Gerry Simone (H)
Nov 19, 2011, 2:38:04 PM11/19/11
to
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2063459/End-JFK-conspiracy-theories-Digital-technology-proves-Lee-Harvey-Oswald-acted-alone.html
The Canadian National Geographic channel may not telecast this special on
Sunday (I didn't see it in the guide nor did it turn up in a search using
my digital cable box features), but maybe it will be shown on their
website.
In any event, this Mail Online article claims that it's Oswald in the 6th
floor window and that he's the lone assassin.
Max Holland believes it took 11 seconds, and that the Z film was overly
relied upon.
Frankly, I will say now that Holland's claim may not jive with the WC
finding that the majority of witnesses thought that two shots were spaced
close together and it goes against one SSA's testimony that he thought
that two shots were right on top of each other. These observations don't
support 3 shots in 11 seconds.
11 seconds isn't supported by the Zapruder film.
The Canadian National Geographic channel may not telecast this special on
Sunday (I didn't see it in the guide nor did it turn up in a search using
my digital cable box features), but maybe it will be shown on their
website.
In any event, this Mail Online article claims that it's Oswald in the 6th
floor window and that he's the lone assassin.
Max Holland believes it took 11 seconds, and that the Z film was overly
relied upon.
Frankly, I will say now that Holland's claim may not jive with the WC
finding that the majority of witnesses thought that two shots were spaced
close together and it goes against one SSA's testimony that he thought
that two shots were right on top of each other. These observations don't
support 3 shots in 11 seconds.
11 seconds isn't supported by the Zapruder film.
Anthony Marsh
Nov 19, 2011, 5:20:17 PM11/19/11
to
the correct 11 seconds. Alerationists argue the reason why is because
the conspirators snipped out the seconds before frame Z-133.
Pamela Brown
Nov 19, 2011, 5:21:38 PM11/19/11
to
On Nov 19, 1:38 pm, "Gerry Simone \(H\)" <newdecent...@hotmail.com>
wrote:
> http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2063459/End-JFK-conspiracy-th...
presenting an entirely different scenario does more to negate the theory
of the WCR than support it; but its defenders seem unable to comprehend
that irony.
wrote:
> http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2063459/End-JFK-conspiracy-th...
>
> The Canadian National Geographic channel may not telecast this special on
> Sunday (I didn't see it in the guide nor did it turn up in a search using
> my digital cable box features), but maybe it will be shown on their
> website.
>
> In any event, this Mail Online article claims that it's Oswald in the 6th
> floor window and that he's the lone assassin.
>
> Max Holland believes it took 11 seconds, and that the Z film was overly
> relied upon.
>
> Frankly, I will say now that Holland's claim may not jive with the WC
> finding that the majority of witnesses thought that two shots were spaced
> close together and it goes against one SSA's testimony that he thought
> that two shots were right on top of each other. These observations don't
> support 3 shots in 11 seconds.
>
> 11 seconds isn't supported by the Zapruder film.
This seems to be another attempt at a redux of the WCR. Of course,
> The Canadian National Geographic channel may not telecast this special on
> Sunday (I didn't see it in the guide nor did it turn up in a search using
> my digital cable box features), but maybe it will be shown on their
> website.
>
> In any event, this Mail Online article claims that it's Oswald in the 6th
> floor window and that he's the lone assassin.
>
> Max Holland believes it took 11 seconds, and that the Z film was overly
> relied upon.
>
> Frankly, I will say now that Holland's claim may not jive with the WC
> finding that the majority of witnesses thought that two shots were spaced
> close together and it goes against one SSA's testimony that he thought
> that two shots were right on top of each other. These observations don't
> support 3 shots in 11 seconds.
>
> 11 seconds isn't supported by the Zapruder film.
presenting an entirely different scenario does more to negate the theory
of the WCR than support it; but its defenders seem unable to comprehend
that irony.
bigdog
Nov 19, 2011, 7:14:39 PM11/19/11
to
On Nov 19, 2:38 pm, "Gerry Simone \(H\)" <newdecent...@hotmail.com>
wrote:
> http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2063459/End-JFK-conspiracy-th...
>
fired because it has no sound. We have definitive visual evidence of when
the head shot struck. We have strong evidence for when JFK and JBC were
first wounded, i.e. the bulge of JBC's jacket followed immediately by the
simultaneous raising of the arms by both JFK and JBC. What we are forced
to guess at is when that first missed shot was fired. We have the visual
evidence of JBC's sudden rightward turn at Z164 followed by Rosemary
Willis' gradual stop and turn toward the TSBD. What Zapruder can't tell us
is how much of a time lag there was betweent the sound of the first shot
and those reactions. The evidence is simply inconclusive. I really hope
Holland can present us something more definitive for that first shot but
my gut feeling is we will never have definitive evidence to tell us
precisely when that shot was fired.
wrote:
> http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2063459/End-JFK-conspiracy-th...
>
> The Canadian National Geographic channel may not telecast this special on
> Sunday (I didn't see it in the guide nor did it turn up in a search using
> my digital cable box features), but maybe it will be shown on their
> website.
>
> In any event, this Mail Online article claims that it's Oswald in the 6th
> floor window and that he's the lone assassin.
>
> Max Holland believes it took 11 seconds, and that the Z film was overly
> relied upon.
>
> Frankly, I will say now that Holland's claim may not jive with the WC
> finding that the majority of witnesses thought that two shots were spaced
> close together and it goes against one SSA's testimony that he thought
> that two shots were right on top of each other. These observations don't
> support 3 shots in 11 seconds.
>
> 11 seconds isn't supported by the Zapruder film.
The Z-film doesn't give us proof positive of when that first shot was
> Sunday (I didn't see it in the guide nor did it turn up in a search using
> my digital cable box features), but maybe it will be shown on their
> website.
>
> In any event, this Mail Online article claims that it's Oswald in the 6th
> floor window and that he's the lone assassin.
>
> Max Holland believes it took 11 seconds, and that the Z film was overly
> relied upon.
>
> Frankly, I will say now that Holland's claim may not jive with the WC
> finding that the majority of witnesses thought that two shots were spaced
> close together and it goes against one SSA's testimony that he thought
> that two shots were right on top of each other. These observations don't
> support 3 shots in 11 seconds.
>
> 11 seconds isn't supported by the Zapruder film.
fired because it has no sound. We have definitive visual evidence of when
the head shot struck. We have strong evidence for when JFK and JBC were
first wounded, i.e. the bulge of JBC's jacket followed immediately by the
simultaneous raising of the arms by both JFK and JBC. What we are forced
to guess at is when that first missed shot was fired. We have the visual
evidence of JBC's sudden rightward turn at Z164 followed by Rosemary
Willis' gradual stop and turn toward the TSBD. What Zapruder can't tell us
is how much of a time lag there was betweent the sound of the first shot
and those reactions. The evidence is simply inconclusive. I really hope
Holland can present us something more definitive for that first shot but
my gut feeling is we will never have definitive evidence to tell us
precisely when that shot was fired.
bigdog
Nov 19, 2011, 8:17:30 PM11/19/11
to
>
I don't think this would constitute a redux of the WCR even if it proves
to be factual. The WCR came to no conclusion as to which of Oswald's three
shots missed nor did they try to pin down the total elapsed time for the
three shots. This was the WCR's conclusion at the end of Chapter III which
dealt with the timing of the shots:
"Since the preponderance of the evidence indicated that three shots were
fired, the Commission concluded that one shot probably missed the
Presidential limousine and its occupants, and that the three shots were
fired in a time period ranging from approximately 4.8 to in excess of 7
seconds."
If Holland is correct, his finding is still compatible with the original
conclusion by the WC. The total time span for the three shots would be "in
excess of 7 seconds". It's probably more in excess than the WC would have
thought, but still falls within their parameters. The WC carefully
refrained from coming to conclusions for which they lacked definitive
evidence, which in retrospect was the intelligent approach. Where the
evidence was inconclusive, they came to no conclusion.
Robert Harris
Nov 20, 2011, 11:30:49 AM11/20/11
to
Determining when the shots were fired is not nearly the mystery that
nutters here would like us to believe.
We simply look for reactions by JFK and the people around him. Not only
can we spot most of the shots, but we can easily determine which of them
came from high powered rifles and which did not, based on the nature and
timing of those reactions. This video explains in detail.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cvqCtaBkyyE
Robert Harris
In article <4ec7e6ab$1...@mcadams.posc.mu.edu>,
"Gerry Simone \(H\)" <newdec...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2063459/End-JFK-conspiracy-theories-Di
Island
Nov 20, 2011, 6:51:35 PM11/20/11
to
On Nov 20, 10:30 am, Robert Harris <bobharri...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> Determining when the shots were fired is not nearly the mystery that
> nutters here would like us to believe.
>
> We simply look for reactions by JFK and the people around him. Not only
> can we spot most of the shots, but we can easily determine which of them
> came from high powered rifles and which did not, based on the nature and
> timing of those reactions. This video explains in detail.
>
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cvqCtaBkyyE
>
> Robert Harris
>
> In article <4ec7e6a...@mcadams.posc.mu.edu>,
> Determining when the shots were fired is not nearly the mystery that
> nutters here would like us to believe.
>
> We simply look for reactions by JFK and the people around him. Not only
> can we spot most of the shots, but we can easily determine which of them
> came from high powered rifles and which did not, based on the nature and
> timing of those reactions. This video explains in detail.
>
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cvqCtaBkyyE
>
> Robert Harris
>
> "Gerry Simone \(H\)" <newdecent...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> >http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2063459/End-JFK-conspiracy-th...
> > gital-technology-proves-Lee-Harvey-Oswald-acted-alone.html
>
> > The Canadian National Geographic channel may not telecast this special on
> > Sunday (I didn't see it in the guide nor did it turn up in a search using
> > my digital cable box features), but maybe it will be shown on their
> > website.
>
> > In any event, this Mail Online article claims that it's Oswald in the 6th
> > floor window and that he's the lone assassin.
>
> > Max Holland believes it took 11 seconds, and that the Z film was overly
> > relied upon.
>
> > Frankly, I will say now that Holland's claim may not jive with the WC
> > finding that the majority of witnesses thought that two shots were spaced
> > close together and it goes against one SSA's testimony that he thought
> > that two shots were right on top of each other. These observations don't
> > support 3 shots in 11 seconds.
>
> > 11 seconds isn't supported by the Zapruder film.- Hide quoted text -
>
> > The Canadian National Geographic channel may not telecast this special on
> > Sunday (I didn't see it in the guide nor did it turn up in a search using
> > my digital cable box features), but maybe it will be shown on their
> > website.
>
> > In any event, this Mail Online article claims that it's Oswald in the 6th
> > floor window and that he's the lone assassin.
>
> > Max Holland believes it took 11 seconds, and that the Z film was overly
> > relied upon.
>
> > Frankly, I will say now that Holland's claim may not jive with the WC
> > finding that the majority of witnesses thought that two shots were spaced
> > close together and it goes against one SSA's testimony that he thought
> > that two shots were right on top of each other. These observations don't
> > support 3 shots in 11 seconds.
>
>
> - Show quoted text -
Seems eavery couple of years someone comes up with some BS and pushes the
parade car closer to the intersection for the start of the attack. I
suppose if I live long enough it eventaully will get backed up to the Main
Street intersection.
I'll stick with what Mary Moorman said earlier this year in her live
Internet intervew: the 1st shot was at the instant she took her polaroid,
followed by two more shots right on top of each other. Bang, bang-bang.
She did not hear any shots prior to taking her photo and she did not see
JFK reacting to something the way we see him doing so in the Zapruder
film.
How credible is Mary Moorman with me? She was standing roughly 25 feet
(one car lane) away from the rear of the parade car looking at JFK as she
snapped her photo. She was there. Most others who have a loud opinion one
way or another were not.
bigdog
Nov 20, 2011, 9:00:02 PM11/20/11
to
On Nov 20, 11:30 am, Robert Harris <bobharri...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> Determining when the shots were fired is not nearly the mystery that
> nutters here would like us to believe.
>
> We simply look for reactions by JFK and the people around him. Not only
> can we spot most of the shots, but we can easily determine which of them
> came from high powered rifles and which did not, based on the nature and
> timing of those reactions. This video explains in detail.
>
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cvqCtaBkyyE
>
> Robert Harris
>
> In article <4ec7e6a...@mcadams.posc.mu.edu>,
> Determining when the shots were fired is not nearly the mystery that
> nutters here would like us to believe.
>
> We simply look for reactions by JFK and the people around him. Not only
> can we spot most of the shots, but we can easily determine which of them
> came from high powered rifles and which did not, based on the nature and
> timing of those reactions. This video explains in detail.
>
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cvqCtaBkyyE
>
> Robert Harris
>
> "Gerry Simone \(H\)" <newdecent...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> >http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2063459/End-JFK-conspiracy-th...
> > gital-technology-proves-Lee-Harvey-Oswald-acted-alone.html
>
> > The Canadian National Geographic channel may not telecast this special on
> > Sunday (I didn't see it in the guide nor did it turn up in a search using
> > my digital cable box features), but maybe it will be shown on their
> > website.
>
> > In any event, this Mail Online article claims that it's Oswald in the 6th
> > floor window and that he's the lone assassin.
>
> > Max Holland believes it took 11 seconds, and that the Z film was overly
> > relied upon.
>
> > Frankly, I will say now that Holland's claim may not jive with the WC
> > finding that the majority of witnesses thought that two shots were spaced
> > close together and it goes against one SSA's testimony that he thought
> > that two shots were right on top of each other. These observations don't
> > support 3 shots in 11 seconds.
>
>
> > The Canadian National Geographic channel may not telecast this special on
> > Sunday (I didn't see it in the guide nor did it turn up in a search using
> > my digital cable box features), but maybe it will be shown on their
> > website.
>
> > In any event, this Mail Online article claims that it's Oswald in the 6th
> > floor window and that he's the lone assassin.
>
> > Max Holland believes it took 11 seconds, and that the Z film was overly
> > relied upon.
>
> > Frankly, I will say now that Holland's claim may not jive with the WC
> > finding that the majority of witnesses thought that two shots were spaced
> > close together and it goes against one SSA's testimony that he thought
> > that two shots were right on top of each other. These observations don't
> > support 3 shots in 11 seconds.
>
> > 11 seconds isn't supported by the Zapruder film.- Hide quoted text -
>
If one wants to fantasize, you can find "evidence" for a shot at just
>
about any point in the Z-film you choose to put one. If you want to rely
on compelling evidence, your choices are limited. We have definitive
evidence for a Z312-313 shot. We have compelling evidence for a shot in
the early Z220s but it is difficult to pinpoint an exact frame. The
evidence for when the first shot was fired is much less conclusive and
allows for the type of speculation that Holland seems to be engaging in.
I've said it before and I will say it again. The theory of a first shot
before Zapruder had resumed filming cannot be dismissed out of hand but I
remain unconvinced. I might feel differently after watching tonight's
presentation on Natgeo.
Jean Davison
Nov 20, 2011, 9:02:06 PM11/20/11
to jjdavi...@yahoo.com
> Seems eavery couple of years someone comes up with some BS and pushes the
> parade car closer to the intersection for the start of the attack. I
> suppose if I live long enough it eventaully will get backed up to the Main
> Street intersection.
>
> I'll stick with what Mary Moorman said earlier this year in her live
> Internet intervew: the 1st shot was at the instant she took her polaroid,
> followed by two more shots right on top of each other. Bang, bang-bang.
> She did not hear any shots prior to taking her photo and she did not see
> JFK reacting to something the way we see him doing so in the Zapruder
> film.
>
> How credible is Mary Moorman with me? She was standing roughly 25 feet
> (one car lane) away from the rear of the parade car looking at JFK as she
> snapped her photo. She was there. Most others who have a loud opinion one
> way or another were not.
Since Moorman's photo was taken at approximately Z315, she
> parade car closer to the intersection for the start of the attack. I
> suppose if I live long enough it eventaully will get backed up to the Main
> Street intersection.
>
> I'll stick with what Mary Moorman said earlier this year in her live
> Internet intervew: the 1st shot was at the instant she took her polaroid,
> followed by two more shots right on top of each other. Bang, bang-bang.
> She did not hear any shots prior to taking her photo and she did not see
> JFK reacting to something the way we see him doing so in the Zapruder
> film.
>
> How credible is Mary Moorman with me? She was standing roughly 25 feet
> (one car lane) away from the rear of the parade car looking at JFK as she
> snapped her photo. She was there. Most others who have a loud opinion one
> way or another were not.
apparently thought the fatal shot was the first one fired.
Bill Newman was across the street from Moorman. He thought the
head shot was the *second* shot fired, and he described what he
interpreted as JFK's reaction to the first one:
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/russ/testimony/wnewman.htm
His wife Gayle also described Kennedy's reaction to the
first shot. She thought the fatal shot was the *third* shot.
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/russ/testimony/gnewman.htm
All three of them were there, but they gave three
different versions.
Jean
David Von Pein
Nov 20, 2011, 9:35:54 PM11/20/11
to
So, Island, you think no shots at all had been fired PRIOR to Z-Frame
313?
I've heard weird theories before--but that one might take the Duncan-
Hines.
I guess when JFK raised his arms in the Z220s he was merely
ANTICIPATING being struck by a bullet that wouldn't be hitting him in
the back until AFTER the head shot. Neat.
(Oh, yes, I forgot -- the Z-Film is "wholly fabricated", to quote from
Jim Fetzer's 2003 book.)
Anthony Marsh
Nov 20, 2011, 11:16:36 PM11/20/11
to
Maybe you missed when former Secret Service agent John Joe Howlett says
that when they looked at the Zapruder film they could SEE that when
President Kennedy emerges from behind the sign they could see that he had
already been hit because his hands were up in front of his throat and he
was hit by a bullet BEFORE that.
Then Connally was hit.
Peter Fokes
Nov 21, 2011, 12:22:09 AM11/21/11
to
On 20 Nov 2011 21:00:02 -0500, bigdog <jecorb...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>> "Gerry Simone \(H\)" <newdecent...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>> >http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2063459/End-JFK-conspiracy-th...
>> > gital-technology-proves-Lee-Harvey-Oswald-acted-alone.html
>>
>> > The Canadian National Geographic channel may not telecast this special on
>> > Sunday (I didn't see it in the guide nor did it turn up in a search using
>> > my digital cable box features), but maybe it will be shown on their
>> > website.
It didn't telecast it. Same old reruns.
>> "Gerry Simone \(H\)" <newdecent...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>> >http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2063459/End-JFK-conspiracy-th...
>> > gital-technology-proves-Lee-Harvey-Oswald-acted-alone.html
>>
>> > The Canadian National Geographic channel may not telecast this special on
>> > Sunday (I didn't see it in the guide nor did it turn up in a search using
>> > my digital cable box features), but maybe it will be shown on their
>> > website.
PF
David Von Pein
Nov 21, 2011, 9:02:02 AM11/21/11
to
And yet Howlett supports the SBT completely, Tony.
Go figure that.
Island
Nov 21, 2011, 9:03:19 AM11/21/11
to
On Nov 20, 11:22 pm, Peter Fokes <pfo...@rogers.com> wrote:
@ Jean Davidson:
It has been a source of intrigue since the sordid event occured how so
many people in close proximity of each other saw and heard the attack
differently. Of the conflicting versions given over the year I stick
with Mary Moorman's version. If you go back and review her 2011 live
Internet interview she tells you she snapped her polaroid at the
moment she heard a shot and she also saw JFK's hair fly up. Then she
heard two more fast shots (right on top of each other). She said she
did not hear anything prior to her taking the photo and she doubts she
would have stood there with a camera to her face if she had heard a
rifle shot prior to taking the photo.
In Mary's version of events, Oswald killed JFK on his first shot, then
got off two more really fast. There are several videos of folks firing
a MC fast enough to get a double-bang effect on YouTube.
This means if she is correct the 1st X spot in Dealey Plaza doesn't
need to be there.
It's your perrogative if you think she is wrong (I wouldn't argue with
her) and choose to believe the versions given by others who were
there. It doesn't change anything; JFK still lost his life and the
Justice Department has not gone after anyone else nor issued a report
or statement that states it was any person other than Oswald. Until
the Justice Department issues said items the case is closed. I am very
aware of Professor McAdams website and his opinions and I admire his
work and durability on this issue over the years, especially now that
he's being bashed at another website that reviewed his book. That's no
way to treat a college professor in my opinion (shame on them).
It has been a source of intrigue since the sordid event occured how so
many people in close proximity of each other saw and heard the attack
differently. Of the conflicting versions given over the year I stick
with Mary Moorman's version. If you go back and review her 2011 live
Internet interview she tells you she snapped her polaroid at the
moment she heard a shot and she also saw JFK's hair fly up. Then she
heard two more fast shots (right on top of each other). She said she
did not hear anything prior to her taking the photo and she doubts she
would have stood there with a camera to her face if she had heard a
rifle shot prior to taking the photo.
In Mary's version of events, Oswald killed JFK on his first shot, then
got off two more really fast. There are several videos of folks firing
a MC fast enough to get a double-bang effect on YouTube.
This means if she is correct the 1st X spot in Dealey Plaza doesn't
need to be there.
It's your perrogative if you think she is wrong (I wouldn't argue with
her) and choose to believe the versions given by others who were
there. It doesn't change anything; JFK still lost his life and the
Justice Department has not gone after anyone else nor issued a report
or statement that states it was any person other than Oswald. Until
the Justice Department issues said items the case is closed. I am very
aware of Professor McAdams website and his opinions and I admire his
work and durability on this issue over the years, especially now that
he's being bashed at another website that reviewed his book. That's no
way to treat a college professor in my opinion (shame on them).
Sean Smiley
Nov 21, 2011, 9:05:35 AM11/21/11
to
years....
dcw
Gerry Simone
Nov 21, 2011, 9:05:51 AM11/21/11
to
So Nobel Laureate Luis Alvarez' jiggle analysis is fantasy too?
"bigdog" <jecorb...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:8e486f80-eb05-44d7...@b32g2000yqn.googlegroups.com...
"bigdog" <jecorb...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:8e486f80-eb05-44d7...@b32g2000yqn.googlegroups.com...
Gerry Simone
Nov 21, 2011, 9:06:56 AM11/21/11
to
This show will repeat Wed and Thurday on that same U.S. NG channel.
I hope it comes to Canada soon.
The DVD is released Wed Nov 22nd.
http://natgeotv.com/uk/jfk-the-lost-bullet/about
"Gerry Simone (H)" <newdec...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:4ec7e6ab$1...@mcadams.posc.mu.edu...
I hope it comes to Canada soon.
The DVD is released Wed Nov 22nd.
http://natgeotv.com/uk/jfk-the-lost-bullet/about
"Gerry Simone (H)" <newdec...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:4ec7e6ab$1...@mcadams.posc.mu.edu...
Gerry Simone
Nov 21, 2011, 9:07:12 AM11/21/11
to
Huh?
If Max is arguing that, it goes against his LAT?
"Anthony Marsh" <anthon...@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:4ec8172e$1...@mcadams.posc.mu.edu...
If Max is arguing that, it goes against his LAT?
"Anthony Marsh" <anthon...@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:4ec8172e$1...@mcadams.posc.mu.edu...
Gerry Simone
Nov 21, 2011, 9:07:27 AM11/21/11
to
I would generally agree. Thank you.
"Robert Harris" <bobha...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:bobharris77-CF4D...@70-3-168-216.pools.spcsdns.net...
"Robert Harris" <bobha...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:bobharris77-CF4D...@70-3-168-216.pools.spcsdns.net...
Gerry Simone
Nov 21, 2011, 9:07:43 AM11/21/11
to
The Z film does NOT give strong evidence of the WC's SBT if that's what
you're alluding too with that lapel flip, for two reasons: a) it goes
against JFK's earlier reactions (stopping to wave, looking forward with a
frozen look even though there are spectators on the sidewalk, mouth already
wide open as soon as he emerges from the Stemmons sign b) inconsistent
reactions - JFK already reacting even though it's allegedly a soft-tissue
injury, while Connally delays a reaction regardless of 5 wounds and smashed
bones (including several inches of rib and very hard wrist bone).
These two reasons are strong evidence of different shot reactions.
In any event, how friggin' early was that shot? Z155? Still not 11 seconds
to Z313.
Does witness testimony corroborate an earlier shot?
(I couldn't watch this documentary on the Cdn National Geographic station
but will check NG's website to see if they will play that video in its
entirety).
news:f417abe4-4409-4588...@t16g2000vba.googlegroups.com...
you're alluding too with that lapel flip, for two reasons: a) it goes
against JFK's earlier reactions (stopping to wave, looking forward with a
frozen look even though there are spectators on the sidewalk, mouth already
wide open as soon as he emerges from the Stemmons sign b) inconsistent
reactions - JFK already reacting even though it's allegedly a soft-tissue
injury, while Connally delays a reaction regardless of 5 wounds and smashed
bones (including several inches of rib and very hard wrist bone).
These two reasons are strong evidence of different shot reactions.
In any event, how friggin' early was that shot? Z155? Still not 11 seconds
to Z313.
Does witness testimony corroborate an earlier shot?
(I couldn't watch this documentary on the Cdn National Geographic station
but will check NG's website to see if they will play that video in its
entirety).
news:f417abe4-4409-4588...@t16g2000vba.googlegroups.com...
claviger
Nov 21, 2011, 12:52:37 PM11/21/11
to
On Nov 19, 1:38 pm, "Gerry Simone \(H\)" <newdecent...@hotmail.com>
wrote:
> http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2063459/End-JFK-conspiracy-th...
>
the Zapruder film. To match the impression of last two shots closer
together than the first two shots we must estimate the number of frames
backwards past the equivalent time difference. When we do the first shot
is exactly where Holland speculates, at or prior to when Zapruder
restarted filming at z133. So the Zapruder film is totally at odds with
the majority sound impression, leading to the possible explanation the
last two shots auricular perception of "bangbang" was actually one shot
with echo.
wrote:
> http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2063459/End-JFK-conspiracy-th...
>
> The Canadian National Geographic channel may not telecast this special on
> Sunday (I didn't see it in the guide nor did it turn up in a search using
> my digital cable box features), but maybe it will be shown on their
> website.
>
> In any event, this Mail Online article claims that it's Oswald in the 6th
> floor window and that he's the lone assassin.
>
> Max Holland believes it took 11 seconds, and that the Z film was overly
> relied upon.
>
> Frankly, I will say now that Holland's claim may not jive with the WC
> finding that the majority of witnesses thought that two shots were spaced
> close together and it goes against one SSA's testimony that he thought
> that two shots were right on top of each other. These observations don't
> support 3 shots in 11 seconds.
>
> 11 seconds isn't supported by the Zapruder film.
Actually it is. We know the timing between the 2nd and 3rd shots based on
> Sunday (I didn't see it in the guide nor did it turn up in a search using
> my digital cable box features), but maybe it will be shown on their
> website.
>
> In any event, this Mail Online article claims that it's Oswald in the 6th
> floor window and that he's the lone assassin.
>
> Max Holland believes it took 11 seconds, and that the Z film was overly
> relied upon.
>
> Frankly, I will say now that Holland's claim may not jive with the WC
> finding that the majority of witnesses thought that two shots were spaced
> close together and it goes against one SSA's testimony that he thought
> that two shots were right on top of each other. These observations don't
> support 3 shots in 11 seconds.
>
> 11 seconds isn't supported by the Zapruder film.
the Zapruder film. To match the impression of last two shots closer
together than the first two shots we must estimate the number of frames
backwards past the equivalent time difference. When we do the first shot
is exactly where Holland speculates, at or prior to when Zapruder
restarted filming at z133. So the Zapruder film is totally at odds with
the majority sound impression, leading to the possible explanation the
last two shots auricular perception of "bangbang" was actually one shot
with echo.
bigdog
Nov 21, 2011, 12:56:19 PM11/21/11
to
conflicting accounts of what happened. That is the norm. People saw and
heard the same thing, they just don't remember things the same. Few people
have perfect recall. People remember bits and pieces of what happened but
they don't necessarily remember all of them or in what order they saw an
heard things. The human mind is not a DVR.
I don't know how you can believe Moorman. She took her photo at about the
time of the head shot. We know that JFK and JBC had been shot before that
so we know there was at least one shot that preceded the head shot. I'm
sure she heard that shot. It just didn't register in her memory bank.
bigdog
Nov 21, 2011, 12:56:53 PM11/21/11
to
parameter, I won't argue. The important point is that the WCR did not
limit the shooting to any specific time frame. If Holland is right that
the shooting took 11 seconds, that is still compatible with the findings
of the WC.
bigdog
Nov 21, 2011, 3:14:52 PM11/21/11
to
On Nov 21, 9:05 am, "Gerry Simone" <newdecent...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> So Nobel Laureate Luis Alvarez' jiggle analysis is fantasy too?
>
Where did I say that. If Alvarez is correct that every shot would be
> So Nobel Laureate Luis Alvarez' jiggle analysis is fantasy too?
>
followed by a jiggle, that doesn't mean every jiggle followed a shot.
There are numerous jiggles in the Z-film and only the craziest of CTs
believes there were that many shots. However, if one wanted to place a
shot somewhere in the Z-film, I'm sure they could find a jiggle close
enough to suit them. In Holland's case, the jiggle theory is irrelevant
because he believes the shot was taken while Zapruder was not filming, so
there would be no corresponding jiggle.
bigdog
Nov 21, 2011, 3:16:04 PM11/21/11
to
On Nov 21, 9:07 am, "Gerry Simone" <newdecent...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> The Z film does NOT give strong evidence of the WC's SBT if that's what
> you're alluding too with that lapel flip, for two reasons: a) it goes
> against JFK's earlier reactions (stopping to wave, looking forward with a
> frozen look even though there are spectators on the sidewalk, mouth already
> wide open as soon as he emerges from the Stemmons sign b) inconsistent
> reactions - JFK already reacting even though it's allegedly a soft-tissue
> injury, while Connally delays a reaction regardless of 5 wounds and smashed
> bones (including several inches of rib and very hard wrist bone).
>
Where have you been? There was no delayed reaction by Connally. He reacts
> The Z film does NOT give strong evidence of the WC's SBT if that's what
> you're alluding too with that lapel flip, for two reasons: a) it goes
> against JFK's earlier reactions (stopping to wave, looking forward with a
> frozen look even though there are spectators on the sidewalk, mouth already
> wide open as soon as he emerges from the Stemmons sign b) inconsistent
> reactions - JFK already reacting even though it's allegedly a soft-tissue
> injury, while Connally delays a reaction regardless of 5 wounds and smashed
> bones (including several inches of rib and very hard wrist bone).
>
in the same frame JFK reacted, Z226. That is the frame JFK begins raising
his arms just as JBC's injured right arm flips involuntarily upward in a
rapid motion. Through Z225, JFK's hand was still being lowered following a
wave and Connally's right hand was holding his Stetson in his lap. This
downward motion began before JFK disappeared behind the sign and continued
for one frame after he emerged. JFK may or may not have reacted to the
earlier missed shot. The evidence is inconclusive. He didn't make the
defintive movement Connally did when he snapped his head around to the
right to look over his shoulder.
> These two reasons are strong evidence of different shot reactions.
>
> In any event, how friggin' early was that shot? Z155?
time.
> Still not 11 seconds
> to Z313.
>
because we don't have definitive evidence for when that shot occurred.
> Does witness testimony corroborate an earlier shot?
>
be corroborated. Connally, Bennett just to name two, who both say the
first shot missed. Both can be supported by other evidence.
Anthony Marsh
Nov 21, 2011, 3:44:17 PM11/21/11
to
On 11/21/2011 9:07 AM, Gerry Simone wrote:
> The Z film does NOT give strong evidence of the WC's SBT if that's what
> you're alluding too with that lapel flip, for two reasons: a) it goes
> against JFK's earlier reactions (stopping to wave, looking forward with a
> frozen look even though there are spectators on the sidewalk, mouth already
> wide open as soon as he emerges from the Stemmons sign b) inconsistent
> reactions - JFK already reacting even though it's allegedly a soft-tissue
> injury, while Connally delays a reaction regardless of 5 wounds and smashed
> bones (including several inches of rib and very hard wrist bone).
>
Maybe you happened to notice when SS agent Howlett said that they looked
> The Z film does NOT give strong evidence of the WC's SBT if that's what
> you're alluding too with that lapel flip, for two reasons: a) it goes
> against JFK's earlier reactions (stopping to wave, looking forward with a
> frozen look even though there are spectators on the sidewalk, mouth already
> wide open as soon as he emerges from the Stemmons sign b) inconsistent
> reactions - JFK already reacting even though it's allegedly a soft-tissue
> injury, while Connally delays a reaction regardless of 5 wounds and smashed
> bones (including several inches of rib and very hard wrist bone).
>
at the Zapruder film and could see when Kennedy emerges from behind the
sign that his hands are up in front of his throat and that indicates
that he had already been shot in the back. Then Connally reacts to being
hit. Something that WC defenders here will not admit.
Holland does and then he says that the only alternative to conspiracy is
the SBT.
Holland also lies when he says that there is a consensus that Kennedy
was shot by two bullets and Connally by only one bullet.
The very first SBT had Connally shot by two different bullets.
Some of the conspiracy theorists believe he got his wrist wound later.
> These two reasons are strong evidence of different shot reactions.
>
> In any event, how friggin' early was that shot? Z155? Still not 11 seconds
> to Z313.
>
alterationist theory is that Zapruder never stopped filming and the gap
from Z-132 to Z-133 is where the CIA cut out the missing seconds which
show additional shots.
> Does witness testimony corroborate an earlier shot?
>
pulling a Harris.
mean turning her head, but she always had her head turned to the right as
we can see in the Dorman film. BTW, we are close to being able to prove
that the Dorman film overlaps Z-133 and may help up synchronize the two
films and find out if McLain could have been in the right place at the
right time to record the shots on the DPD tape.
Anthony Marsh
Nov 21, 2011, 3:47:54 PM11/21/11
to
On 11/21/2011 9:07 AM, Gerry Simone wrote:
had started filming again immediately when the limo started the turn.
The alterationis argument is that he never stopped filming, that the
original film was something like 40 seconds long.
Anthony Marsh
Nov 21, 2011, 3:48:54 PM11/21/11
to
did its own jiggle analysis with its own scientists. The theory is ok
about a photographer reacting to the sound of gunfire. But Alvarez ruined
it by thinking that it was the SHOCK WAVE which actually physically moved
the camera. Then he failed to test the angles to confirm that Zapruder
could actually hear the shock waves for each shot. Remember that Zapruder
was in front of the limo. The shock wave has a angle to the left and right
of the path of the bullet and will quickly stop existing when the bullet
hits its target. The shock waves might not have been strong enough at some
shots to reach Zapruder. So Zapruder may have been just reacting to the
slower muzzle blast. That plus the reaction time of his nervous system
makes a difference of several Zapruder frames. So in general we would
expect a reaction about 4 or 5 frames after a shot hit. As I pointed out
in my article the HSCA matchup of the jiggles with the shots they found on
the tape does not work well because they started with the last shot from
the TSBD at Z-313 instead of Z-313 being the grassy knoll shot.
BTW, I am a firm believer in the acoustical evidence and it does allow any
shots before Z-133.
Sean Smiley
Nov 21, 2011, 3:50:43 PM11/21/11
to
the depository, *that* would be compatible! Very helpful "time
span"....
dcw
Anthony Marsh
Nov 21, 2011, 4:42:50 PM11/21/11
to
never named Oswald as the shooter.
Anthony Marsh
Nov 21, 2011, 4:43:06 PM11/21/11
to
indicating a shot?
Anthony Marsh
Nov 21, 2011, 4:46:08 PM11/21/11
to
of them?
Anthony Marsh
Nov 21, 2011, 4:47:18 PM11/21/11
to
On 11/21/2011 9:02 AM, David Von Pein wrote:
>
> And yet Howlett supports the SBT completely, Tony.
>
> Go figure that.
>
Because he doesn't see the implications of what he just said. Because he
>
> And yet Howlett supports the SBT completely, Tony.
>
> Go figure that.
>
thinks he must support the WC at all costs.
Anthony Marsh
Nov 21, 2011, 4:47:39 PM11/21/11
to
On 11/21/2011 3:16 PM, bigdog wrote:
> On Nov 21, 9:07 am, "Gerry Simone"<newdecent...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>> The Z film does NOT give strong evidence of the WC's SBT if that's what
>> you're alluding too with that lapel flip, for two reasons: a) it goes
>> against JFK's earlier reactions (stopping to wave, looking forward with a
>> frozen look even though there are spectators on the sidewalk, mouth already
>> wide open as soon as he emerges from the Stemmons sign b) inconsistent
>> reactions - JFK already reacting even though it's allegedly a soft-tissue
>> injury, while Connally delays a reaction regardless of 5 wounds and smashed
>> bones (including several inches of rib and very hard wrist bone).
>>
>
> Where have you been? There was no delayed reaction by Connally. He reacts
> in the same frame JFK reacted, Z226. That is the frame JFK begins raising
No. Didn't you see SS agent Howlett saying that they watched the
>> The Z film does NOT give strong evidence of the WC's SBT if that's what
>> you're alluding too with that lapel flip, for two reasons: a) it goes
>> against JFK's earlier reactions (stopping to wave, looking forward with a
>> frozen look even though there are spectators on the sidewalk, mouth already
>> wide open as soon as he emerges from the Stemmons sign b) inconsistent
>> reactions - JFK already reacting even though it's allegedly a soft-tissue
>> injury, while Connally delays a reaction regardless of 5 wounds and smashed
>> bones (including several inches of rib and very hard wrist bone).
>>
>
> Where have you been? There was no delayed reaction by Connally. He reacts
> in the same frame JFK reacted, Z226. That is the frame JFK begins raising
Zapruder film and could see that JFK was already shot before he emerged
from behind the sign? JFK had to be shot before he reacts unless he was
psychic. At least 4 frames before Z-225 when we can see his hands up in
front of his throat. Now, if you could just move your SBT back to Z-221
you might have a chance.
claviger
Nov 21, 2011, 10:25:31 PM11/21/11
to
On Nov 21, 2:44 pm, Anthony Marsh <anthony.ma...@comcast.net> wrote:
> On 11/21/2011 9:07 AM, Gerry Simone wrote:
>
> > The Z film does NOT give strong evidence of the WC's SBT if that's what
> > you're alluding too with that lapel flip, for two reasons: a) it goes
> > against JFK's earlier reactions (stopping to wave, looking forward with a
> > frozen look even though there are spectators on the sidewalk, mouth already
> > wide open as soon as he emerges from the Stemmons sign b) inconsistent
> > reactions - JFK already reacting even though it's allegedly a soft-tissue
> > injury, while Connally delays a reaction regardless of 5 wounds and smashed
> > bones (including several inches of rib and very hard wrist bone).
>
> Maybe you happened to notice when SS agent Howlett said that they looked
> at the Zapruder film and could see when Kennedy emerges from behind the
> sign that his hands are up in front of his throat and that indicates
> that he had already been shot in the back. Then Connally reacts to being
> hit. Something that WC defenders here will not admit.
> Holland does and then he says that the only alternative to conspiracy is
> the SBT.
Not the only alternative. The Donahue Theory has JFK reacting to flesh
> On 11/21/2011 9:07 AM, Gerry Simone wrote:
>
> > The Z film does NOT give strong evidence of the WC's SBT if that's what
> > you're alluding too with that lapel flip, for two reasons: a) it goes
> > against JFK's earlier reactions (stopping to wave, looking forward with a
> > frozen look even though there are spectators on the sidewalk, mouth already
> > wide open as soon as he emerges from the Stemmons sign b) inconsistent
> > reactions - JFK already reacting even though it's allegedly a soft-tissue
> > injury, while Connally delays a reaction regardless of 5 wounds and smashed
> > bones (including several inches of rib and very hard wrist bone).
>
> Maybe you happened to notice when SS agent Howlett said that they looked
> at the Zapruder film and could see when Kennedy emerges from behind the
> sign that his hands are up in front of his throat and that indicates
> that he had already been shot in the back. Then Connally reacts to being
> hit. Something that WC defenders here will not admit.
> Holland does and then he says that the only alternative to conspiracy is
> the SBT.
wounds from the first shot ricochet, then a second SBT shot. The third
shot was accidental from a different rifle at a much flatter angle causing
a loud echo and the smell of gunpowder. LHO heard the shot before he
could fire again, so he claimed to be a patsy even though he did his best
to murder the President. ( Brennan was only positive about 2 shots from
the window.)
In a 4 shot scenario LHO heard another shot on top of his third shot,
which explains the "bangbang" many witnesses heard. ( Euins and Worrell
heard 4 shots.)
Gerry Simone
Nov 21, 2011, 10:25:56 PM11/21/11
to
Of course there's a delayed reaction by Connally.
JFK has his mouth already open when he comes from behind the sign, and
Connally is stoic even after having many more wounds inflicted upon him.
And sorry but JFK is clearly showing signs of distress in Z225 (mouth
open), and his arm is basically in same position in Z224 even though we
can't see his face.
JFK was likely shot Z188 to Z190s range).
news:0e46ac9b-f788-4c22...@n14g2000vbn.googlegroups.com...
JFK has his mouth already open when he comes from behind the sign, and
Connally is stoic even after having many more wounds inflicted upon him.
And sorry but JFK is clearly showing signs of distress in Z225 (mouth
open), and his arm is basically in same position in Z224 even though we
can't see his face.
JFK was likely shot Z188 to Z190s range).
news:0e46ac9b-f788-4c22...@n14g2000vbn.googlegroups.com...
Gerry Simone
Nov 21, 2011, 10:26:21 PM11/21/11
to
Thank you Tony.
Bigdog can't move his SBT back to Z221 cuz the lapel flip is after.
BTW, I said that JFK reacted to a shot in the early Z190s when he stopped
waving, but the reaction that we see as he emerges from behind the sign
could be some other shot hitting him?
So back shot, and neck shot to JFK before head shot?
news:4eca...@mcadams.posc.mu.edu...
Bigdog can't move his SBT back to Z221 cuz the lapel flip is after.
BTW, I said that JFK reacted to a shot in the early Z190s when he stopped
waving, but the reaction that we see as he emerges from behind the sign
could be some other shot hitting him?
So back shot, and neck shot to JFK before head shot?
news:4eca...@mcadams.posc.mu.edu...
Gerry Simone
Nov 21, 2011, 10:26:45 PM11/21/11
to
"Pulling a Harris" lol.
Dr. Dolce also thought that Connally's wrist wound was caused by a
separate shot.
Thanks again Tony.
Dr. Dolce also thought that Connally's wrist wound was caused by a
separate shot.
Thanks again Tony.
Gerry Simone
Nov 21, 2011, 10:30:23 PM11/21/11
to
news:4ecab18e$1...@mcadams.posc.mu.edu...
Geez, not only do the SSA's have to support it, but the Parkland doctors
have to keep their mouths shut too (including the autopsists).
have to keep their mouths shut too (including the autopsists).
Robert Harris
Nov 22, 2011, 9:06:07 AM11/22/11
to
In article
<8e486f80-eb05-44d7...@b32g2000yqn.googlegroups.com>,
bigdog <jecorb...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> On Nov 20, 11:30 am, Robert Harris <bobharri...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > Determining when the shots were fired is not nearly the mystery that
> > nutters here would like us to believe.
> >
> > We simply look for reactions by JFK and the people around him. Not only
> > can we spot most of the shots, but we can easily determine which of them
> > came from high powered rifles and which did not, based on the nature and
> > timing of those reactions. This video explains in detail.
> >
> > http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cvqCtaBkyyE
> >
> > Robert Harris
> >
> > In article <4ec7e6a...@mcadams.posc.mu.edu>,
film - following 285 and 312.
Tell me John, when exactly, do you see reactions like these, prior to
285?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7GH5pGQy6yI
By the frame numbers please.
Robert Harris
<8e486f80-eb05-44d7...@b32g2000yqn.googlegroups.com>,
bigdog <jecorb...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> On Nov 20, 11:30 am, Robert Harris <bobharri...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > Determining when the shots were fired is not nearly the mystery that
> > nutters here would like us to believe.
> >
> > We simply look for reactions by JFK and the people around him. Not only
> > can we spot most of the shots, but we can easily determine which of them
> > came from high powered rifles and which did not, based on the nature and
> > timing of those reactions. This video explains in detail.
> >
> > http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cvqCtaBkyyE
> >
> > Robert Harris
> >
> > "Gerry Simone \(H\)" <newdecent...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> >
> >
> >
> > >http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2063459/End-JFK-conspiracy-th...
> > > gital-technology-proves-Lee-Harvey-Oswald-acted-alone.html
> >
> >
> >
> > >http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2063459/End-JFK-conspiracy-th...
> >
> > > The Canadian National Geographic channel may not telecast this special on
> > > Sunday (I didn't see it in the guide nor did it turn up in a search using
> > > my digital cable box features), but maybe it will be shown on their
> > > website.
> >
> > > In any event, this Mail Online article claims that it's Oswald in the 6th
> > > floor window and that he's the lone assassin.
> >
> > > Max Holland believes it took 11 seconds, and that the Z film was overly
> > > relied upon.
> >
> > > Frankly, I will say now that Holland's claim may not jive with the WC
> > > finding that the majority of witnesses thought that two shots were spaced
> > > close together and it goes against one SSA's testimony that he thought
> > > that two shots were right on top of each other. These observations don't
> > > support 3 shots in 11 seconds.
> >
> > > 11 seconds isn't supported by the Zapruder film.- Hide quoted text -
> > > The Canadian National Geographic channel may not telecast this special on
> > > Sunday (I didn't see it in the guide nor did it turn up in a search using
> > > my digital cable box features), but maybe it will be shown on their
> > > website.
> >
> > > In any event, this Mail Online article claims that it's Oswald in the 6th
> > > floor window and that he's the lone assassin.
> >
> > > Max Holland believes it took 11 seconds, and that the Z film was overly
> > > relied upon.
> >
> > > Frankly, I will say now that Holland's claim may not jive with the WC
> > > finding that the majority of witnesses thought that two shots were spaced
> > > close together and it goes against one SSA's testimony that he thought
> > > that two shots were right on top of each other. These observations don't
> > > support 3 shots in 11 seconds.
> >
> >
>
> If one wants to fantasize, you can find "evidence" for a shot at just
> about any point in the Z-film you choose to put one. If you want to rely
> on compelling evidence, your choices are limited.
That is correct. In fact, we only see reactions like these, twice in the
>
> If one wants to fantasize, you can find "evidence" for a shot at just
> about any point in the Z-film you choose to put one. If you want to rely
> on compelling evidence, your choices are limited.
film - following 285 and 312.
Tell me John, when exactly, do you see reactions like these, prior to
285?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7GH5pGQy6yI
By the frame numbers please.
Robert Harris
markusp
Nov 22, 2011, 12:35:24 PM11/22/11
to
On Nov 21, 2:16 pm, bigdog <jecorbett1...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> Where have you been? There was no delayed reaction by Connally. He reacts
> in the same frame JFK reacted, Z226.
Question: How would you define a "reaction" by Connally? Clearly something
> Where have you been? There was no delayed reaction by Connally. He reacts
> in the same frame JFK reacted, Z226.
is going on at Z-224 with his lapel. I'd ask which frame to which you
anchor you assertion, but that'll quickly become a circular argument. What
is the difference in Connally's behavior at 224 versus 226?
That is the frame JFK begins raising
> his arms just as JBC's injured right arm flips involuntarily upward in a
> rapid motion. Through Z225, JFK's hand was still being lowered following a
> wave
emergence. I've shown that portion of the Z-film to hundreds of people,
yet you are alone in your assertion that JFK is not hit upon emergence.
and Connally's right hand was holding his Stetson in his lap. This
> downward motion began before JFK disappeared behind the sign and continued
> for one frame after he emerged. JFK may or may not have reacted to the
> earlier missed shot. The evidence is inconclusive. He didn't make the
> defintive movement Connally did when he snapped his head around to the
> right to look over his shoulder.
be no argument against clear signs of both JFK and JBC reacting to a
missed shot circa Z-160. "The evidence is inconclusive" sounds like Gerald
Ford regurgitating his lame rationale that they "found no evidence" of
conspiracy.
~Mark
markusp
Nov 22, 2011, 12:35:44 PM11/22/11
to
On Nov 21, 11:52 am, claviger <historiae.fi...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Actually it is. We know the timing between the 2nd and 3rd shots based on
> the Zapruder film.
Well, errrrr, uhhhhh, not exactly. The 2nd and 3rd shots you reference are
> Actually it is. We know the timing between the 2nd and 3rd shots based on
> the Zapruder film.
your interpretation only, but I'm sure you meant it that way, Claviger.
I'll say the same thing, except for great accuracy, we know the timing
between the 2nd and 3rd shots: The 2nd shot hit JFK just prior to
concealment behind Stemmons, circa Z-210, and the 3rd shot is seen
transiting Connally's chest at Z-224. The 4th shot hit JFK in his back,
and is seen striking him precisely at Z-230.
~Mark
Anthony Marsh
Nov 22, 2011, 12:57:43 PM11/22/11
to
and the Bethesda doctors had their own SBT. And yes the Parkland doctors
were threatened to keep silent and the Bethesda doctors were under
military orders not to discuss the case. So what do you mean?
Robert Harris
Nov 22, 2011, 1:02:32 PM11/22/11
to
In article <4eca...@mcadams.posc.mu.edu>,
Alvarez only speculated that Zapruder's camera might have been moved,
causing the blurring at 313. He never claimed that to be a fact or that
he had any kind of confirmation for it. It was purely a speculation.
What is important about Alvarez in this context is, that he identified
the obvious reason why Greer lifted his foot from the gas. If he had
been able to view the film in motion, he would have also seen Greer spin
to the front and back again, at enormous speed - nearly 180 degrees in 3
frames.
He would have also seen the simultaneous reactions of the other
surviving passengers, which is predictable, since any noise that
startled Greer would certainly startle the others.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7GH5pGQy6yI
Of course, his most ridiculous error was his speculation that this was a
siren. Brilliant as he was, Alvarez was also a very typical nutter:-)
Robert Harris
Anthony Marsh <anthon...@comcast.net> wrote:
> On 11/21/2011 9:05 AM, Gerry Simone wrote:
> > So Nobel Laureate Luis Alvarez' jiggle analysis is fantasy too?
> >
> > "bigdog"<jecorb...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> > news:8e486f80-eb05-44d7...@b32g2000yqn.googlegroups.com...
> >
> > If one wants to fantasize, you can find "evidence" for a shot at just
> > about any point in the Z-film you choose to put one. If you want to rely
> > on compelling evidence, your choices are limited. We have definitive
> > evidence for a Z312-313 shot. We have compelling evidence for a shot in
> > the early Z220s but it is difficult to pinpoint an exact frame. The
> > evidence for when the first shot was fired is much less conclusive and
> > allows for the type of speculation that Holland seems to be engaging in.
> > I've said it before and I will say it again. The theory of a first shot
> > before Zapruder had resumed filming cannot be dismissed out of hand but I
> > remain unconvinced. I might feel differently after watching tonight's
> > presentation on Natgeo.
> >
> >
> >
>
>
> Not exactly, but there are flaws in it. The HSCA picked up his idea and
> did its own jiggle analysis with its own scientists. The theory is ok
> about a photographer reacting to the sound of gunfire. But Alvarez ruined
> it by thinking that it was the SHOCK WAVE which actually physically moved
> the camera.
What a godawful distortion of Alvarez's analysis!
> On 11/21/2011 9:05 AM, Gerry Simone wrote:
> > So Nobel Laureate Luis Alvarez' jiggle analysis is fantasy too?
> >
> > "bigdog"<jecorb...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> > news:8e486f80-eb05-44d7...@b32g2000yqn.googlegroups.com...
> >
> > If one wants to fantasize, you can find "evidence" for a shot at just
> > about any point in the Z-film you choose to put one. If you want to rely
> > on compelling evidence, your choices are limited. We have definitive
> > evidence for a Z312-313 shot. We have compelling evidence for a shot in
> > the early Z220s but it is difficult to pinpoint an exact frame. The
> > evidence for when the first shot was fired is much less conclusive and
> > allows for the type of speculation that Holland seems to be engaging in.
> > I've said it before and I will say it again. The theory of a first shot
> > before Zapruder had resumed filming cannot be dismissed out of hand but I
> > remain unconvinced. I might feel differently after watching tonight's
> > presentation on Natgeo.
> >
> >
> >
>
>
> Not exactly, but there are flaws in it. The HSCA picked up his idea and
> did its own jiggle analysis with its own scientists. The theory is ok
> about a photographer reacting to the sound of gunfire. But Alvarez ruined
> it by thinking that it was the SHOCK WAVE which actually physically moved
> the camera.
Alvarez only speculated that Zapruder's camera might have been moved,
causing the blurring at 313. He never claimed that to be a fact or that
he had any kind of confirmation for it. It was purely a speculation.
What is important about Alvarez in this context is, that he identified
the obvious reason why Greer lifted his foot from the gas. If he had
been able to view the film in motion, he would have also seen Greer spin
to the front and back again, at enormous speed - nearly 180 degrees in 3
frames.
He would have also seen the simultaneous reactions of the other
surviving passengers, which is predictable, since any noise that
startled Greer would certainly startle the others.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7GH5pGQy6yI
Of course, his most ridiculous error was his speculation that this was a
siren. Brilliant as he was, Alvarez was also a very typical nutter:-)
Robert Harris
bigdog
Nov 22, 2011, 3:53:07 PM11/22/11
to
On Nov 22, 12:35 pm, markusp <markina...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> On Nov 21, 2:16 pm, bigdog <jecorbett1...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > Where have you been? There was no delayed reaction by Connally. He reacts
> > in the same frame JFK reacted, Z226.
>
> Question: How would you define a "reaction" by Connally? Clearly something
> is going on at Z-224 with his lapel. I'd ask which frame to which you
> anchor you assertion, but that'll quickly become a circular argument. What
> is the difference in Connally's behavior at 224 versus 226?
>
Do you really need it pointed out to you? From the time Zapruder
> On Nov 21, 2:16 pm, bigdog <jecorbett1...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > Where have you been? There was no delayed reaction by Connally. He reacts
> > in the same frame JFK reacted, Z226.
>
> Question: How would you define a "reaction" by Connally? Clearly something
> is going on at Z-224 with his lapel. I'd ask which frame to which you
> anchor you assertion, but that'll quickly become a circular argument. What
> is the difference in Connally's behavior at 224 versus 226?
>
resumed filming through Z225, JBC was holding his Stetson in his lap
out of view of the camera. Suddenly at Z226, his right arm rises
rapidly showing the Stetson. By Z228 his Stetson has risen to the
level of his chin at which point it starts dropping again until we
last see it at Z234 which is when JBC begins twisting and dipping back
to his right. The up and down motion of his arm took 9 frames, one
half of a second. This was not a casual movement. It was the type of
reaction consistent with a powerful stimulus, i.e. a gunshot wound.
That up and down movement of his right arm was followed immediately by
the twist to his right. This was a two stage reaction that blended
together into one continuous motion that began at the exact same frame
JFK began reacting. Anybody who denies this simply does not want to
see it. JBC has obviously been shot and his reaction is as obvious as
JFK's reaction.
> That is the frame JFK begins raising
>
> > his arms just as JBC's injured right arm flips involuntarily upward in a
> > rapid motion. Through Z225, JFK's hand was still being lowered following a
> > wave
>
> Simple observation of the Z-film demonstrates that JFK is reacting upon
> emergence.
long time until DVP's web page showed that this simply isn't what
happened. Because his reaction began just one frame following his
reappearance, to the naked eye it appears he was already reacting when
he reappeared. It is true he had been shot at that point but he had
not yet reacted. It is quite obvious if you look at an enhanced close
up of Z224-225 that JFK's right hand was still moving down just as we
saw it doing when he disappeared. The upward movement does not begin
until Z226, the same frame JBC's right arm began to rise.
> I've shown that portion of the Z-film to hundreds of people,
> yet you are alone in your assertion that JFK is not hit upon emergence.
>
the film in real time, most people would believe he was reacting when
he reappeared because the downward movement of his hand lasted just
1/18 of a second, too fast to be discerned by the naked eye. But the
enhanced close up of frames Z224-225 show with absolute certainty that
his right hand was moving downward when he first reappeared. Do you
deny that JFK's right hand moves downward from Z224 to Z225, or are
you claiming he reacted by first lowering his right hand and then
raising it?
> and Connally's right hand was holding his Stetson in his lap. This
>
> > downward motion began before JFK disappeared behind the sign and continued
> > for one frame after he emerged. JFK may or may not have reacted to the
> > earlier missed shot. The evidence is inconclusive. He didn't make the
> > defintive movement Connally did when he snapped his head around to the
> > right to look over his shoulder.
>
> I won't bother to point to Dave Reitzes' clips on his website.
> There can
> be no argument against clear signs of both JFK and JBC reacting to a
> missed shot circa Z-160. "The evidence is inconclusive" sounds like Gerald
> Ford regurgitating his lame rationale that they "found no evidence" of
> conspiracy.
a gunshot. Both JFK and JBC did turn to their right following Z160.
The difference is that JFK turned and waved to the crowd while
Connally turned to look over his shoulder. I see JFK continuing to
wave to the crowd right up until he disappears behind the sign. Is
this the kind of reaction you think someone makes upon hearing a
gunshot, especially if one would have good reason to believe he was
the target of that gunfire? I would not have assumed Connally's
rightward turn was a reaction to a gunshot unless he had told us that
is what he did when he heard the first shot.
bigdog
Nov 22, 2011, 4:01:48 PM11/22/11
to
On Nov 22, 12:35 pm, markusp <markina...@yahoo.com> wrote:
clearer copy of the Z-film than I do. I see a man who had been shot
through the throat beginning rocking forward after jerking his upper
body up and back a quarter of a second before. Would you expect JFK to
remain in the position he reached at Z230 or would you expect him to
rock forward after first rocking backward? As for your claim that JFK
was shot twice in that short span, that is just plain silly on so many
levels. Other than the head wound, there were two bullet holes in
JFK's body. One in the back and one in his throat. If you are going to
claim these are both entrances, you are presenting the Two Magic
Bullet Theory because we have two bullets that disappeared after
entering JFK's body. You really can't see how ludicrous that is?.
Anthony Marsh
Nov 22, 2011, 5:55:00 PM11/22/11
to
asteroid wiping out the dinosaurs. Cute theory and SOME evidence, but
not proof.
> What is important about Alvarez in this context is, that he identified
> the obvious reason why Greer lifted his foot from the gas. If he had
> been able to view the film in motion, he would have also seen Greer spin
> to the front and back again, at enormous speed - nearly 180 degrees in 3
> frames.
>
> He would have also seen the simultaneous reactions of the other
> surviving passengers, which is predictable, since any noise that
> startled Greer would certainly startle the others.
>
hit him.
Robert Harris
Nov 23, 2011, 9:13:17 AM11/23/11
to
In article <4ecc...@mcadams.posc.mu.edu>,
Of course not. And neither did anyone else.
Most witnesses reported ONE early shots and then silence until the very
end when they heard at least two closely bunched shots, which were the
ones at 285 and 312.
The only early shot that was heard by some witnesses was the one circa
160. But it obviously, wasn't loud enough to startle anyone.
The ONLY shots which were loud enough to provoke dramatic, simultaneous
startle reactions were the ones fired at 285 and 312.
Robert Harris
Most witnesses reported ONE early shots and then silence until the very
end when they heard at least two closely bunched shots, which were the
ones at 285 and 312.
The only early shot that was heard by some witnesses was the one circa
160. But it obviously, wasn't loud enough to startle anyone.
The ONLY shots which were loud enough to provoke dramatic, simultaneous
startle reactions were the ones fired at 285 and 312.
Robert Harris
Anthony Marsh
Nov 23, 2011, 5:26:49 PM11/23/11
to
On 11/23/2011 9:13 AM, Robert Harris wrote:
> In article<4ecc...@mcadams.posc.mu.edu>,
Nellie did, unless you are calling her a liar and part of a conspiracy.
And she heard the first shot before she heard the shot which wounded her
husband.
> In article<4ecc...@mcadams.posc.mu.edu>,
And she heard the first shot before she heard the shot which wounded her
husband.
bigdog
Nov 23, 2011, 5:34:41 PM11/23/11
to
On Nov 23, 9:13 am, Robert Harris <bobharri...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> In article <4ecc1...@mcadams.posc.mu.edu>,
> > > Anthony Marsh<anthony.ma...@comcast.net> wrote:
Quit kicking your dead horse, Bob. Time to send it to the glue
factory. Nobody cares.
> In article <4ecc1...@mcadams.posc.mu.edu>,
> Anthony Marsh <anthony.ma...@comcast.net> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On 11/22/2011 1:02 PM, Robert Harris wrote:
> > > In article<4eca9...@mcadams.posc.mu.edu>,
>
>
>
>
>
> > On 11/22/2011 1:02 PM, Robert Harris wrote:
> > > Anthony Marsh<anthony.ma...@comcast.net> wrote:
>
> > >> On 11/21/2011 9:05 AM, Gerry Simone wrote:
> > >>> So Nobel Laureate Luis Alvarez' jiggle analysis is fantasy too?
>
> > >>> "bigdog"<jecorbett1...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> > >> On 11/21/2011 9:05 AM, Gerry Simone wrote:
> > >>> So Nobel Laureate Luis Alvarez' jiggle analysis is fantasy too?
>
factory. Nobody cares.
0 new messages