New Video Presentation

13 views
Skip to first unread message

Robert Harris

unread,
Nov 29, 2009, 6:07:02 PM11/29/09
to
For some time now I have been working on a comprehensive video which
analyzes the attack in Dealey Plaza, from start to finish. It includes
powerful corroboration for the theory of Max Holland and Johann Rush, that
the first shot was fired before Zapruder began to film. As you will also
see however, the source of that shot was definitely, not Oswald.

It lasts for over an hour, but I think you will find it worth the time. To
see it, go to jfkhistory.com and click on the graphic in the lead article,
or you can see it (broken into parts) at Youtube. Part one is here:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gkAc76n8q44


Robert Harris

David Von Pein

unread,
Nov 29, 2009, 11:54:05 PM11/29/09
to

>>> "David, this is not at all subjective." <<<

Of course it is. It's 100% subjective. That's all you ever do, Bob, is
engage in subjective analysis. That you will not admit to that fact is
quite telling (although it's to be expected from you, since you've
spent a great deal of time trying to peddle your impossible-to-prove
theory regarding a gunshot at Z285).

======================================

REFUTING BOB HARRIS:

www.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/msg/8b7ebb42d9f5d0c6

www.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/msg/a1b7257f83d3570f

www.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/msg/9e32a8d6550ab3b5

www.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/msg/26bb6edba1209122

www.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/msg/c35b8c60d20fe979

www.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/msg/560f8f0ea1ab8734

=======================================

David Von Pein

unread,
Nov 30, 2009, 12:00:17 AM11/30/09
to

"Robert Harris thinks he is BETTER at finding the truth
concerning the JFK assassination than all of the following official
organizations:

The Warren Commission.
The HSCA.
The Clark Panel.
The Rockefeller Commission.

The above four official organizations are all pure garbage and are
totally worthless and useless, according to a person like Robert
Harris. Because:

1.) Robert Harris thinks that a conspiracy existed in JFK's death (and
Bob certainly doesn't believe in the HSCA's "4-shot" type of
conspiracy, because the HSCA said that Lee Oswald was the only gunman
to strike JFK with any bullets in Dealey Plaza).

2.) Robert Harris thinks that David Ferrie and Carlos Marcello were
two of the key conspirators behind the assassination (which can never
be proved, naturally).

3.) Robert Harris thinks that a frontal shot hit JFK in the head
(which is a stance that is dead wrong, and provably so).

4.) Robert Harris thinks he has SOLVED the case.

Therefore, because of the above laundry list of unprovable conspiracy-
oriented silliness, it's quite easy to label Mr. Harris a "kook",
because he is a person who is forced to totally IGNORE virtually all
of the BEST EVIDENCE in the case in order to promote his nonsensical
theories and suppositions. And that "best evidence" is, of course: The
autopsy report, the three autopsy doctors, and (most importantly) the
autopsy photographs and X-rays of the late President Kennedy.

As for Harris' theory about a missed shot occurring at precisely Z285
of the Zapruder Film....

Bob has convinced himself, via totally-subjective analysis, that a
gunshot did occur at Z285. And he is happy with that subjective
analysis (which can never ever be proven, of course). Well, good for
him.

So, Robert Harris sits up on his high horse of conspiracy and crows to
anyone who will listen (on YouTube or any available Internet forum)
about how he has solved the JFK assassination case, as he implies with
glee that David Von Pein is nothing more than "human sewage", a
"joke", and a "liar".

I always get a kick out of the CTers who claim mightily and superiorly
that they have SOLVED the case, even though they've "solved" the case
on nothing more than a whim, a fancy, pure speculation, and a digital
copy of the Zapruder Film. Not a lick of hard evidence, of course,
enters into Robert Harris' "solving" of the case. How could it, since
every single piece of solid evidence, of course, points only to
Oswald?

Such conspiracy theorists are the true "jokes" of the "assassination
research community". It's just too bad they will never realize that
fact." -- DVP; 11/07/09

David Von Pein

unread,
Nov 30, 2009, 12:28:46 AM11/30/09
to

"Robert Harris has elected to elevate the testimony of the
limousine's occupants to ridiculous levels of ASSUMED ACCURACY. But
such an exercise is, again, just plain silly.

Witness testimony can, indeed, be very helpful. No question about
that. Such as the stat I cited earlier regarding the "90%-plus" of the
Dealey Plaza earwitnesses who heard three shots or fewer, which is an
ironclad fact that, surprisingly, even very few conspiracy promoters
seem to dare ever challenge.

But to think that the limo occupants (or any of the witnesses in
Dealey Plaza) are going to each recall those unexpected, horrific few
seconds with pinpoint precision and accuracy when it comes to
specific, detailed timing issues relating to the shooting is just too
much to hope for.

But, since Robert "Z285" Harris has a specific (subjective) theory to
peddle, he needs to rely on certain things that were said by the limo
witnesses. And Bob needs to place a great deal of faith in his wholly-
subjective and unique analysis of the silent Zapruder Film too.
Otherwise, Bob's "Z285" theory goes sliding down the drain (which is
where it deserves to reside, of course)." -- DVP; 11/10/09

www.DVP-Potpourri.blogspot.com

Message has been deleted

David Von Pein

unread,
Nov 30, 2009, 3:29:40 AM11/30/09
to

www.YouTube.com/watch?v=OXAL27c5kbg

Note concerning Bob Harris' video linked above:

Per Robert Harris' theory about the extreme loudness of a Carcano
gunshot, it would stand to reason that anyone who was actually firing
shots from a Carcano rifle should be rendered nearly deaf by firing
those shots (if the shooter wasn't wearing any ear protection, that
is).

But that is nonsense, as demonstrated on film by CBS-TV in June of
1967, when we see several people firing a Mannlicher-Carcano rifle
without any ear protection being used whatsoever (certainly no visible
earmuffs or other ear-protecting devices being worn by any of these
shooters, at any rate):

www.YouTube.com/watch?v=zVYrcxhBvY4

www.YouTube.com/view_play_list?p=015D59B2C24BA191

In addition, there's the following video of a man firing a series of
shots using a Mannlicher-Carcano rifle similar to Lee Oswald's (with
very accurate results, BTW, at more than SIX TIMES the distance of
Oswald's longest Dealey Plaza shot).

And while the gunman in the video below is, indeed, wearing ear-
protection gear, the microphone (situated very close to the muzzle of
the rifle) is picking up the sound of each shot very clearly, and the
shots don't sound extremely ear-piercing to me (even when standing
right next to the gun, which is where the cameraman is standing):

www.YouTube.com/watch?v=uy_T7D2-Y3o

So, as usual, Robert Harris' subjective theories fall flat, especially
when weighed against the BEST PHYSICAL EVIDENCE in the JFK case --
i.e., THREE spent bullet shells FROM OSWALD'S MANNLICHER-CARCANO RIFLE
being found in the TEXAS SCHOOL BOOK DEPOSITORY (not in the Dal-Tex
Building), coupled with the important corroborating "THREE SHOTS" fact
that more than NINETY PERCENT of the earwitnesses heard THREE SHOTS OR
FEWER during the assassination in Dallas' Dealey Plaza.

http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/images/shots3.jpg

www.Oswald-Is-Guilty.blogspot.com

www.Single-Bullet-Theory.blogspot.com

Robert Harris

unread,
Nov 30, 2009, 9:46:02 AM11/30/09
to
In article
<8b217a0e-c617-48a1...@j11g2000vbi.googlegroups.com>,

David Von Pein <davev...@aol.com> wrote:

> >>> "David, this is not at all subjective." <<<
>
> Of course it is. It's 100% subjective. That's all you ever do, Bob, is
> engage in subjective analysis. That you will not admit to that fact is
> quite telling (although it's to be expected from you, since you've
> spent a great deal of time trying to peddle your impossible-to-prove
> theory regarding a gunshot at Z285).

David, why did you snip not only my statement, but our entire exchange??
Let's put it back in:


> >>> "Had Oswald fired a shot at frame 152, everyone in DP would have been
> screaming, diving to the ground, and generally jumping out of their
> skins." <<<
>
>
> LOL.
>
> Subjectivism is Bob Harris' very best friend. Without it, he's a lost
> soul.

David, this is not at all subjective.

Oswald's rifle was tested by experts commissioned by the HSCA, who
placed
microphones at varying distances from the alleged SN and then fired test
shots from a rifle that was identical to Oswald's.

The sound levels generated by the muzzle blasts at the position of the
limousine ranged from 115 to 135 decibels, while the shock wave
generated
130 decibels within a radius of 10 feet from the path of the bullet. Of
course, more powerful rifles generated higher levels.

David, a normal vacuum cleaner generates a sound of about 70-80
decibels.
The limo passengers were subjected to levels 16 to 32 times as loud. Of
course, that is why we such dramatic reactions following the shots at
285
and 312.

And that is why we can be certain that Oswald fired no shots prior to
285.
Neither did anyone else, if they were using an unsuppressed, high
powered
rifle.

Watch my new video, David. I cover this issue in detail.


Robert Harris

(back to the present)

My statement, that if Oswald had fired an early shot, it would have
severely startled people in the limousine and elsewhere in DP was proven
beyond any possible doubt, by the HSCA tests.

You can google a bit and find similar tests for other rifles which
produced even higher sound levels. If anything, the HSCA measurements
were quite conservative.

Undoubtedly, you realized that, which is why you deleted everything I
just posted about it.

David, there is a simple test you can run to find out if you are
correct. When you get this stuff right, you will never again, have to
lie and delete important evidence.

Think of it this way, David. Even if you were right on a particular
issue, lurkers wouldn't believe you because of your sleezy and dishonest
tactics.


>
> ======================================
>
> REFUTING BOB HARRIS:
>
> www.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/msg/8b7ebb42d9f5d0c6

LOL!! This sounds like something from Monty Python. The govt commissions
are right, because the govt commissions said they are right.

None of them expressed certainty about the shots and none of them
considered the possibility that some of the shots were fired from a
suppressed weapon, which was strange, since the mob had been using such
devices since shortly after the beginning of the 20th century.

And why would you be using the HSCA to support your argument, since they
based their conclusions on the acoustics evidence, which you totally
reject???

David, you can't have it both ways. It is dishonest, to use evidence you
know to be false, to support your position.

You need to stop lying David. You need to start thinking about integrity
and consider the possibility that the murder of an American president is
important enough to merit an honest analysis.


Robert Harris

David Von Pein

unread,
Nov 30, 2009, 10:42:13 AM11/30/09
to

Incredibly, Bob Harris thinks that ALL of these committees blew it--
big time:

WC
HSCA
Clark
Rockefeller

But Bob Harris thinks he knows more than all of the above entities
(which included 17 pathologists who concluded that JFK was hit in the
head by only one bullet--from behind).

And Bob's apparently now in bed with Judyth Baker, inasmuch as Bob
thinks Oswald was trying to "warn" the Secret Service by firing a
deliberate missed shot "15 feet over the heads of the limo occupants".

Bob Harris conveniently ignored the testimony of Harold Norman in his
8-part video series. Norman puts a big dent in Harris' theory that
only ONE shot came from Oswald's window.

Naturally, Norman must be a lying WC shill when he said (for years)
that he heard THREE shots coming from over his head, and he heard
THREE shells striking the floor above him. Right, Bob?

(Must've been "Real Time" shell planting by the Oswald patsy-framers,
I guess.)

Robert Harris

unread,
Nov 30, 2009, 2:23:15 PM11/30/09
to
In article
<2266c6ef-1ffc-44f3...@k19g2000yqc.googlegroups.com>,

David Von Pein <davev...@aol.com> wrote:

> www.YouTube.com/watch?v=OXAL27c5kbg
>
>
> Note concerning Bob Harris' video linked above:
>
> Per Robert Harris' theory about the extreme loudness of a Carcano
> gunshot, it would stand to reason that anyone who was actually firing
> shots from a Carcano rifle should be rendered nearly deaf by firing
> those shots (if the shooter wasn't wearing any ear protection, that
> is).
>
> But that is nonsense, as demonstrated on film by CBS-TV in June of
> 1967, when we see several people firing a Mannlicher-Carcano rifle
> without any ear protection being used whatsoever (certainly no visible
> earmuffs or other ear-protecting devices being worn by any of these
> shooters, at any rate):
>
> www.YouTube.com/watch?v=zVYrcxhBvY4


Hehe, look at your own video at 4:48, David. In spite of this being one
of the poorest quality videos I've ever seen, you can easily see the ear
protection.

The one guy whose protection was not visible, was undoubtedly wearing
ear plugs.

I wonder if you realize how ludicrous it is to claim that the laws of
every state in the union are BS:-)

David, do you even understand what 130 decibels is???

Pick up a db meter and try to raise the sound of your stereo to 90 db.
I'll be you can't leave it at that level for 5 minutes. And that's
1/16th as loud as the limo passengers heard during the shots at 285 and
312.


>
>

> In addition, there's the following video of a man firing a series of
> shots using a Mannlicher-Carcano rifle similar to Lee Oswald's (with
> very accurate results, BTW, at more than SIX TIMES the distance of
> Oswald's longest Dealey Plaza shot).

I have no idea what your point is. I am not saying a MC is not accurate.


>
> And while the gunman in the video below is, indeed, wearing ear-
> protection gear, the microphone (situated very close to the muzzle of
> the rifle) is picking up the sound of each shot very clearly, and the
> shots don't sound extremely ear-piercing to me (even when standing
> right next to the gun, which is where the cameraman is standing):
>
>
> www.YouTube.com/watch?v=uy_T7D2-Y3o

ROFLMAO!!

I don't believe what I am hearing, from the man who despises
subjectivity:-)

But hey, why didn't you just tell him to take the earphones off, since
he really didn't need them??

Robert Harris

Robert Harris

unread,
Nov 30, 2009, 10:32:05 PM11/30/09
to
In article
<bbb432ba-34ab-44e8...@j11g2000vbi.googlegroups.com>,

David Von Pein <davev...@aol.com> wrote:

> Incredibly, Bob Harris thinks that ALL of these committees blew it--
> big time:
>
> WC
> HSCA
> Clark
> Rockefeller
>
> But Bob Harris thinks he knows more than all of the above entities
> (which included 17 pathologists who concluded that JFK was hit in the
> head by only one bullet--from behind).


All of those commissions had one thing in common David. They all relied on
the FBI to have collected evidence and testimony correctly and to have
properly explored all reasonable leads.

The head of the FBI stated his agenda within 48 hours of the President's
death, David. Do you remember what it was?

Would you like to continue our discussion about how they handled CE399?

How does it feel David, to know that J. Edgar Hoover was responsible for
99 percent of the evidence that totally rely on?

Even members of the WC complained that the FBI was heavily biased, David.
If they didn't trust them, then why would you blame me for feeling the
same way?


Robert Harris

>
> And Bob's apparently now in bed with Judyth Baker, inasmuch as Bob
> thinks Oswald was trying to "warn" the Secret Service by firing a
> deliberate missed shot "15 feet over the heads of the limo occupants".

NWR

>
> Bob Harris conveniently ignored the testimony of Harold Norman in his
> 8-part video series. Norman puts a big dent in Harris' theory that
> only ONE shot came from Oswald's window.

Why would you trust Norman who changed his story, David? Jarman only heard
two shots from above him, which makes sense because several witnesses saw
more than one person on the sixth floor. But look at what he had to say
about the first shot.

Representative FORD - Where did you think the sound of the first shot came
from? Do you have a distinct impression of that?

Mr. JARMAN - Well, it sounded, I thought at first it had came from below.
That is what I thought.

Representative FORD - As you looked out the window and you were looking at
the President's car.

Mr. JARMAN - Yes, sir.

Representative FORD - Did you have a distinct impression as to whether the
sound came from your left or from your right?

Mr. JARMAN - I am sure it came from the left.


David, where do you suppose a shot might have come from that was below
Jarman and to his left?


Robert Harris

David Von Pein

unread,
Dec 1, 2009, 10:36:18 AM12/1/09
to

I wonder why Bob Harris ignores CE567 and CE569, too. (Those fragments
from LHO's gun were probably planted in the limo, right Bob?)

David Von Pein

unread,
Dec 1, 2009, 10:36:47 AM12/1/09
to

>>> "Why would you trust Norman who changed his story, David?" <<<

Harold Norman didn't substantially change anything, Bob. He always
maintained, from Day 1, that he heard all of the shots fired from directly
above him and that he heard the working of the bolt and heard multiple
shells hitting the floor.

Why believe/trust Norman, you ask?

Mainly because his earwitness account is CORROBORATED BY THE PHYSICAL
EVIDENCE found on the sixth floor.

Robert Harris

unread,
Dec 2, 2009, 12:48:46 AM12/2/09
to
In article
<cecfaa41-f94c-4ba4...@s20g2000yqd.googlegroups.com>,

David Von Pein <davev...@aol.com> wrote:

> I wonder why Bob Harris ignores CE567 and CE569, too. (Those fragments
> from LHO's gun were probably planted in the limo, right Bob?)

David, why do you endlessly snip the tough questions?

As I have told you before, David. You will know you are right when you
get to the point where you don't have to be afraid of ANY argument or
any question.

Let's put the snippage back in and give you another chance:


All of those commissions had one thing in common David. They all relied on
the FBI to have collected evidence and testimony correctly and to have
properly explored all reasonable leads.

The head of the FBI stated his agenda within 48 hours of the President's
death, David. Do you remember what it was?

Would you like to continue our discussion about how they handled CE399?

How does it feel David, to know that J. Edgar Hoover was responsible for
99 percent of the evidence that totally rely on?

Even members of the WC complained that the FBI was heavily biased, David.
If they didn't trust them, then why would you blame me for feeling the
same way?

>

Robert Harris

unread,
Dec 2, 2009, 12:50:59 AM12/2/09
to
In article
<cecfaa41-f94c-4ba4...@s20g2000yqd.googlegroups.com>,

David Von Pein <davev...@aol.com> wrote:

> I wonder why Bob Harris ignores CE567 and CE569, too. (Those fragments
> from LHO's gun were probably planted in the limo, right Bob?)

Why don't you ask "Bob Harris", David:-)

Robert Harris

Robert Harris

unread,
Dec 2, 2009, 11:16:11 AM12/2/09
to
In article
<ce5fad2c-ae65-47ec...@z7g2000vbl.googlegroups.com>,

David Von Pein <davev...@aol.com> wrote:

> "Robert Harris has elected to elevate the testimony of the
> limousine's occupants to ridiculous levels of ASSUMED ACCURACY. But
> such an exercise is, again, just plain silly.

Then why did you just cite Norman, David - in spite of the fact that he
directly contradicted the FBI's report of their interview with him?

And why did you snip the part about Jarman's testimony. They stood right
next to each other David, and Jarman didn't contradict anything.

Representative FORD - Where did you think the sound of the first shot
came from? Do you have a distinct impression of that?

Mr. JARMAN - Well, it sounded, I thought at first it had came from
below. That is what I thought.

Representative FORD - As you looked out the window and you were looking
at the President's car.

Mr. JARMAN - Yes, sir.

Representative FORD - Did you have a distinct impression as to whether
the sound came from your left or from your right?

Mr. JARMAN - I am sure it came from the left.


David, where do you suppose a shot might have come from that was below
Jarman and to his left?


>

> Witness testimony can, indeed, be very helpful. No question about
> that. Such as the stat I cited earlier regarding the "90%-plus" of the
> Dealey Plaza earwitnesses who heard three shots or fewer, which is an
> ironclad fact that, surprisingly, even very few conspiracy promoters
> seem to dare ever challenge.

LOL! So the witnesses are only reliable when they agree with you?

What about when we can see them in the film, confirming the sequence of
events they described in their testimonies, right down to their
simultaneous reactions, David.

Can we trust them then:-)

Robert Harris

Robert Harris

unread,
Dec 2, 2009, 5:24:53 PM12/2/09
to
In article
<8d7af738-f61d-4b4f...@v25g2000yqk.googlegroups.com>,

David Von Pein <davev...@aol.com> wrote:

> www.YouTube.com/watch?v=OXAL27c5kbg
>
>
> Note concerning Bob Harris' video linked above:
>
> Per Robert Harris' theory about the extreme loudness of a Carcano
> gunshot, it would stand to reason that anyone who was actually firing
> shots from a Carcano rifle should be rendered nearly deaf by firing
> those shots (if the shooter wasn't wearing any ear protection, that
> is).


David, do you think there is a single lurker out there who doesn't realize
that you endlessly distort and exaggerate what I have said, in order to
find something you can ridicule??

You don't need me to know how loud those shots were. They were recorded by
experts for the HSCA and their sound levels were precisely measured.

Check around the web and you will find tests on more powerful rifles that
were more than twice as loud.

This is real. The data is out there and it would be out there, if I had
never been born.

Why don't you try something new and just deal with the facts the way they
really are, instead of endlessly trying to distort the issue and attack
me?

I didn't make that rifle, David. I didn't decide how loud it would be. Nor
did I have any say in how loud 115 to 135 decibels is. It is what it is,
and you are just going to have to live with it.

In that video you cite, some people are wearing external ear protection
and others are undoubtedly, wearing ear plugs. By law, they have to and I
seriously doubt that CBS was interested in paying off a lawsuit from
someone who's hearing was damaged.

And the fact that gunshots in a Youtube video don't sound very loud to
you, is so ludicrous, it belongs in a Monty Python skit. Hey! I can still
remember Roy Rogers and the Lone Ranger. Hell, their guns weren't loud at
all!!

Robert Harris

David Von Pein

unread,
Dec 2, 2009, 5:26:15 PM12/2/09
to

>>> "What about when we can see them in the film, confirming the sequence
of events they described in their testimonies, right down to their

simultaneous reactions, David. Can we trust them then[?]" <<<

Only if you can prove that all of them were reacting to the sound of a
gunshot (which you cannot come close to PROVING, even though you're
arrogant enough to think you can prove it).

ShutterBun

unread,
Dec 3, 2009, 12:09:05 AM12/3/09
to
I won't debate the entire contents of this thread, but there's a
fundamental that I think I should point out. The term "decibels" has been
bandied about as a measure of volume, but I feel that it's been wildly
misused, perhaps by both sides of the debate.

A decibel, as a unit of sound pressure, is not constant. Much like a
light source, it follows (I believe) an inverse-square falloff. Hence, the
farther you are from a sound source, the less it is perceived, regardless
of its original "volume." Notice that all those lists you see of
"relative decibel levels for various weapons/ machinery/events have a
modifier of *distance*

In effect, it is nothing short of useless to claim that "such-and-such gun
has an SPL* of 135 decibels" without specifying a distance.

Furhtermore, the "shockwave" of a bullet (which I assume you mean the
"sonic boom") depends not at all on the gun's muzzle blast, but strictly
on the volume (i.e. air displacement) of the projectile.

Again, I am not taking sides in this particular issue, just trying to see
that terms are being applied correctly.

Sandy McCroskey

unread,
Dec 3, 2009, 1:40:00 PM12/3/09
to
On Dec 3, 12:09 am, ShutterBun <shutter...@gmail.com> wrote:
> I won't debate the entire contents of this thread, but there's a
> fundamental that I think I should point out.  The term "decibels" has been
> bandied about as a measure of volume, but I feel that it's been wildly
> misused, perhaps by both sides of the debate.
>
> A decibel, as a unit of sound pressure, is not constant.  Much like a
> light source, it follows (I believe) an inverse-square falloff. Hence, the
> farther you are from a sound source, the less it is perceived, regardless
> of its original "volume."  Notice that all those lists you see of
> "relative decibel levels for various weapons/ machinery/events have a
> modifier of *distance*
>
> In effect, it is nothing short of useless to claim that "such-and-such gun
> has an SPL* of 135 decibels" without specifying a distance.
>

The decibel is also a *relative* measure, which can be calculated
several different ways, and from different zero points.
http://artsites.ucsc.edu/EMS/Music/tech_background/TE-06/teces_06.html
« The decibel is not a unit in the sense that a foot or a dyne is.
Dynes and feet are defined quantities of force and distance. (You can
go to the National Bureau of Standards and look at a foot or a dyne if
you want to. They never change.) A decibel is a RELATIONSHIP between
two values of POWER. »

/sm

Robert Harris

unread,
Dec 3, 2009, 4:03:57 PM12/3/09
to
In article
<e6f6b3b2-637e-4421...@g1g2000pra.googlegroups.com>,
ShutterBun <shutt...@gmail.com> wrote:

Didn't we already go through this??? I'm quite sure I explained it to
you before.

The HSCA tests included MULTIPLE microphones placed at varying
distances, up to app. the distance of the limo from the alleged SN when
the fatal shot at 312 was fired.

And the measured levels of the muzzle blast did indeed, diminish from
135db down to 115 at the furthest point.

The shock wave was a fairly constant 130db although it probably
diminished a tad as the velocity fell off.

But even the most minimal number of 115, was 5 times louder than the
level which shrinks use to provoke involuntary startle reactions in test
subjects and which can cause long term hearing damage.

And the clincher of course is, that we can see very clear startle
reactions following 285 and 312, which are in perfect unison with one
another, which is the signature of startle reactions.

Therefore, the science, our eyes, and the statements by the people we
see reacting, ALL TELL THE SAME STORY.

And we DO NOT see anything even faintly resembling startle reactions
following the early shots, circa 160 and 223. And as you correctly
pointed out, levels diminish with distance. Sooo, the earliest shots
should have been the loudest to the ears of the limo passengers.

There is no debate here. There is no possible counter argument. You
might speculate something ridiculous, like the limo passengers reacted
to a backfire, something they never did before or after, in any filmed
motorcade in history, but even then, you have the problem of the lack of
reactions to the early shots.

Am I not being clear enough???

What do I have to do to get this message across???

Robert Harris

ShutterBun

unread,
Dec 4, 2009, 12:26:30 AM12/4/09
to
On Dec 3, 1:03 pm, Robert Harris <reharr...@yahoo.com> wrote:

> And we DO NOT see anything even faintly resembling startle reactions
> following the early shots, circa 160 and 223. And as you correctly
> pointed out, levels diminish with distance. Sooo, the earliest shots
> should have been the loudest to the ears of the limo passengers.

Would you accept the the visible "camera jiggle" as examples of a a
"startle reaction"?

Robert Harris

unread,
Dec 5, 2009, 12:57:24 AM12/5/09
to
In article
<2cacce49-d5a1-4e63...@r5g2000yqb.googlegroups.com>,
ShutterBun <shutt...@gmail.com> wrote:

Most of the jiggles in the Zapruder film were false positives.

But Alvarez pointed out a very important signature for startle
reactions. They are not identified by just a single blur. They generate
a pattern of blurred frames in increments of app. a third of a second,
or 6 frames in the Zapruder film.

So, following the 312 headshot, there were blurred frames at 318, 324
and 330/331.

You see the same thing following 285, although the blurrings are weaker,
at 290/291, 296 and 301. I am posting these from memory but they are
correct, I believe.

But look at my recent post, citing experts who tested subjects at a
level slightly weaker than the shots from Oswald's rifle.

There was a range of reactions, but they ALWAYS appeared. That's why we
call them "INVOLUNTARY". Therefore, the lack of startle reactions in the
Zapruder film, prior to 285, proves that there were no high powered
rifle shots fired at the limo then.

And the witness' statements corroborate the science. Only ONE of the
early shots was heard by some witnesses and it was frequently described
as much weaker and different than the shots at the end.

Look at my new video. It's a bit long winded but it covers this issue
pretty thoroughly.

Robert Harris

Reply all
Reply to author
Forward
0 new messages