Moderated JFK conspiracy theories: it never ends III

Status
Not open for further replies.
Robert Harris said:
The HSCA tests confirmed that Oswald's rifle generated sound levels of 130 decibels at street level, which as I'm sure you know, is 16 times louder than 90db, the level at which involuntary startle reactions will occur as well as permanent hearing loss, with extended exposure.

How could those passengers, NOT have reacted dramatically to such an unexpected and outrageously loud, high powered rifle shot?

And how could so many people have failed to even notice one of those shots??

This is the important stuff, Mr. Utah. It is a million times more important than our petty bickering and insults.
Click to expand...

There are several reasons there is no immediate reaction, let's count backwards in no particular order...

Dealey Plaza has a nasty echo, so no matter how loud the rifle shots were likely the only people who knew where the shots were coming from were in the limo.

The President of the United States coming to your town is a big deal, and once he was in view most of the people had tunnel vision. I can tell you in detail the what happened during the 20 seconds I saw President Ford.

Everyone says they thought the first shots were firecrackers. That's likely not what they sounded like but how they were perceived.

The footage you show only has seven or eight people so it indicates nothing.

The main weakness of the argument is the Zapruder Film itself. Zapruder never fliches once, the guy was a jeweler, not a Cowboy, and the third shot would have been fired from maybe 30 feet past his right ear. He never loses his image, which is pretty good for an amateur camera man.

Sound of gunshots and how people react to them is a weak line of argument.
 
Robert Harris said:
I don't do ad hominem. Would you like to talk about the Kennedy assassination?
Click to expand...

Actully, you've been pretty consistent in your use of it and it's been pointed out to you some of the times you've done it. Since you have no idea what it is, you also don't realize you're doing it. You've certainly been given every opportunity to avail yourself of knowledge, you just refuse to take advantage of it.
 
Jack by the hedge said:
The overlay video is very clever but I don't think that analysis tells us anything useful.

My view is that the car's occupants sway forward in unison, indicating the driver braking. You invite us to observe a "slowdown" which I gather you think happens somewhat later.
Click to expand...

Yes, and so did Dr. Luis Alvarez, who did a frame-by-frame analysis.

Unfortunately you don't specify what this informal thing you term a "slowdown" actually is.
Click to expand...

A "slowdown" is when the car slows down.

Are you talking about acceleration or about velocity?
Click to expand...

A slowdown is not an acceleration. It is a reduction in velocity.

You seem to be asking us to watch the car's motion to judge by eye when we perceive that it's speed has been reduced.
Click to expand...

The rate is of speed is also measurable. I can recommend some excellent freeware for you, which makes that fairly easy.

In that case you would appear to be asking about our observing the car's changed velocity, i.e. what has resulted after a period of braking has taken place.
Click to expand...

Yes. Alvarez suggested that based on his analysis, Greer may have taken his foot off the brake as early as 294, but based on his chart, the slowdown didn't actually begin until about frame 300.

The people in the car sway forward at the start of braking, not at the end.
Click to expand...

It wasn't really a "braking". Greer just lifted his foot from the gas, at least that's what Alvarez concluded. He said the deceleration was from about 12 mph to 8mph.

Indeed it looks as if the initial press on the brakes was quite firm but then the driver eases partway off on the brakes since it's clear to see the two agents in the front seats sway forward then back.
Click to expand...

Well, Dr. Alvarez came to a different conclusion after doing a great deal of analysis.

In short, you seem to be talking about the wrong bit of physics.
Click to expand...

Hmm.. too bad this Nobel prize winning physicist isn't still around so that you could straighten him out:)
 
RoboTimbo said:
Actully, you've been pretty consistent in your use of it ..
Click to expand...

Let's talk about Nellie Connally. She was the one who (unbeknownst to her of course) enlightened me about the shot at frame 285.

She confirmed that shot in a multitude of ways, especially when we match up her testimony with her visible actions in the Zapruder film.

If you actually study her that way, even without my help, you will learn more about this crime than you have ever learned before.
 
Robert Harris said:
I don't do ad hominem. Would you like to talk about the Kennedy assassination?
Click to expand...

No, I only participated in a multi-hundred-page, years-long thread series because I'm trying to wear the letters off my keycaps. Of course I would like to talk about the Kennedy assassination. The problem is that you seem to define that activity as, "Take my ipse dico as incontestable fact and give me only the rebuttals I'm expecting." No, I have no interest in watching you spin the hamster wheel. As I said, rereading my first lengthy post to you will give you sound advice on what not to do here if you want an actual discussion or debate.

I am not interested in your attempts to reset the debate as of none of us existed until you got here.
I am not interested in your attempts to shift the burden of proof.
I am not interested in your whining about how horrible this forum and its participants are.
I am not interested in your assessments of my character, mental health, or predilections.
I am not interested in your desire to focus only upon the parts of your argument you think are unassailable.
I am not interested in your insistence that detailed rebuttals must be presented against your walls of screed when the simple fundamental errors escape your attention.

You have presented your argument and I have shown you what I think is wrong with it. I'm not interested in your denials and protests that follow.
 
Robert Harris said:
Let's talk about Nellie Connally. She was the one who (unbeknownst to her of course) enlightened me about the shot at frame 285.

She confirmed that shot in a multitude of ways, especially when we match up her testimony with her visible actions in the Zapruder film.

If you actually study her that way, even without my help, you will learn more about this crime than you have ever learned before.
Click to expand...

How does that fit in with your comprehensive and coherent alternative hypothesis concerning the JFK assassination?
 
Last edited:
Axxman300 said:
There are several reasons there is no immediate reaction, let's count backwards in no particular order...

Dealey Plaza has a nasty echo, so no matter how loud the rifle shots were likely the only people who knew where the shots were coming from were in the limo.
Click to expand...

It doesn't matter where the shots were coming from. Any shot that was fired in the proximity of the limo, would have exposed the passengers to 130 decibels or 16 times 90db, the level at which involuntary startle reactions will occur.

The President of the United States coming to your town is a big deal, and once he was in view most of the people had tunnel vision. I can tell you in detail the what happened during the 20 seconds I saw President Ford.

Everyone says they thought the first shots were firecrackers. That's likely not what they sounded like but how they were perceived.
Click to expand...

Trust me. If you are exposed to 130 decibels from a high powered rifle, you won't be thinking you are hearing a firecracker. You won't be thinking at all in fact, for a second or two.

The footage you show only has seven or eight people so it indicates nothing.
Click to expand...

Actually it does, because the shock wave dissipates at a geometric rate, so even people along the road were exposed to levels less than half as loud as those who were closest to the bullet's path.

The main weakness of the argument is the Zapruder Film itself. Zapruder never fliches once, the guy was a jeweler, not a Cowboy, and the third shot would have been fired from maybe 30 feet past his right ear. He never loses his image, which is pretty good for an amateur camera man.
Click to expand...

That's because he was MUCH further from the bullet's path, so the shock wave was much weaker. He was startled however, as Dr. Alvarez confirmed, but his reaction was also much weaker than the limo passengers'.

Sound of gunshots and how people react to them is a weak line of argument.
Click to expand...

I don't think so. It has been proven that people react to loud noises, very dramatically and visibly, and very much like the limo passengers did, following 285 and 313.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SQ2LwB4mo1A

and

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DSXjbiDD0rY
 
RoboTimbo said:
How does that fit in with your comprehensive and coherent alternative hypothesis concerning the JFK assassination?
Click to expand...

That's a very good question.

It has nothing to do with any "alternate hypothesis", but it supports the fact that shots were fired which which were inconsistent with the capabilities of Oswald's rifle.

Therefore, Oswald did not act alone and this crime was by definition, a conspiracy.
 
Robert Harris said:
...would have exposed the passengers...
Click to expand...

Begged question.

Trust me.
Click to expand...

Begged question.

Actually it does, because the shock wave dissipates at a geometric rate...
Click to expand...

Assumption. (Read carefully the definition of geometric decay and study some actual shock waves from firearms.)

He was startled however, as Dr. Alvarez confirmed, but his reaction was also much weaker than the limo passengers'.
Click to expand...

Subjective judgment.

I don't think so. It has been proven that people react to loud noises, very dramatically and visibly, and very much like the limo passengers did, following 285 and 313.
Click to expand...

Subjective judgment, inappropriate generalization.

On this last point, I reiterate that the data do not fit the insinuation that the statement above is a universal maxim. This is why you have to imagine silent gunshots.
 
Robert Harris said:
That's a very good question.

It has nothing to do with any "alternate hypothesis"
Click to expand...

So present a coherent alternate hypothesis that does explain all the evidence better.

...shots were fired which which were inconsistent with the capabilities of Oswald's rifle.
Click to expand...

Straw man.

Therefore, Oswald did not act alone and this crime was by definition, a conspiracy.
Click to expand...

Inference.
 
Robert Harris said:
I enjoyed your post. It was fascinating and informative. But I do have to question your opinion about Marcello, or at least Marcello when was he was out of his mind, pissed off. Beside being mercilessly harassed by Bobby Kennedy, Marcello experienced probably the greatest humiliation of his life when Bobby had him dragged out of his home in the middle of the night and flown to Guatemala, where he was dumped in the jungle with little more than the shirt on his back.


Bobby's actions were not exactly legal, but he undoubtedly got a great laugh out of it, in part because Marcello had falsely claimed that his home country was Guatemala, a place he had never even visited. An informant claimed that he swore he would kill JFK, after that.

Hey! This was a billionaire who was used to getting anything he wanted at the snap of fingers. He just wasn't a happy camper after that.

Marcello confessed (unwittingly), to an FBI informant, Jack Laningham, that he did indeed, order the assassination and that he only wished that he could have killed JFK, personally. Anthony Summers BTW, interviewed FBI people who confirmed what Laningham said and stated that they believed him, but did not (for no apparent reason) believe Marcello.

Some of this was covered by CNN:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hfWGWcR_J0k

and Fox

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=exXDcu-yRiw
Click to expand...

First off Marcello's immigration case went back to 1952, long before RFK got on to him, and Marcello had lost in court before his deportation - this wasn't a middle of the night roust out of the blue - Marcello knew he was under the gun and somebody from the gov. would be knocking on his door, and please note, up until the coke barons in SA and the post-Soviet mobs there were no mob billionaires. Even Lansky and Luciano died closer to broke than the opposite.

Let's get something else out of the way - through the years, many individuals have claimed they participated in the assassination of JFK, on the fringe or as actual participants in the act - James Files being the most recent, but let's not forget E. Howard Hunt's son claiming his father did it, Santos Trafficante was named by Ragano, a recent book (Mr. New Oeleans) by Frenchy Brouillette claims it was Marcello, Trafficante, the McLaney brothers and Tex Cody - book review linky:

http://www.nyjournalofbooks.com/book-review/mr-new-orleans

A guy named Robert Morrow wrote (I killed Kennedy! later republished as First Hand Knowledge) Not to be confused with JREF member of the same name, whose claim to fame is that he's the #1 Clinton hater in the world - claims he bought the rifles that were actually used to shoot JFK by CIA spooks and mercenaries on orders from LBJ. Morrow later came to grief when he named a bystander at the assassination of RFK as the actual assassin of Bobby Kennedy and was sued into insolvency.

I can go on, but I'd hope readers get the gist. Braggadocio is what the FBI thought about Marcello's jail house confession (not to beat a dead mafiosi, but in what universe do you believe LCN capos speak truth to outsiders about who they hit and why?) and I have no reason to second guess them, and every reason to simply file said confession with the rest of the crap that's been printed on motives, means and players by amateur investigators that are proposing theories based on speculation, not fact.

WRT your particular assertions here. You wish to interpret the physical reaction of witnesses and bystanders in one light only, that as evidence of suppressed gunfire. If you go back far enough in my posts (accessed through left clicking on my handle) you'll find some posts about the audio evidence and witness accounts of different shooter locations. In those posts I explain how audio evidence and witness reports can not be considered definitive due to how sound travels, and how projectiles themselves create their own (for a lack of a better term) mini sonic booms- as you described - and my opinion on this subject isn't based on reading secondary sources, it based on my experience professionally as first a Airborne infantry troop, a firearms instructor, a SOT licensee (licensed manufacturer of National Firearms Act weapons and devices) and finally 15 years as a cop. I grew up on the first indoor rifle range in the S.F. bay area back in the 1960's - for a goodly portion of my childhood I practiced with a handgun or rifle every single day. I've been around. I can tell you this, and I hope you understand, but you can have two individuals on the same spot, witness the same event or incident, and those two witnesses might have three different accounts in the first interview and it can just go downhill from there. LEO's from Bugtussle to the FBI make mistakes and make them often. That is a plausible explanation for all you find wrong with CE399.

If you wish to assert that LEO's never make mistakes, please read this post of mine about LEO's making mistaken reports:

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=10684302&postcount=1098

WRT the shooting itself, it makes absolutely no sense in the real world to have more than one shooter per target. The chance of failure (or disclosure) in any endeavor of this type would be multiplied by the additional individuals involved. It does not increase the chances for success. If JFK et al went Elvis, or were killed in a roadside bomb, that would be one thing, but LHO with his Carcano and his Smith and a dead POTUS and a dead DPD officer adds up pretty well as the actor in this play.

If you want a better version of events, more entertaining and full of drama, read James Ellroy's American Underworld trilogy. At least he's honest enough to admit it's fiction, even though he loves the Mafia did it theory.
 
Robert Harris said:
That's a very good question.

It has nothing to do with any "alternate hypothesis", but it supports the fact that shots were fired which which were inconsistent with the capabilities of Oswald's rifle.

Therefore, Oswald did not act alone and this crime was by definition, a conspiracy.
Click to expand...
I've highlighted a word in the above. Can you guess why?
 
Last edited:
Robert Harris said:
That's a very good question.

It has nothing to do with any "alternate hypothesis", but it supports the fact that shots were fired which which were inconsistent with the capabilities of Oswald's rifle.

Therefore, Oswald did not act alone and this crime was by definition, a conspiracy.
Click to expand...

Ok, now what?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom