As you should recall, Bob, I don't see a problem there. Even the majority of witnesses can be wrong, if they are all subjected to the same objective conditions that create a subjective illusion.
I have no idea what you are talking about. Do you have a source for this strange theory?
Can you give an example of another instance in which such a large preponderance of witnesses all made exactly the same "mistake", because they were all subjected to the "same objective conditions that create a subjective illusion."
And what "subjective illusion" are you talking about? This is a new one. You didn't even pitch it at A.A.J. Neither did anyone else
I'm sure you wouldn't just make something like that up. Please cite your source?
Witnesss testimony is secondary to hard evidence.
Not necessarily, but what "hard evidence" is there that contradicts them? Please be specific.
Other explanations besides two nearly simultaneous shots are possible and, under the circumstances, more plausible.
No they aren't. We can easily see reactions to both of the two shots. Watch Kellerman and Greer, ducking and spinning around respectively, in perfect tandem with one another, following 285 and then 313.
http://jfkhistory.com/duckstwice.gif
Did you notice how Greer and Kellerman reacted the same way to both of those shots?
Besides the most obvious (echoes),
I don't think so. The 285 reactions began
BEFORE 313, and how do you explain the large consensus who only heard
ONE early shot? Where were the echoes then?
in this thread the possibility has been raised that the sound of the bullet's impact on the skull could have been heard in proximity to the sound of the shot by those close enough to the president.
That argument was refuted. Once again, we see the reactions prior to 313, so they couldn't have been caused by an echo. And numerous witnesses described the gap between those shots as about 2 seconds.
"Discovered" begs the question of the accuracy of Alvarez's surmise.
His guess, however educated.
That was not a guess. That was the result of some very deep analysis, presented in a paper to the Journal on American Physics, based on his experience with cameras and high powered rifle shots in Africa and his expertise as a consultant for the Bell & Howell company - the manufacturer of Zapruder's camera.
And CBS conducted tests which full confirmed his methodology. And then there is the simple fact that he identified Zapruder's reaction at 290-291. The limo passengers began to react at 290-292. It just doesn't get any more simultaneous than that.
It is outrageously disingenuous to label this man's work as a "guess".
And I'm sure I've said repeatedly that your determination of when those actions began is subjective.
I don't care what you "said". Let's look at what I
proved. Watch the frame numbers.
http://jfkhistory.com/simultaneous.gif
It could also be that the change in perspective of the camera and the sudden blurring imparts the illusion of a more dramatic change all around.
Nonsense. There was no blurring when the reactions began at 290. You might argue that Kellerman started to react at 293, but that would only mean that the reactions began in the same 2/9ths of one second which doesn't change anything.
Anyway, nobody's spinning around could have been a startle reflex reaction,
Prove it.
A few hours ago, you admitted that spinning around like that was consistent with how someone would react to a gunshot. And that's exactly what Greer did.
your unsubstantiated insistence otherwise notwithstanding.
Nonsense. I cited Britannica, stating that a classic startle reaction is an "avoidance movement of the head", which is also perfectly consistent with Greer's reaction.
You're wrong on all counts Sandy, just like you were at McAdams newsgroup.
I just finished saying, up there, that I don't believe that startle reactions can be reliably discerned in the Z film.
That's nice. It's great to know what you "believe". But I'll stick with what we can prove.
You already know that I don't think the more overt actions you highlight following frame 285 are startle reflex reactions at all.
Don't take this wrong Sandy, but I couldn't care less what you "think".
And even your fellow LN advocates contradict you. Many of them argued that that the reactions were caused by Greer slamming on the brakes, but that theory's been thoroughly quashed.
And the large majority of people who have rated my 285 presentations have given me a thumbs up rating.
So, why do all those people see what you don't?
Startle reflex reactions are spasms, often as subtle as the blink of an eye.
Well, maybe you know more than Britannica. They say that startle reactions are avoidance movements, which is consistent with both dropping the head and spinning around, away from the source of the sound.
