Involuntary Startle Reactions

Robert Harris

unread,

Sep 8, 2012, 10:49:49 PM9/8/12

to

Experts have confirmed that involuntary startle reactions must occur
when people are exposed to sound levels of 90 decibels or greater. 90db
is about 3-4 times louder than a noisy vacuum cleaner and the point at
which permanent hearing damage will occur, with prolonged exposure.

Oswald's rifle generated sound levels at street level that were 16 times
louder than 90db. Other high powered rifles are louder yet. Dr. Luis
Alvarez concluded that Bill Greer and Abraham Zapruder were startled by
such a noise, causing Greer to slow the limousine. Of course, a noise
like that had to startle those around him as well.

To see the effect of such extreme levels, you can watch the limo
passengers in the Zapruder film, beginning at frame 290 and again,
beginning at about 315.

Experts have also confirmed that startle reactions must begin within
1/3rd of a second (6 Zapruder frames) following the startling noise.

You can also see the startle reactions by people in the crowd at the
1996 Olympic Village in Atlanta, in this brief video.

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

There were no startle reactions by anyone, to the shots fired prior to
frame Zapruder frame 285, but very dramatic and pronounced reactions to
the ones at 285 and 313.

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

Oswald could not have fired any of the early shots and no more than one
of the final shots.

Robert Harris

Anthony Marsh

unread,

Sep 9, 2012, 8:49:23 PM9/9/12

to

On 9/8/2012 10:49 PM, Robert Harris wrote:
> Experts have confirmed that involuntary startle reactions must occur
> when people are exposed to sound levels of 90 decibels or greater. 90db

WOW! BFD. I also bet that you be startled if I shot a rifle off next to
your ear while you were asleep. BFD. What do you think that proves?
Never any wacky theory that you invent.

> is about 3-4 times louder than a noisy vacuum cleaner and the point at
> which permanent hearing damage will occur, with prolonged exposure.
>
> Oswald's rifle generated sound levels at street level that were 16 times
> louder than 90db. Other high powered rifles are louder yet. Dr. Luis

So what? So is jet taking off right next to you.

> Alvarez concluded that Bill Greer and Abraham Zapruder were startled by
> such a noise, causing Greer to slow the limousine. Of course, a noise
> like that had to startle those around him as well.
>

No, not "such" a noise. You are injecting your own interpretation into
what Alvazez said. A siren is not a rifle. Thus there is no "such"
comparison.

> To see the effect of such extreme levels, you can watch the limo
> passengers in the Zapruder film, beginning at frame 290 and again,
> beginning at about 315.
>
> Experts have also confirmed that startle reactions must begin within
> 1/3rd of a second (6 Zapruder frames) following the startling noise.
>

Name your experts and upload their studies.

> You can also see the startle reactions by people in the crowd at the
> 1996 Olympic Village in Atlanta, in this brief video.
>
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DSXjbiDD0rY
>

Cute, but what did the experts say about that? Did they measure exactly
how quickly people were startled? How many milliseconds. You blab a lot,
but you never post data.

Jason Burke

unread,

Sep 9, 2012, 10:26:45 PM9/9/12

to

On 9/9/2012 5:49 PM, Anthony Marsh wrote:
> On 9/8/2012 10:49 PM, Robert Harris wrote:
>> Experts have confirmed that involuntary startle reactions must occur
>> when people are exposed to sound levels of 90 decibels or greater. 90db
>
> WOW! BFD. I also bet that you be startled if I shot a rifle off next to
> your ear while you were asleep. BFD. What do you think that proves?
> Never any wacky theory that you invent.
>
>> is about 3-4 times louder than a noisy vacuum cleaner and the point at
>> which permanent hearing damage will occur, with prolonged exposure.
>>
>> Oswald's rifle generated sound levels at street level that were 16 times
>> louder than 90db. Other high powered rifles are louder yet. Dr. Luis
>
> So what? So is jet taking off right next to you.
>
>> Alvarez concluded that Bill Greer and Abraham Zapruder were startled by
>> such a noise, causing Greer to slow the limousine. Of course, a noise
>> like that had to startle those around him as well.
>>

This is Harris's main - well, only - point. And even he admits that
Alvarez thought it was a siren. But Harris has chosen to decide what he
wants to decide about Alvarez's comment.

Seems to me that that pretty much invalidates Harris from using ANYTHING
Alvarez said about the noise / startle reaction / blah blah.

And isn't it convenient that Alvarez isn't around to set this fellow
straight?

charles wallace

unread,

Sep 10, 2012, 11:07:04 AM9/10/12

to

JFK assassination researcher Clark Wilkins has a 'Up Bounce Theory' that says there is a single up bounce at Zapruder frame Z317 after the known shot at frames Z312-313. Additional single frame bounces are at Z186, Z204, Z234 and Z328 and represent startle reactions by Abraham Zapruder 4 to 5 frames after each shot. These shots come too close to the acoustic data in time sequence to be just coincidence.

http://community.webtv.net/ccwallace/CaseWideOpenAJFK

Charles Wallace

Anthony Marsh

unread,

Sep 10, 2012, 4:03:21 PM9/10/12

to

Are you confirming that you have never read the HSCA jiggle analysis?

charles wallace

unread,

Sep 10, 2012, 7:32:02 PM9/10/12

to

If the question is to me, then no, I have not. What does it say?

Charles

Robert Harris

unread,

Sep 10, 2012, 7:34:33 PM9/10/12

to

Anthony Marsh wrote:
> On 9/8/2012 10:49 PM, Robert Harris wrote:
>> Experts have confirmed that involuntary startle reactions must occur
>> when people are exposed to sound levels of 90 decibels or greater. 90db
>
> WOW! BFD. I also bet that you be startled if I shot a rifle off next to
> your ear while you were asleep. BFD. What do you think that proves?

I think that proves that extremely loud noises startle people, Tony.

The startle reactions of the limo passengers following frames 285 and 313,
prove that they were startled then. These are the reactions to the shot at
285. They began at frame 290. Notice that every surviving passenger in the
limo reacted in perfect unison with one another - just like the people in
Atlanta did.

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

The absence of startle reactions to any of the earlier shots proves that
they were not startled then.

I thought this was pretty simple, Tony.

> Never any wacky theory that you invent.

You think it is "wacky" that people would be startled by 130 decibel
noises, and not be startled by much weaker sounds??

Are you suggesting that both assertions are false, or only one of them?
And would you mind explaining why you feel this way?

>
>> is about 3-4 times louder than a noisy vacuum cleaner and the point at
>> which permanent hearing damage will occur, with prolonged exposure.
>>
>> Oswald's rifle generated sound levels at street level that were 16 times
>> louder than 90db. Other high powered rifles are louder yet. Dr. Luis
>
> So what?

Tony, you seem to have a problem comprehending this. I would like to make
it clearer for you but you aren't specific enough to tell me what I need
to explain. What part is it that you don't understand?

> So is jet taking off right next to you.
>
>> Alvarez concluded that Bill Greer and Abraham Zapruder were startled by
>> such a noise, causing Greer to slow the limousine. Of course, a noise
>> like that had to startle those around him as well.
>>
>
> No, not "such" a noise. You are injecting your own interpretation into
> what Alvazez said. A siren is not a rifle. Thus there is no "such"
> comparison.

Alvarez never concluded that this was a siren. Long after he completed his
analysis, he thought about the nature of this noise, which came exactly
1.5 seconds prior to the fatal head shot at 313 and made this speculation:

"I worried about this for some time, without finding any satisfactory
answer. But then I found some testimony concerning a police siren that was
remembered to have come just alter the President was killed (in frame
313).

The many inconsistencies in the various witnesses' remembrances of exact
times in this critical period made one feel that it was permissible to
suggest that the siren, from an escorting police vehicle behind the
President's car, had come a few seconds before the fatal shot. It would be
most probable that an escorting officer, having heard one shot, and seeing
the President wounded by a second shot, would hit the siren button when
I'm suggesting he did."

Obviously, the "siren" thing was totally unrelated to his scientific
analysis. It was pure speculation which permitted him get around an
admission that the gunshot then was proof of conspiracy.

Brilliant as he was in science, the man was also a nutter.

But as you and everyone else knows, this was not a siren. The people in
the limousine who actually reacted to the shots were very clear about what
they were hearing then, and that was a very loud gunshot.

Mrs. Connally stated that she heard a second shot after looking back at
JFK, which we know she did around frame 259.

Mrs. Kennedy heard two gunshots after John Connally began to shout, which
he did around 240.

Greer said the second and third shots were nearly simultaneous and
Kellerman described them as a "flurry" of at least two shots which he
likened to a pair of sonic booms.

And the large majority of relevant witnesses in DP reported the same thing
those people did - a single "noise", a delay and then two closely bunched
shots at the end.

They heard 285 and 313, Tony.

This video covers that shooting from beginning to end. I hope you will
take the time to view it.

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

Robert Harris

Anthony Marsh

unread,

Sep 11, 2012, 4:28:23 PM9/11/12

to

That's my point. Obvious that you didn't. Go do your homework.

> Charles
>

fatol...@gmail.com

unread,

Sep 11, 2012, 8:52:19 PM9/11/12

to

If I may speak freely here, wanting to kill JFK is what caused Greer to
slow the car.

Anthony Marsh

unread,

Sep 11, 2012, 10:53:46 PM9/11/12

to

Slow? Well, why don't you just come right out and say that he had to
stop and put on the parking brake to aim and kill JFK?

fatol...@gmail.com

unread,

Sep 13, 2012, 4:11:35 PM9/13/12

to

> > If I may speak freely here, wanting to kill JFK is what caused Greer to
>
> > slow the car.
>
> >
>
>
>
> Slow? Well, why don't you just come right out and say that he had to
>
> stop and put on the parking brake to aim and kill JFK?

It is my opinion, mind you, not proven fact, that after some practice a
man might be able to possibly hit a motionless target 4 feet away without
applying the parking brake. But don't let that slow YOU down, dewd.

Anthony Marsh

unread,

Sep 13, 2012, 11:05:31 PM9/13/12

to

Then why did someone say that Greer stopped the limo in order to shoot
the President?
Obviously you've never fired and handgun and devote your life to
guessing about things.