Two Questions for the group

[Robert Harris]

Ok, regardless of your feelings about the conspiracy question, I would
like to get some opinions on a very simple issue. In the following very
brief animation.

1. When does Mrs. Connally begin to turn to the rear?

2. When does Mrs. Connally turn far enough to see JFK with his hands at
throat level?

http://jfkhistory.com/nellie2.gif




Thanks in advance,
Robert Harris

[tray...@gmail.com]

Howdy, Robert:

Some long distance friends of mine that are deep into analyzing the JFK ambush visuals suggested to me several months ago that both JBC & his wife turned to look at JFK in the Towner film just after the splice and those motions were obscured by artwork. The crowd in front of the TSBD is (according to my friends) a static photo that is rotated on an optical printer. I was asked to compare the Towner crowd to the Martin crowd. In Martin, you see hands waving, people shuffling around, in Towner the crowd is frozen except the last few frames.
They believe this is why the Elm turn is missing from the Zapruder film.

I contacted Tina at her YouTube page & asked her for permission to demonstrate some of her film frames as to the possibility of artwork & asked her a couple of questions. She denied my request & told me to buy her book if I had questions.

If given a choice of spending money on her book or death by torture I'd gladly take the torture & death.

Also, the wheels on the limo don't appear to be rotating & the mud smear on the left rear tire (Jackie's side)visible in Betzner's 2nd photo is not visible in the Towner film, suggesting to my friends the limo is also a static photo. They see a lot of darkening in the film too (artists paint, felt tip marker)on the occupants of the parade car, the sun visors & windshield & TSBD doorway. IOW the film was monkeyed with.

I know you don't believe that occurred on any JFK visuals but some folks around the globe do.

I've shifted gears on my Y/T videos and now am slowly presenting various views from the more notable spectators and hope to conclude with the most suspected sniper locations. Debra Conway's sister's research & book points over towards the railroad overpass corner, Federal building parking lot & south knoll pergolas. When I get my stuff posted online I hope they demonstrate the parade car crossbar as well as Nellie & Jackie were obstacles to a clear line of sight to JFK.

I think what you & Max Holland have done is extremely important to the history of this case because the public has been led to believe since 29 Nov 1963 the ambush began between z210-z225 when it happened earlier.

My history/speech teachers back in my high school days in 1967 looked at my JFK research materials (Six Seconds In Dallas, Rush To Judgment, all the Life mags from 29 Nov 1963-1967)& both felt the z-film was being misrepresented in order to sell magazines. They also felt what was being covered up was JFK's guards had time to help him & evade the gunfire & they failed to do so.

That's my current thoughts on the issue. Even though I was forced to drop the Towner thing my friends are still quietly pursuing it. They also believe the area of the north pergola roof has been darkened.

[miker...@gmail.com]

Here is what you said about Nellie

"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.."

Here is what you said.

In the film, it is quite easy to see when she looked back and saw JFK in
distress. That happens in the 250's and she is fully turned toward JFK by
frame 258.


So Nellie is turned by frame 258.

Now here is what I said.

Ike Algens said that when he took his #6 photo, (timestamped to zapruder
frame 255) that it was almost simultaneous with the FIRST shot that he
heard that he could distinguish as a shot.


I am getting more sure that there was a shot at frame 255. In fact, I
think that shot hit the chrome between the visors on the limo.

If you focus on Roy Kellerman during this same interval you will see that
he abruptly turns to look to his left at the same time Nellie looks to the
back.

[Marcus Hanson]

Thanks Bob,but these ol' mince pies ain't too great with gifs.

It might be simpler to look at the stills,per John Costella:

http://www.assassinationresearch.com/v2n2/zfilm/zframe001.html

[lone gunman]

my answer to number 2 is about 260.

[lone gunman]

On Friday, August 16, 2013 7:10:51 PM UTC+1, Robert Harris wrote:

number 1 is earlier, about 250 ?

What does this mean anyway ?

[miker...@gmail.com]

Here is a video clip of frames 254 to 259.

Focus on Kellerman's abrupt head turn to his left.
Notice Nellies head turn to the right.
Also notice the flash of the windshield color at frame 255.

https://youtube.googleapis.com/v/fRsXwGYH5D0%26feature=youtu.be


Regarding the flash of light from the windshield at frame 255.
There is a phenomena known as Triboluminescence.

Triboluminescence is a flash of light produced when a material is subjected to friction , impact or breakage.

We know the windshield was struck by a bullet fragment. We know the bullet did not go through the windshield. We know the windshield flexed in response to being struck.

I think it is possible that the bullet struck the windshield on frame 255. The Altgens photo should show the crack in the windshield.

This is the only frame in the entire sequence that flashes like that. I am pretty sure that John Costella thinks that the flash of light we see in frame 255 is just an artifact of his color enhancement process. I am not so sure.

[miker...@gmail.com]

On Saturday, August 17, 2013 6:16:50 AM UTC-5, miker...@gmail.com wrote:

Oh, here is the Triboluminescence video...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=GWcM0IYzPxk

[Anthony Marsh]

But it doesn't. You only look at the worse possible quality you can
find. You never look at negatives.

[miker...@gmail.com]

Show us the negative for frame 254 , 255 and 256.

The Costell frames are not the worst quality frames. The MPI frames are
the worse quality frames.

I saw a show yesterday that reminded me of you.

It was about a defense attorney that threw up all sorts of thing to raise
doubt but never offered any proof of any of those things.

I have showed you the Costella frame. It shows an anomaly.

Show us the negative.

[Robert Harris]

In article <4fd044df-8fe9-4328...@googlegroups.com>,

To honest, you were the last guy I thought would come through on this.

Thank you for the honest evaluation.





Robert Harris

[Ott Rovgeisha]

Triboluminescence??? PLEEEEEEAAASE!!

[miker...@gmail.com]

Something caused the anomaly we see in frame 255. The anomaly is obviously
associated with the windshield. We know the windshield was struck by a
bullet fragment.

Until we see the color negative for frame 254, 255 and 256 nothing is
ruled out.

[miker...@gmail.com]

Your own evidence is showing you that a bullet struck circa frame 255 and
you ignore it because you are too fixated on 285.

Go where the evidence leads you. When you reach a dead end back up.

Investigating is like following a maze. There will be lots of wrong turns
but you have to cover all the paths. One of those paths leads to the
truth.

You can quote me on that!

[Robert Harris]

In article <f153fb5d-e9c1-4d0e...@googlegroups.com>,

miker...@gmail.com wrote:

> On Sunday, August 18, 2013 11:30:51 PM UTC-5, Robert Harris wrote:
> > In article <4fd044df-8fe9-4328...@googlegroups.com>,
> >
> > lone gunman <ThePu...@msn.com> wrote:
> >
> >
> >
> > > On Friday, August 16, 2013 7:10:51 PM UTC+1, Robert Harris wrote:
> >
> > > > Ok, regardless of your feelings about the conspiracy question, I would
> >
> > > >
> >
> > > > like to get some opinions on a very simple issue. In the following very
> >
> > > >
> >
> > > > brief animation.
> >
> > > >
> >
> > > >
> >
> > > >
> >
> > > > 1. When does Mrs. Connally begin to turn to the rear?
> >
> > > >
> >
> > > >
> >
> > > >
> >
> > > > 2. When does Mrs. Connally turn far enough to see JFK with his hands at
> >
> > > >
> >
> > > > throat level?
> >
> > > >
> >
> > > >
> >
> > > >
> >
> > > > http://jfkhistory.com/nellie2.gif
> >
> > > >
> >
> > > >
> >
> > > >
> >
> > > >
> >
> > > >
> >
> > > >
> >
> > > >
> >
> > > >
> >
> > > >
> >
> > > > Thanks in advance,
> >
> > > >
> >
> > > > Robert Harris
> >
> > >
> >
> > > my answer to number 2 is about 260.
> >
> >
> >
> > To honest, you were the last guy I thought would come through on this.
> >
> >
> >
> > Thank you for the honest evaluation.
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > Robert Harris
>
> Your own evidence is showing you that a bullet struck circa frame 255 and
> you ignore it because you are too fixated on 285.

The loud startling noise, confirmed by Drs. Alvarez and Stroscio,
occurred at frame 285, as both of them stated.

And their conclusions were corroborated by the simultaneous, visible
startle reactions of the people in the limousine.

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

Scientists have confirmed that startle reactions must begin within no
more than 1/3rd of a second, or 6 Zapruder frames. And the limo
passengers all began to react in the range of 290-292.

Therefore, the shot could have been fired no earlier than 285 and no
later than about 289.






Robert Harris

[Anthony Marsh]

We know the windshield was not struck at frame 255.

> Until we see the color negative for frame 254, 255 and 256 nothing is
> ruled out.
>

Negative? What the Hell are you talking about?

[miker...@gmail.com]

On Monday, August 19, 2013 9:48:23 PM UTC-5, Robert Harris wrote:
> In article <f153fb5d-e9c1-4d0e...@googlegroups.com>,

Nellie said she heard a noise and turned to the right and saw the
President holding his hands to his neck.

You know that she did this by frame 260. This means she heard the noise
before frame 260.

I have absolutely no idea how you connect this to your 285 shot.

[Ott Rovgeisha]

Nellie herself confirmed many many times that she heard two more shots
after turning and that was a shot JUST as John Connally was about to turn
back his usual sitting position. Look at the Z-film. It is really easy to
see when this happens.

Sam Holland said the same thing: Connally was about half way back from
turning, and a shot rang out. Look at the Z-film, it is really really easy
to see when it happens.

Abraham Zapruder said that the limo was half way down Elm street and he
heard a shot and the president immediately slumped to his left side,
Zapruder even mimicked the movement. Look at the Z-film, it is
ridiculously easy to see when this happened. (exactly after z285)

Mr Chism said that exactly at moment the two guys in the front seat of the
limo turned back, there was a gunshot. Look at the Z-film: it is really
ludicrously easy to see that he ALSO was talking about z285


Nellie's TURN to see JFK is NOT connected to z285 shot, but her pulling
John towards her, IS. There was this noise during the late 100-s, Nellie
didn't think much of it, but she then heard Connally shout "oh no no no",
this led her to turn and check, what was wrong. She couldn't see John
being hit, because of the dark suit and because John was turned to JFK.
This is not speculation, this is fairly obvious. So she does not think
John is hit and checks JFK.

By that time, at z285 there is a loud gunshot and she immediately pulls
John towards her.

These are only a few and not the most important indications to a shot at
z285. If there was a shot at 260, then it must have been silenced but I
see no evidence of a shot then.

[miker...@gmail.com]

Again, here is what nellie said...

"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.."

Harris asks us in this thread to look at the the zfilm and estimate when this event that nellie is talking about happened.

Everyone agrees it is in the late 250's.

The sound nellie heard that caused her to turn occurred in the 250 frame time frame.

All of this other stuff about frame 285 is just noise. There may have been another shot at 285, but nellie is not talking about noise from that shot.

Altgens says he heard a shot almost simultaneous with his taking of his photo. That photo is time stamped to frame 255.

Look at Kellerman. He turns to his left abruptly at frame 255 ish.

[miker...@gmail.com]

On Tuesday, August 20, 2013 1:18:46 AM UTC-5, Ott Rovgeisha wrote:

The shot which passed through JFK and grazed Connally's LEFT side was fired about frame 212. Nellie did not recognize this as a gunshot.

The shot which struck Connally and broke his ribs struck about frame 230. Nellie did not recognize this as a shot. As you say yourself, Nellie did not realize John was hit.

The shot which caused nellie did recognize as a gunshot and caused her to turn to her right and look back at jfk was somewhere in the 250's because we know she turned at frame 258ish. That shot hit the chrome strip between the visors. It did not hit anyone. Nellie pulled john in response to that shot.

[miker...@gmail.com]

You say "We" know the windshield was not struck at frame 255.

Do you have a mouse in your pocket?

You do not know the windshield was not struck at frame 255.

You have your own pet theory of when the windshield was struck, and that is all it is , a pet theory, which , btw, is not correct.

Show us the proof that the windshield was not stuck at frame 255?

[miker...@gmail.com]

BTW, Nellie was not the only one to react to that terrible noise.

Here is Altgens 6. The motorcycle police and the agents in the car behind reacted to this "noise".

As Altgens said, he took this photo almost simultaneous with hearing a shot.
https://lh4.googleusercontent.com/-a_p53iT2NZU/UhOgpDnMHkI/AAAAAAAACLc/WZY-VUgG9Tc/w900-h585-no/Altgens6.png

[Anthony Marsh]

We the serious researchers.

> You do not know the windshield was not struck at frame 255.
>

Yes, we do.

> You have your own pet theory of when the windshield was struck, and that is all it is , a pet theory, which , btw, is not correct.
>
> Show us the proof that the windshield was not stuck at frame 255?
>

Altgens 1-6.

http://the-puzzle-palace.com/windshield.htm

[Anthony Marsh]

On 8/20/2013 9:33 PM, miker...@gmail.com wrote:
> On Tuesday, August 20, 2013 1:18:46 AM UTC-5, Ott Rovgeisha wrote:

Never ever say, "everyone agrees" just because YOU think something.

[miker...@gmail.com]

First, I am not Fetzer and I am not saying there is a hole in the
windshield. The link you provide does not show the location where a crack
would be. It shows a location where Fetzer thinks a hole is located.

And besides, here is a quote from you where you express some doubt to the
existance of a crack in the Altgens 6 photo.

[QUOTE ANTHONY MARSH]

To be honest, I was never able to see the crack/hole in the Altgens 6. But
I think I have seen enhancements of that photo which shows some sort of
scratch/crack ... but I was never really convinced by them.

Possible that the crack/hole was not there at z255, but was casued later
by a fragment of a bullet from the headshot ?

The 2nd Altgens photo which he took shortly after the headshot shows that
there was a spiral nebula shaped crack.

[END QUOTE ANTHONY MARSH]

I am not sure I would call you a serious researcher anymore. You and most
of the so called "serious" researchers have retreated to the safety of
their homes to try to stand on their previous work which is full of
serious mistakes that you all have left to us newer researchers to
unravel.


There is one thing that I commend you on and that is you are sill willing
to engage, even if it is only in "defense" of incomplete work.

You failure to recognize the seriousness and talent of the newer
generation is not unique to you.

TO be honest, I am not impressed with the work of the original
researchers. In fact it you so called "serious" researchers who have so
cluttered up this investigation with crapola.

I have a long list of things that I could bitch about on this subject and
it would start with Mark Lane and what he did in his book Rush To
Judgement and it would include every single so called "serious" researcher
that I am aware of to this point.

With the exception of Chris Scally and maybe a few more, most of you so called
researchers have just totally cluttered the picture, not clarified it.

So , you can use the term "serious" researchers all you want but it is a
meaningless term because far from solving this case, (which was not that
hard to solve actually) you have created a maze of contradictions and junk
that quite frankly makes me believe that the research community is
anything but.

[Robert Harris]

In article <acd5d97c-0a34-4fa2...@googlegroups.com>,

My I interpret your silence to be a confirmation that you agree with the
above statements?

> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > Robert Harris
>
>
> Nellie said she heard a noise and turned to the right and saw the
> President holding his hands to his neck.
>
> You know that she did this by frame 260. This means she heard the noise
> before frame 260.

Of course.

>
> I have absolutely no idea how you connect this to your 285 shot.

The 285 shot was the one that came AFTER she looked back at JFK. That
was the one that she believed, wounded her husband.

We see her react to that shot, turning toward him at about 291. This is
quite simple, really.





Robert Harris

[Robert Harris]

In article <57bdc9d9-02d4-4d43...@googlegroups.com>,

miker...@gmail.com wrote:

> On Tuesday, August 20, 2013 1:18:46 AM UTC-5, Ott Rovgeisha wrote:

LOL!! More softballs for the nutters!





Robert Harris

[BT George]

I am afraid I don't agree with that at all. (Though if true it only makes
Bob's explanation that she was *hearing* Z150-160, but describing the
*sights* of something post-Z222/224, seem even more far-fetched.)

Nellie Connally clearly begins turning in JFK's direction well before the
late 250's, even though that may be the the first time we can clearly see
her looking squarely at JFK. IMO, her head appears to be far enough
around in his direction by 242-250 AT LATEST, to enable her to potentially
see what she described as:

"Then I heard a loud, terrifying noise. It came from the back. I turned
and looked at the President *just in time* to *see* him *clutch his neck*
and sink down in the seat.

To avoid the implications I spelled out in his "John forget about 285"
thread, I am sure Bob would prefer to think of Nellie's eyes as being
"fixed orbs" that had little or no peripheral vision; apparently able only
to see whatever her face was squarely pointed at! But that's not really
how eyes/vision work.

Go back and view her movements from Z226 to Z250 repeatedly. I think you
will soon realize that her field of vision might very well have enabled
her to have picked up Kennedy's early post-222/224 reactions by at least
the mid 240's. Indeed, though less likely, there are several frames even
in the late 230's where her head/face are obscured, preventing us from
positively ruling out that her eyes could not have seen some of these
early movements by JFK, at least peripherally.

BT

[Robert Harris]

In article <bb4637b2-55b1-4366...@googlegroups.com>,

It might indeed, be simpler but looking at stills can also be much more
deceiving. Looking at a still is like reading an isolated sentence
without the context of the rest of the paragraph or article. What
happens before and after a particular frame can totally change ones
perception of what he is looking at.

But why not have your cake and eat it too? You can download clearer and
higher resolution Zfilms from my website in Quicktime format, which
allow you to single step backward and forward, studying the frames as
either stills or animated.

http://jfkhistory.com/zfilms.html

If you don't have it already, you can download Quicktime at,

http://www.apple.com/quicktime/download/





Robert Harris

[Anthony Marsh]

The article SHOWS the crack.

> And besides, here is a quote from you where you express some doubt to the
> existance of a crack in the Altgens 6 photo.
>

There is no crack seen in Altgens 1-6.

> [QUOTE ANTHONY MARSH]
>
> To be honest, I was never able to see the crack/hole in the Altgens 6. But
> I think I have seen enhancements of that photo which shows some sort of
> scratch/crack ... but I was never really convinced by them.
>

Out of context and discussing something else.

> Possible that the crack/hole was not there at z255, but was casued later
> by a fragment of a bullet from the headshot ?
>
> The 2nd Altgens photo which he took shortly after the headshot shows that
> there was a spiral nebula shaped crack.
>

NOT what I said.
You are quoting someone else.

> [END QUOTE ANTHONY MARSH]
>
> I am not sure I would call you a serious researcher anymore. You and most
> of the so called "serious" researchers have retreated to the safety of
> their homes to try to stand on their previous work which is full of
> serious mistakes that you all have left to us newer researchers to
> unravel.
>

Because there have been no conferences local enough for me to drive to.

>
> There is one thing that I commend you on and that is you are sill willing
> to engage, even if it is only in "defense" of incomplete work.
>

I never said I completed work on anything. I continue to look for more
information and try to find more files.

> You failure to recognize the seriousness and talent of the newer
> generation is not unique to you.
>

No talent there. Just kooks.

> TO be honest, I am not impressed with the work of the original
> researchers. In fact it you so called "serious" researchers who have so
> cluttered up this investigation with crapola.
>

The original researchers are the ones who got the HSCA and proved
conspiracy.

> I have a long list of things that I could bitch about on this subject and
> it would start with Mark Lane and what he did in his book Rush To
> Judgement and it would include every single so called "serious" researcher
> that I am aware of to this point.
>
> With the exception of Chris Scally and maybe a few more, most of you so called
> researchers have just totally cluttered the picture, not clarified it.
>
> So , you can use the term "serious" researchers all you want but it is a
> meaningless term because far from solving this case, (which was not that
> hard to solve actually) you have created a maze of contradictions and junk
> that quite frankly makes me believe that the research community is
> anything but.
>

Because serious researchers call out the kooks.

>

[miker...@gmail.com]

Nellie is just an interesting corroboration for my main point which is
that Ike Altgens said he took his #6 photo when he heard what he
recognized as the FIRST shot. As we all know that photo is timestamped to
frame 255. And in the photo we see the SS agents and motorcycle police
reacting to a shot. Nellie's statement fits into this scenario. The first
shot that Nellie heard and recognized as a shot is the same shot that Ike
Altgens heard and recognized as a shot which is the first shot that the SS
agents and motorcycle cops heard and recognized as a shot and it came
circa z frame 255.

[Anthony Marsh]

Improper, insulting, illogical and a rhetorical error.

[miker...@gmail.com]

And the newer researchers are calling out the "serious" researchers as
kooks with attitude, an unjustified attitude I might add.

[Anthony Marsh]

Again you misuse words to mislead. When he said:

Mr. ALTGENS - I made one picture at the time I heard a noise that
sounded like a firecracker--I did not know it was a shot, but evidently
my picture, as I recall, and it was almost simultaneously with the
shot--the shot was just a fraction ahead of my picture, but that
much---of course at that time I figured it was nothing more than a
firecracker, because from my position down here the sound was not of
such volume that it would indicate to me it was a high-velocity rifle.

you claim that he took his picture IN REACTION to hearing the shot.
That is not what he said. And you try to quantify exactly how many
frames after the shot he took his picture. All he said was "a fraction."
That could have been 1/2 or 3/4. He did not specify any exact length of
time. The important thing is that there was an audible shot before he
took his photo at Z-254. That destroys all the kook theories about no
audible early shots.

[Robert Harris]

In article <0f866661-cb86-481c...@googlegroups.com>,

"may be"? Are you suggesting that there "may" be an earlier time that
she was looking back at JFK with his hands at throat level?

What time was the BT? Frame number?

> IMO, her head appears to be far enough
> around in his direction by 242-250 AT LATEST, to enable her to potentially
> see what she described as:
>
> "Then I heard a loud, terrifying noise. It came from the back. I turned
> and looked at the President *just in time* to *see* him *clutch his neck*
> and sink down in the seat.

Well, let's take another look.

http://jfkhistory.com/nellie2.gif

I don't think there is an honest soul on the planet who would agree with
you, but let's say you were right. Let's say that she was looking at JFK
with his hands at neck level, at "242-250".

That still eliminates 223, does it not? And she didn't say that she
heard the shot at the same time that she was looking at JFK, did she?

She heard it AFTER that.

So, how do you fit shots at 160, 223 and then two more, after "242",
into a lone nut scenario, BT?





Robert Harris

[miker...@gmail.com]

No one said it was inaudible. Altgens said it was the first sound he
recognized as a shot. And he said his photo and the sound were nearly
simultaneous.

His photo was taken at frame 255. The first shot he heard was nearly
simultaneous with the taking of his #6 picture.

Questioning is not kooky marsh.

You are the kook tony. You spend all day every day trying to push your
very own "kooky" theory. You become threatened with any hint of evidence
that threatens your belief. You are very insecure in your beliefs and your
theory and you are not helping the cause at all. You way over rated.

Algens said his picture and the sound were nearly simultaneous. Being
nearly simultaneous means it could be sooner that if it was a reaction. He
said it was "coincidental". They could have happened at exactly the same
time because it was not a reaction.

Mr. LIEBELER - You testified previously, I believe, that the first shot
that was fired had just been fired momentarily before you took the
picture, is that right?

Mr. ALTGENS - Yes, sir; it was so close you could almost say it was
simultaneous because it was coincidental but nevertheless that's just the
way it happened.

Mr. LIEBELER - When you first heard this shot, did you see any reaction
either on the part of the President or anyone else that indicated they
might have been hit by this shot?

[miker...@gmail.com]

And I forgot to say in my previous reply to you that we have Nellie
Connally saying the same thing. She heard a terrible noise and turned to
look to the rear and saw the President had his hands to his neck. We can
see she did this in the same time frame as Ike Algens photo, about frame
255.

At the time Nellie turned, which we can see is in the 250 frames she did
not know the President was hit and she did not know her husband was hit.
She did not recognize as gunshots the two shots which struck those two
men.

[Anthony Marsh]

Again you misuse words to mislead. You want it to sound as if she looked
back at exactly frame 255 and saw JFK at the exact moment he was hit.
But the fact is that JFK HAD been hit several frames earlier and Nellie
HAD turned and looked back to see that he HAD put his hands up in front
of his throat. Pluperfect.
Go back and finish high school and learn English.

> At the time Nellie turned, which we can see is in the 250 frames she did
> not know the President was hit and she did not know her husband was hit.
> She did not recognize as gunshots the two shots which struck those two
> men.
>

All in your imagination.

>

[Anthony Marsh]

Sure, and how many seconds is "nearly simultaneously"?

>
> Questioning is not kooky marsh.
>

You think that's all you have to do is raise questions. Never any actual
research.

> You are the kook tony. You spend all day every day trying to push your
> very own "kooky" theory. You become threatened with any hint of evidence
> that threatens your belief. You are very insecure in your beliefs and your
> theory and you are not helping the cause at all. You way over rated.
>

Thank you, Pee Wee Herman.

> Algens said his picture and the sound were nearly simultaneous. Being
> nearly simultaneous means it could be sooner that if it was a reaction. He

No, it doesn't mean is was a reaction.

[Robert Harris]

lone gunman wrote:
> On Friday, August 16, 2013 7:10:51 PM UTC+1, Robert Harris wrote:
>> Ok, regardless of your feelings about the conspiracy question, I would
>>
>> like to get some opinions on a very simple issue. In the following very
>>
>> brief animation.
>>
>>
>>
>> 1. When does Mrs. Connally begin to turn to the rear?
>>
>>
>>
>> 2. When does Mrs. Connally turn far enough to see JFK with his hands at
>>
>> throat level?
>>
>>
>>
>> http://jfkhistory.com/nellie2.gif
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> Thanks in advance,
>>
>> Robert Harris
>

> number 1 is earlier, about 250 ?
>
> What does this mean anyway ?

This is about Mrs. Connally's testimony, repeated many times over the
years, that she heard a "noise" and then looked back and saw JFK in
distress. She said that after that, she heard a shot which she
(mistakenly) believed, wounded her husband and a final shot that killed
the President. From her notes, written on 11/22/63

"Then I heard a loud, terrifying noise. It came from the back. I turned

and looked at the President just in time to see him clutch his neck and
sink down in the seat. There was no utterance of any kind from him.
There was no grimace and I had no sure knowledge as to what the noise
was. I felt it was a gunshot and I had a horrifying feeling that the
President had not only been shot but could be dead.

Quickly there was a second shot ... I reached over and pulled [John] to
me and tried to get us both down in the car. Then came a third shot ..."

But this is actually about much, much more than just Mrs. Connally's
statement. Dr. Luis Alvarez concluded that there was a loud, startling
noise at Zapruder frame 285. Knowing that Oswald did not have time to
fire shots at 285 and 313, he speculated that the noise was a siren,
which I think we all know, is not correct.

The noise at 285, which was also confirmed by Dr. Michael Stroscio Phd
Physics, who has chaired presidential science commissions was obviously
a gunshot.

I realize how strong your beliefs are, that Oswald acted alone, and
considering the quality of most conspiracy theories, I can't really
blame you. But there is another story here, which consists of rock solid
evidence, which demonstrates that while Oswald probably took part in the
attack, he could not have been responsible for all the shots.

The following brief video looks at Mrs. Connally's recollections as well
as Dr. Alvarez's conclusions, along with a lot of other evidence. I hope
you will take the time to look at it with an open mind. There is NOTHING
in my analysis that contradicts the known evidence, and I would suggest
that it is far more consistent with that evidence than the LN theory.

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

I should probably add that since I made this video 5 years ago, some of
my thoughts about where it came from have changed. But that's a
secondary issue, since the timing of that shot settles the conspiracy
question, regardless of its origin.




Robert Harris

[miker...@gmail.com]

On Saturday, August 24, 2013 9:25:29 AM UTC-5, Anthony Marsh wrote:


In case you have not noticed(and you havent) we are trying to pin down the
timing of the first shot that most people recognized as a shot.

Now if you want to be involved in that then do some research into both the
photographic and witness testimony to help on that issue.

You are not a researcher anymore. You have stopped doing that. And I might
add you stopped way too soon because you are stuck with a lot of incorrect
perceptions of what happened in this case. And most of those incorrect
perceptions are in the most critical aspects of the case.

Research:

the systematic investigation into and study of materials and sources in
order to establish facts and reach new conclusions.

The photographic evidence and the acoustic evidence are considered primary
source material.

The purpose of research is to establish facts and reach NEW conclusion.

You can be part of the problem or you can be part of the solution.

From my point of view you are part of the problem.