"Textbook" startle reactions?

[OHLeeRedux]

If someone were to say that the Zapruder film shows the occupants of the
presidential limo exhibiting "classic, textbook startle reactions," and if
this person cut and pasted this statement over and over and over again,
claiming that these supposed reactions formed the basis of this person's
theory that the assassination was a conspiracy because the people in the
limo were reacting to gunshots which came too close together to be fired
by one person -- thus, a conspiracy -- I would pose a couple of questions:

What is the title of the textbook?

In what chapter(s) and/or page(s) does this textbook specifically describe
the movements that the limo passengers exhibit, and how does the textbook
correlate these specific movements with the sound of gunshots?

If, instead of providing an answer to these questions, the person 1)
ignores the questions completely or answers the questions with other
questions, 2) clips and/or chops up this post to make it seem like
something else is being asked and then responds to their made-up question
with their prepared script, 3) makes snarky remarks and/or personal
attacks, 4) changes the subject by cutting/pasting from their ancient
texts, 5) feigns cerebral aphasia by pretending not to know anything about
what is being asked, or 6) cites a text, or the claims of someone who won
a prize in a field other than forensics, which actually says nothing
whatsoever about the specific movements of the people in the Z-film as
correlated with gunshots . . .

I would seriously wonder how this person can continue to claim, in good
conscience, that some phantom textbook provides an objective correlation
between silent images on a home movie and supposed gunshots at one point
and lack of gunshots at another, thus "proving" conspiracy, instead of
just admitting that the "startle reactions" have nothing to do with any
textbook whatsoever, but are merely the person's subjective opinion.

[Robert Harris]

OHLeeRedux wrote:
> If someone were to say that the Zapruder film shows the occupants of the
> presidential limo exhibiting "classic, textbook startle reactions,"

This brief presentation should answer your questions quite
nicely.

http://www.jfkhistory.com/kellerman2.gif




Robert Harris

[Jason Burke]

Hmmm. I wonder who we're talking about here?

[OHLeeRedux]

Robert Harris

So, you chose option 2. (You are SO predictable.) You clipped my post and
then responded, not to my question, but by linking, for the umpteenth
time, to one of your YouTube abortions.

You did not provide the title of the textbook that you implicitly claim
supports your theory that the limo passengers exhibited "classic, TEXTBOOK
startle reactions."

You did not provide it because it doesn't exist. But you will continue to
cut and paste your claim that this phantom textbook backs you up, just as
you claim that phantom gunshots were fired in Dealey Plaza.

I believe you mentioned something about honesty. Perhaps you should
attempt to practice that virtue.

[Anthony Marsh]

On 8/23/2015 6:18 PM, OHLeeRedux wrote:
> If someone were to say that the Zapruder film shows the occupants of the
> presidential limo exhibiting "classic, textbook startle reactions," and if
> this person cut and pasted this statement over and over and over again,
> claiming that these supposed reactions formed the basis of this person's
> theory that the assassination was a conspiracy because the people in the
> limo were reacting to gunshots which came too close together to be fired
> by one person -- thus, a conspiracy -- I would pose a couple of questions:
>
> What is the title of the textbook?
>
> In what chapter(s) and/or page(s) does this textbook specifically describe
> the movements that the limo passengers exhibit, and how does the textbook
> correlate these specific movements with the sound of gunshots?
>

How would you check it out? You don't have any books.
And why do you think it has to be in a book? Ever hear of the InterNet?

> If, instead of providing an answer to these questions, the person 1)
> ignores the questions completely or answers the questions with other
> questions, 2) clips and/or chops up this post to make it seem like
> something else is being asked and then responds to their made-up question
> with their prepared script, 3) makes snarky remarks and/or personal
> attacks, 4) changes the subject by cutting/pasting from their ancient
> texts, 5) feigns cerebral aphasia by pretending not to know anything about
> what is being asked, or 6) cites a text, or the claims of someone who won
> a prize in a field other than forensics, which actually says nothing
> whatsoever about the specific movements of the people in the Z-film as
> correlated with gunshots . . .
>
> I would seriously wonder how this person can continue to claim, in good
> conscience, that some phantom textbook provides an objective correlation

Harris never claimed any textbook. You are making a straw man argument
to prove what a tough guy you are to blow it down in one breath.

> between silent images on a home movie and supposed gunshots at one point
> and lack of gunshots at another, thus "proving" conspiracy, instead of
> just admitting that the "startle reactions" have nothing to do with any
> textbook whatsoever, but are merely the person's subjective opinion.
>

In case you're new to this controversy it's called the Jiggle Analysis.
Read the HSCA volumes. Or my articles.

[bigdog]

You have raised an excellent point which seems to have dumbfounded Bob.

[Robert Harris]

OHLeeRedux wrote:
> Robert Harris
> OHLeeRedux wrote:
>> If someone were to say that the Zapruder film shows the occupants of the
>> presidential limo exhibiting "classic, textbook startle reactions,"
>
> This brief presentation should answer your questions quite
> nicely.
>
> http://www.jfkhistory.com/kellerman2.gif
>
>
>
>
> Robert Harris
>
>
>
> So, you chose option 2. (You are SO predictable.)

I have no idea WTF you are talking about. I cite Hunt and
Landis verbatim, in the presentation I just linked for you.

They described one of the startle responses as, "a raising
and drawing forward of the shoulders".

Which is EXACTLY what Kellerman did, for a scant fraction of
a second, as he was simultaneously ducking, shielding his ear
and twisting to the right. Did you even bother to watch the
presentation?

The source for that citation is:

The overt behavior pattern in startle.
Hunt, W. A.; Landis, C.
Journal of Experimental Psychology, Vol 19(3), Jun 1936, 309-315.

Now, how about you answer a question about the endless
stream of malicious bullshit you have posted about me?

Why did you go to Youtube and post the same thing that you
were corrected on in this forum?




Robert Harris

[OHLeeRedux]

Anthony Marsh

On 8/23/2015 6:18 PM, OHLeeRedux wrote:
> If someone were to say that the Zapruder film shows the occupants of the

> presidential limo exhibiting "classic, textbook startle reactions," and if
> this person cut and pasted this statement over and over and over again,
> claiming that these supposed reactions formed the basis of this person's
> theory that the assassination was a conspiracy because the people in the
> limo were reacting to gunshots which came too close together to be fired
> by one person -- thus, a conspiracy -- I would pose a couple of questions:
>
> What is the title of the textbook?
>
> In what chapter(s) and/or page(s) does this textbook specifically describe
> the movements that the limo passengers exhibit, and how does the textbook
> correlate these specific movements with the sound of gunshots?
>

How would you check it out? You don't have any books.
And why do you think it has to be in a book? Ever hear of the InterNet?

> If, instead of providing an answer to these questions, the person 1)
> ignores the questions completely or answers the questions with other
> questions, 2) clips and/or chops up this post to make it seem like
> something else is being asked and then responds to their made-up question
> with their prepared script, 3) makes snarky remarks and/or personal
> attacks, 4) changes the subject by cutting/pasting from their ancient
> texts, 5) feigns cerebral aphasia by pretending not to know anything about
> what is being asked, or 6) cites a text, or the claims of someone who won
> a prize in a field other than forensics, which actually says nothing
> whatsoever about the specific movements of the people in the Z-film as
> correlated with gunshots . . .
>
> I would seriously wonder how this person can continue to claim, in good
> conscience, that some phantom textbook provides an objective correlation

Harris never claimed any textbook. You are making a straw man argument
to prove what a tough guy you are to blow it down in one breath.

Harris has continually claimed that the occupants of the limo exhibited
"classic, textbook startle reactions." He appropriates the scholarly
authority of a textbook by using that term.

He can either name the textbook (not some fly-by-night internet site, but
a published textbook), or he can admit that no such book exists,
relegating his appeal to authority, once again, to nothing more than empty
rhetoric.

[mainframetech]

Add to that the fact that the Z-film has been shown to have been altered
and so cannot be relied on to show what really happened, and cetainly is
useless for timings. Bot ha witness and independent analyses hav shown
thqat alteration was what happened. Here's the witness:

https://vimeo.com/102327635

And the independent analyses:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AAtEdEaXBtQ
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XCigDMyHisE

Chris

[Bud]

On Tuesday, August 25, 2015 at 4:16:47 PM UTC-4, Robert Harris wrote:
> OHLeeRedux wrote:
> > Robert Harris
> > OHLeeRedux wrote:
> >> If someone were to say that the Zapruder film shows the occupants of the
> >> presidential limo exhibiting "classic, textbook startle reactions,"
> >
> > This brief presentation should answer your questions quite
> > nicely.
> >
> > http://www.jfkhistory.com/kellerman2.gif
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > Robert Harris
> >
> >
> >
> > So, you chose option 2. (You are SO predictable.)
>
> I have no idea WTF you are talking about.

I do. Of course I read what he wrote.

> I cite Hunt and
> Landis verbatim, in the presentation I just linked for you.
>
> They described one of the startle responses as, "a raising
> and drawing forward of the shoulders".

That is this...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CnOgVANxMmo

You have no understanding of startle reactions. None.

> Which is EXACTLY what Kellerman did, for a scant fraction of
> a second, as he was simultaneously ducking, shielding his ear
> and twisting to the right. Did you even bother to watch the
> presentation?

You do understand that it isn`t a textbook reaction unless you can produce a textbook outlining Kellerman`s reactions as reflex startle reactions, right?

> The source for that citation is:
>
> The overt behavior pattern in startle.
> Hunt, W. A.; Landis, C.
> Journal of Experimental Psychology, Vol 19(3), Jun 1936, 309-315.
>
> Now, how about you answer a question about the endless
> stream of malicious bullshit you have posted about me?

All well deserved and accurate.

> Why did you go to Youtube and post the same thing that you
> were corrected on in this forum?

You didn`t correct him. As usual you were deaf to the points he made.

>
>
>
> Robert Harris

[OHLeeRedux]

Robert Harris

OHLeeRedux wrote:
> Robert Harris
> OHLeeRedux wrote:
>> If someone were to say that the Zapruder film shows the occupants of the
>> presidential limo exhibiting "classic, textbook startle reactions,"
>
> This brief presentation should answer your questions quite
> nicely.
>
> http://www.jfkhistory.com/kellerman2.gif
>
>
>
>
> Robert Harris
>
>
>
> So, you chose option 2. (You are SO predictable.)

I have no idea WTF you are talking about. I cite Hunt and
Landis verbatim, in the presentation I just linked for you.

They described one of the startle responses as, "a raising
and drawing forward of the shoulders".

Which is EXACTLY what Kellerman did, for a scant fraction of
a second, as he was simultaneously ducking, shielding his ear
and twisting to the right. Did you even bother to watch the
presentation?

The source for that citation is:

The overt behavior pattern in startle.
Hunt, W. A.; Landis, C.
Journal of Experimental Psychology, Vol 19(3), Jun 1936, 309-315.

1936???

Do you have any papers on frontal lobotomies or bloodletting that might be
of interest to the 21st century?

Anyway, the paper is so old that I couldn't find a complete copy. I did
find the abstract, though. This is what it says about startle reactions:

"The pattern consists of shutting the eyes and distortion of the features,
a forward movement of the head, a raising and drawing forward of the
shoulders, abduction, forward elevation, and inner rotation of the upper
arms, bending of the elbows, pronation of the forearms, clasping of the
hands, contraction of the abdomen, forward movement of the trunk, bending
of the legs at the hips and knees, and random foot movements. Not all of
these elements may be present in any one reaction, and the extent of their
appearance is not constant. Strauss' further claims of symmetry, the
absence of opposed responses, and no movements of distal parts without
movement of proximal ones were shown to have exceptions."

It lists 13 different bodily movements that MIGHT be startle reactions,
and then adds the caveat that all may not be present in any one reaction,
and that there are "exceptions."

So you overlay a grainy home movie on to this smorgasbord of movements
from a 79-year-old paper, and, lo and behold, you find some matches in
what you think you see in the movie and the plethora of signs catalogued
in the paper.

From this you determine that there was a conspiracy involved in the JFK
assassination. But you have absolutely no physical evidence proving who
exactly fired the shots -- other than Lee Oswald -- or where they fired
from.

You could have just said all that in the first place and relieved yourself
of your 20-year burden of producing an endless stream of "brief
presentations" and incessantly cutting/pasting the same tired phrases from
those ancient texts that you call your theory.

[Sandy McCroskey]

Also notice that spinning around, or turning one's head around, are not
mentioned.

[Anthony Marsh]

You love to issue phony challenges.

[OHLeeRedux]

Anthony Marsh
- hide quoted text -

You love to stick your nose into every thread with your useless comments.

[BT George]

I don't think the age of the paper or study is an issue. AFAIK, the
Landis and Hunt studies remain an accepted standard for interpreting the
phenomenon.

However, you are dead correct that most of what they documented (and has
been illustrated by linking in this very NG to videos of real *gun shot*
startle reactions) would not likely be very visible---if visible at
all--on the grainy Zapruder film. Moreover, much of what Bob cites such
as Greer's "spinning around" (which he had already done once pre-285), and
the dramatic smooth motion that he calls "ducking" in Mrs. Kennedy's case,
and the pulling down of John Connally by Nellie are simply *not*
consistent with any *reasonable* interpretation of the phenomenon.

Only Kellerman, the meaning of who's movements are sufficiently unclear
and indecipherable as to lack certainty, shows *any* promise of fulfilling
Bob's Z285 involuntary startle reaction dreams. But even tentatively
granting that, where does that leave us? For as I said to him before
here:

https://groups.google.com/d/msg/alt.assassination.jfk/ouqyxrNG1fw/9zxyHGys-88J

***Dear Viewers and Lurkers***

This is indeed AMAZING! This throws that *WHOLE* theory of LHO acting
alone into the toilet because now a *much* "clearer" scenario has been
established:

Roy Kellerman's movements (upon hyper-analysis of 1 (ONE) single second in
this event) conclusively show that he---and he alone---*could* have been
manifesting an involuntary shot startle reaction.

Jackie's movements? Not a chance. *WAY* too smooth.

Greer's? Even less so. For he's simply *REPEATING* the very *SAME*
movement of turning around looking into the back seat he had *ALREADY*
done shortly before Z285.

Nellie's? Well she's *clearly* pulling her wounded and collapsing husband
into your lap. Indeed a form of "reaction" to the unfolding assassination
attempt---but most definitely *NOT* an *INVOLUNTARY* one.

CONGRATULATIONS TO BOB! He's clearly demonstrated that on 11-22-63 Roy
Kellerman *may* have been manifesting an "involuntary" startle reaction to
a "shot" at Z285 even as the rest of the uninjured limo passengers were...
...well... ...uhhh. ...doing something else! :-)

Yep. Now there's an assassination scenario you can really sink your teeth
into! ...Or not. :-)

BT George

[bigdog]

You love to avoid real challenges.

[Anthony Marsh]

Grainy has nothing to do with it. You can still see the blurs if you are
an honest person.

> as Greer's "spinning around" (which he had already done once pre-285), and
> the dramatic smooth motion that he calls "ducking" in Mrs. Kennedy's case,
> and the pulling down of John Connally by Nellie are simply *not*
> consistent with any *reasonable* interpretation of the phenomenon.
>
> Only Kellerman, the meaning of who's movements are sufficiently unclear
> and indecipherable as to lack certainty, shows *any* promise of fulfilling
> Bob's Z285 involuntary startle reaction dreams. But even tentatively
> granting that, where does that leave us? For as I said to him before
> here:
>

I might remind all that Bob stole the idea from Alvarez and Alvarez put
the sound at about frame 295 to cause the sudden slowdown at about frame
300.

[Anthony Marsh]

Are you talking to yourself again? You don't seem to know how to reply
to people in a thread.

[OHLeeRedux]

And so you stick your nose in, yet again, with a worthless comment.

No wonder the stats show you posting twice as much as anyone else. And 99%
of it is gratuitous nonsense.

[Ott Rovgeisha]

> So, you chose option 2. (You are SO predictable.) You clipped my post and
> then responded, not to my question, but by linking, for the umpteenth
> time, to one of your YouTube abortions.

DOING GOOD OHLeeRedux!

> You did not provide the title of the textbook that you implicitly claim
> supports your theory that the limo passengers exhibited "classic, TEXTBOOK
> startle reactions."

DOING GOOD

> You did not provide it because it doesn't exist.

DOING WORSE, because that is not true. Check scientific articles in Nature
other scientific journals. Consult neuroscientists. They really will tell
you about startle reactions...

> But you will continue to
> cut and paste your claim that this phantom textbook backs you up, just as
> you claim that phantom gunshots were fired in Dealey Plaza.

DOING BAD, OHLeeRedux, doing bad. This is an association fallacy, not an
argument based of facts. Not only is the term "phantom gunshot" an
umbigious one, but there is no real logical connection to a "phanotm
textbook".

That logic is the same as: "hey you lied to me right? Well if you lied to
me, then you will probably beat me up also, and because you would prbably
beat me up, you probably WERE capable of killing that other person and if
you were capable, that means that ou certainly did it"...

That's a no-no!

> I believe you mentioned something about honesty. Perhaps you should
> attempt to practice that virtue.

That one COULD have been GOOD if only a pot weren't calling a kettle
black.

Sweet dreams!

[Anthony Marsh]

No one knows what you are babbling about because you refuse to post
properly.
The reason why I post twice as much as anyone else is because I have to
correct BOTH sides. The Nazis on the right and the kooks on the left.

10 Nazis and 10 aliases at 5 messages apiece equals 100 messages.
2 kooks and 2 aliases at 25 messages apiece equals 100 messages.
Only me, myself and I with no aliases have to post 200 messages.

[Jason Burke]

Here's a hint, Tony.
You don't *have* to post anything.

[OHLeeRedux]

You are not "correcting" anyone. You continually spew out random nonsense
that you pull from your sphincter. Tell us more about your father the spy.
(snicker)

[Bud]

On Sunday, August 30, 2015 at 9:19:33 PM UTC-4, Ott Rovgeisha wrote:
> > So, you chose option 2. (You are SO predictable.) You clipped my post and
> > then responded, not to my question, but by linking, for the umpteenth
> > time, to one of your YouTube abortions.
>
> DOING GOOD OHLeeRedux!
>
> > You did not provide the title of the textbook that you implicitly claim
> > supports your theory that the limo passengers exhibited "classic, TEXTBOOK
> > startle reactions."
>
> DOING GOOD
>
> > You did not provide it because it doesn't exist.
>
> DOING WORSE, because that is not true. Check scientific articles in Nature
> other scientific journals. Consult neuroscientists. They really will tell
> you about startle reactions...

When you gather all that information, show it to Harris. He hasn`t a
clue about reflex startle reactions.

> > But you will continue to
> > cut and paste your claim that this phantom textbook backs you up, just as
> > you claim that phantom gunshots were fired in Dealey Plaza.
>
> DOING BAD, OHLeeRedux, doing bad. This is an association fallacy, not an
> argument based of facts. Not only is the term "phantom gunshot" an
> umbigious one, but there is no real logical connection to a "phanotm
> textbook".

The logical connection is that neither exists.

[Anthony Marsh]

What more do you want to know about my father?

[Anthony Marsh]

If I don't then who will?
I'm here to stick up for the conspiracy side.

[Jason Burke]

Not that your fantasy is a good use of your time or anything, Tony.

[bigdog]

Did they vote you as their spokesman or are you self appointed?

[Bud]

Did he have any kids that lived?

[Anthony Marsh]

The last person that said that to me I hit with a volleyball.

[Anthony Marsh]

Last Man Standing

[Jason Burke]

Did it kill her?

[Jason Burke]

So, Tony. When you're done does that mean we can all finally accept what
really happened? You know, without all this nonsense that you seem to
enjoy spewing - whether or not you've looked at previous comments in
whatever thread you're playing with.

[Anthony Marsh]

NO. I've never killed anybody.

[bigdog]

I'm sorry, but this one gave me a chuckle. Is a volleyball the nerd's
weapon of choice?

[Bud]

She went back and to the left, indicating a second spiker.

[Jason Burke]

Not even with your rapier wit?

[Anthony Marsh]

No, silly. I am not done. I am still looking for data and files.

Just because I read your nonsense does not mean that I have to believe it.