Moderated JFK conspiracy theories: it never ends III

[Robert Harris]

1: One thing is for sure: it wasn't a startle reaction.

Edited by zooterkin: 

<SNIP>
Edited for rules 11/12

Do you see any errors in my annotations?

 

[zooterkin]

Several posts sent to AAH.

The topic is what happened one day in 1963, not each other. Please conspire to keep on topic, thank you.

Replying to this modbox in thread will be off topic  Posted By: zooterkin

 

[Belz...]

Do you see any errors in my annotations?

I repeat:

1: One thing is for sure: it wasn't a startle reaction.
2: Are you ever going to show us a real-time video ?

I answered your question, and then asked my questions before you asked yours above. Respect your own rules and answer my points and questions before asking more of yours.

 

[RoboTimbo]

What do you think caused these reactions, my friend?

Attempt to shift the burden of proof.

 

[Robert Harris]

I repeat:

1: One thing is for sure: it wasn't a startle reaction.

Can you justify that conclusion? The WC confirmed that most relevant witnesses said the final shots were bunched together. 285 and 313 were 1.5 seconds apart - even less, if the first of those shots was at 286-288.

2: Are you ever going to show us a real-time video ?

Some are in slow motion which permits viewers to see more detail. Others were meant to run at real time speed, but the speed of animated GIF's is partially dependent on your computer's performance.

 

[ComfySlippers]

...but the speed of animated GIF's is partially dependent on your computer's performance.

It's not 1989 anymore

 

[RoboTimbo]

Can you justify that conclusion? The WC confirmed that most relevant witnesses said the final shots were bunched together. 285 and 313 were 1.5 seconds apart - even less, if the first of those shots was at 286-288.

Another fabrication on your part to make it match your fantasy suppressed shot. Read Hank's post about it.

Some are in slow motion which permits viewers to see more detail. Others were meant to run at real time speed, but the speed of animated GIF's is partially dependent on your computer's performance.

And what you see depends on what fantasy you've concocted and what inference you must make so that it matches your fantasy.

 

[Belz...]

Can you justify that conclusion?

Yeah, with the same logic as yours: It doesn't look like a startle reaction to me.

Some are in slow motion which permits viewers to see more detail.

The real-time video would help see your alledged reactions at a speed we're all familiar with. I suspect you won't post it because their reactions would look even less like startle reactions at full speed.

Others were meant to run at real time speed, but the speed of animated GIF's is partially dependent on your computer's performance.

Denied.

 

[Jack by the hedge]

In this animation, you can see that by 293, there was no slowdown at all.

I don't agree that "You can see..." whether or not the car has begun to decelerate. Judging by eye the change in speed of the car itself over a few frames is just not a practicable task.

On the other hand, what can be seen quite clearly is the effect of the initial deceleration on the passengers of the car. Your animated gif which shows only the two secret service agents in the front seats is particularly helpful as it makes it very obvious that both men sway forward and back again in unison, even though they are not both facing forwards (the driver is turned partly towards us).

 

[Robert Harris]

Yeah, with the same logic as yours: It doesn't look like a startle reaction to me.

I think there are better ways to evaluate this than by subjective opinion, in spite of your total objectivity

I have answered your questions, now it's your turn to answer mine. Do you see any errors in my annotations on the Kellerman segment? As I'm sure you will agree, that GIF has to run in extreme slow motion in order to make his specific actions identifiable.

 

[Jack by the hedge]

I think there are better ways to evaluate this than by subjective opinion

Good. Do you have an objective measure of the car's speed over time?

 

[Robert Harris]

I don't agree that "You can see..." whether or not the car has begun to decelerate. Judging by eye the change in speed of the car itself over a few frames is just not a practicable task.

Of course it is. You can prove that by watching the second segment, in which the slowdown is quite easy to see.

On the other hand, what can be seen quite clearly is the effect of the initial deceleration on the passengers of the car.

You are begging the question, presuming that the passengers' reactions were caused by a deceleration, in spite of evidence that the slowdown began after the reactions.

Your animated gif which shows only the two secret service agents in the front seats is particularly helpful as it makes it very obvious that both men sway forward and back again in unison, even though they are not both facing forwards (the driver is turned partly towards us).

Greer spun around from rear-to-front in four frames or 2/9ths of one second, as he simultaneously made the greatest mistake of his career, slowing the limo. He testified that "The last two seemed to be just simultaneously, one behind the other".

He also described the "concussion" of the second shot,

I kind of got, by turning around, I don't know whether I got a little concussion of it, maybe when it hit something or not, I may have gotten a little concussion that made me think there was something different to it.


I think the "concussion" was the shock wave of a passing bullet, though I would be open to other explanations.

It is also important that he said he was turned around when that second shot was fired. It is easy to see that he wasn't turned to the rear at 223. But look at him at 285.

And BTW, the man in the white shirt in the center of that frame is Charles Brehm.

Brehm stated that the President was "15-20 feet" from him, when he heard a shot, which is exactly where he was, at 285.

Brehm further corroborated that claim, in his interview with Mark Lane, in which he pinpointed JFK's position then, relative to him and his son.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0cHg4qeh2_M

 

[Robert Harris]

Good. Do you have an objective measure of the car's speed over time?

No.

I only have proof that the slowdown began after the passengers reacted.

Also, please look at the Kellerman segment I just linked.

Some of his reactions, such as raising his hand to his ear, shrugging his shoulders, and twisting his head to the right, were clearly unrelated to a rapid slowdown.

Going out to lunch. One last thought.

I'm sure no one agrees with me at this point, but PLEASE consider the quantity and quality of the empirical evidence I am showing you.

It has to be at the very least, worthy of consideration, doesn't it? Isn't it better than what you have heard from traditional, conspiracy buffs?

In fact, in a debate with one of them, I would be on your side on almost everything except the question of conspiracy.

Please give this fair and objective consideration.

 

[RoboTimbo]

On the other hand, what can be seen quite clearly is the effect of the initial deceleration on the passengers of the car.

That much is very clear from the video and gifs and something that everyone can see. A person would have to go through some painful mental contortions to try to see something else.

 

[Robert Harris]

That much is very clear from the video and gifs and something that everyone can see. A person would have to go through some painful mental contortions to try to see something else.

Please examine post #2959

I'll be back later..

 

[Belz...]

I think there are better ways to evaluate this than by subjective opinion

Then what's keeping you from doing that ?

I have answered your questions, now it's your turn to answer mine.

Not until you provide a real-time video of those frames.

You are begging the question

<snicker>

 

[Border Reiver]

No.

I only have proof that the slowdown began after the passengers reacted.

Also, please look at the Kellerman segment I just linked.

Some of his reactions, such as raising his hand to his ear, shrugging his shoulders, and twisting his head to the right, were clearly unrelated to a rapid slowdown.

Going out to lunch. One last thought.

I'm sure no one agrees with me at this point, but PLEASE consider the quantity and quality of the empirical evidence I am showing you.

It has to be at the very least, worthy of consideration, doesn't it? Isn't it better than what you have heard from traditional, conspiracy buffs?

In fact, in a debate with one of them, I would be on your side on almost everything except the question of conspiracy.

Please give this fair and objective consideration.

How much did the vehicle deccelerate and over what period of time?

When did the driver start to accelerate?

What was the effect of the slowdown?

How does this evidence support any notion of a conspiracy?

 

[BazBear]

No.

I only have proof that the slowdown began after the passengers reacted.

Of course the passengers in the back were reacting, two of them had just been shot.

Also, please look at the Kellerman segment I just linked.

I did, I'm not seeing what you are seeing.

Some of his reactions, such as raising his hand to his ear, shrugging his shoulders, and twisting his head to the right, were clearly unrelated to a rapid slowdown.

I sure he was reacting to the commotion in the back; you know, where two of his charges had just been shot.

 

[Belz...]

Of course the passengers in the back were reacting, two of them had just been shot.

Yeah but what does it mean ???

 

[RoboTimbo]

Please examine post #2959

I'll be back later..

I did. Other than their heads moving in response to the vehicle decelerating, did you see something else? That you have objective, verifiable evidence for?