JFK Conspiracy Theories IV: The One With The Whales

[Robert Harris]

That is still not actual evidence. It is all just your interpretation.

That is flatly untrue. Let's look at what I stated:

1. They were in the middle of a shooting.

That is indisputably true and it certainly contributes to resolving the cause of the reactions. Had they been in a situation for example, in which sirens had been going off, that would support the notion that they reacted to a siren.

2. The large consensus of witnesses was that they heard two closely bunched gunshots at the end of the attack. That is a perfect match with shots at 285 and 313, 1.5 seconds apart.

Once again - indisputably true as confirmed by the Warren Commission and verbatim citations from the limo passengers who reacted. That also included numerous police officers and Secret Service agents who were quite knowledgeable about guns.

3. Bill Greer, the driver of the limo, stated that the second shot, which he described as almost simultaneous with the third, caused him to feel it's "concussion", which is exactly what we would expect him to have felt from the shock wave of a passing, high powered rifle shot.


Keep in mind, that each of these cases provides "facts and information" related to the question of what caused those reactions at the end of the attack. So they are in full compliance with the dictionary definition of the term, "evidence".

4. The absence of plausible, alternative explanations.

This one is a biggie and I notice that you do not dispute it. If indeed, there are no plausible alternatives to a gunshot, then the fat lady sings. This factual information is about as important as anything gets when it comes to understanding those reactions.

5. Each of the nonvictims in the limousine, who we see reacting, stated that what they heard at the end of attack, were gunshots.

There isn't a cop or a judge on the planet who wouldn't consider that the statements of the people closest to the victims are important - especially when they matched perfectly with the large consensus of other witnesses.

All of this is a perfect match with the dictionary definition of the term, "evidence" "the available body of facts or information indicating whether a belief or proposition is true or valid."

 

[Robert Harris]

And yet you clearly feel the need to "help" others to see your interpretation of evidence since nobody but you sees startle reactions.

What I "think" or "feel", doesn't matter.

In that post I simply suggested that people make their own call, to determine whether the reactions following the various shots provoked the same kind of reactions.

It is ridiculously obvious that they didn't. Don't you agree?

 

[Robert Harris]

How about this.

How about we watch the film.

Then we ask the more important question: ARE ALL THOSE REACTIONS TO GUNSHOTS?

One of my arguments is that there are no plausible alternatives. Do you dispute that?

 

[Robert Harris]

Recently, I posted a message suggesting that everyone decide for themselves if the reactions following the early shots were different from the reactions at the end.

I made another animated Zapruder segment, which might be helpful. It is a stabilized version of the film, in which it is fairly easy to make that determination. Unfortunately, the frame numbers are not in this particular version, so just remember, that JFK's hands rose upward a couple of frames after 223, and you will see three people simultaneously dropping their heads at app. 290-292. The explosive head wound of course, was at 313. As you watch, please keep in mind:

1. The limo was considerably closer to the alleged sniper's nest when the early shots were fired, and should have provoked stronger reactions if they came from Oswald.

2. Look for simultaneous reactions, which are consistent with very loud and startling shots. Quieter shots will result in only voluntary reactions which can be spread out over numerous frames.

3. Count the number of people ducking and spinning around at extreme speed.

4. Remember that reactions by the two victims to being hit, are not the same as people being startled by loud shots.

http://jfkhistory.com/stablezapruder.gif

 

[Axxman300]

It was just a "coincidence" that Ruby was connecting with Marcello's boys immediately before and after the assassination, just like it was a "coincidence" that he was rubbing elbows with Jim Braden the night before, and with a guy in Chicago who called by David Ferrie.

If this were any other crime in history, we would be laughing at the concept that all this was a coincidence.

And yet there is no proof. Thousands of hours of FBI wire-taps, hundreds of mafioso who turned state's evidence, and nobody is on the record.

Traffcante denied having anything to do with the assassination in front of the HSCA.

Giancana never admitted anything.

Ralph Salerno is a good resource for Mafia history, and this is what he said on this matter:

http://abcnews.go.com/WNT/story?id=131460

Highlight:

ABCNEWS: What about the idea that the Chicago mob boss Sam Giancana was behind the Kennedy assassination. What do the surveillance tapes of Giancana suggest about this theory?

Salerno: The FBI had very extensive coverage on the leaders of organized crime in Chicago, with Sam Giancana and others. They tape recorded him in the Armory Lounge, which he sort of made his own personal headquarters. Sam Giancana doesn't show any foreknowledge at all. After the fact, in a discussion, he's talking with one of his accomplices about Oswald, and they said "What kind of guy was he?" And Sam says "I don't know what kind of guy he was, but he was a pretty good marksman." Now that doesn't sound like the comment of a man who had retained the man he was surprised to find was such a good marksman.

The big problem with your thesis is the same on all JFK CTs have:

You haven't effectively removed Oswald from the picture, in fact you largely ignore him. It was his gun, two of his three bullets that made the kill. Oswald's actions before the shooting, such as stalking the area around the plaza for a better shooting angle, and then his actions after the killing (running, shooting Tippet, and almost killing a second cop during his arrest) should be enough to put this subject to rest.

Then there is the problem with a "silenced" rifle. You continue to ignore the fact that no marksmen used them in 1963, nor have you been able to suggest a specific weapon that could have been silenced and still did the damage to the President and the Governor. I am familiar with MACV SOG's small arsenal of silenced weapons, and although they were used a few years later most were of WWII vintage. This suggests that silencer technology was limited to weapon type and short range. Since MACV SOG worked with the CIA they would have had access to the latest and greatest (and did have some amazing stuff), yet their silencers were 20 year-old tech.

So while you're arguing non-existent sound evidence you compound the problem with a weapon feature that would have been problematic in 1963.

 

[HSienzant]

That's an excellent question, Zooterin. I will try to answer it for you.

1. They were in the middle of a shooting. That alone, might not constitute a 100% proof, but it certainly makes a gunshot, the most probable explanation.

2. The large consensus of witnesses was that they heard two closely bunched gunshots at the end of the attack. That is a perfect match with shots at 285 and 313, 1.5 seconds apart.

3. Bill Greer, the driver of the limo, stated that the second shot, which he described as almost simultaneous with the third, caused him to feel it's "concussion", which is exactly what we would expect him to have felt from the shock wave of a passing, high powered rifle shot.

4. The absence of plausible, alternative explanations. The most common of these has been that the reactions were caused by the driver slamming on the brakes, but the evidence proves that the reactions preceded the slowdown. That fact was confirmed by the Nobel prize winning physicist, Dr. Luis Alvarez, who I corroborated in this brief presentation.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HCDAg5c4x5U

The only other alternative which has been suggested, is that the noise at 285 was a motorcycle backfiring. But the witnesses confirmed that this backfiring was heard repeatedly all throughout the motorcades, but no similar reactions can be seen, either prior to frame 285 in the Zapruder film, or during movies taken prior to the limo's arrival in Dealey Plaza.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GleA2BHxGcM

In fact, reactions like those following frame 285, can ONLY be seen, following the fatal headshot at frame 313.

http://jfkhistory.com/duckstwice.gif

And finally, the HSCA confirmed that shots fired from Oswald's rifle, where much louder than motorcycle backfires. This is from their report,

All observers rated the rifle shots as very, very loud, and they were unable to understand how they could have been described as a firecracker or backfire..

We requested three motorcycles to be running during the test that would approximate the original listening conditions in Dealey Plaza. But the shots were so loud that any reasonable level of background noise woud have been low in comparison with the shots themselves.


5. Each of the nonvictims in the limousine, who we see reacting, stated that what they heard at the end of attack, were gunshots.

False. We've discussed this. For example, Clint Hill, who rushed to the car as the final shot was fired, said he heard only two shots total. He said he also heard, almost simultaneous with the second shot, a different sound, which he described as "though someone was shooting a revolver into a hard object--it seemed to have some type of an echo".

Mr. HILL. This is the first sound that I heard; yes, sir. I jumped from the car, realizing that something was wrong, ran to the Presidential limousine. Just about as I reached it, there was another sound, which was different than the first sound. I think I described it in my statement as though someone was shooting a revolver into a hard object--it seemed to have some type of an echo.
...
Mr. SPECTER. How many shots have you described that you heard?
Mr. HILL. Two.
Mr. SPECTER. Did you hear any more than two shots?
Mr. HILL. No, sir.

And as you previously admitted, Governor Connally heard only two shots total. He couldn't have described "gunshots" at the end of the attack. He did describe, and distinguish between, the sound of the final shot, and the sound of the impact on the head of the President.

Governor CONNALLY. ...then, of course, the third shot sounded, and I heard the shot very clearly. I heard it hit him. I heard the shot hit something, and I assumed again--it never entered my mind that it ever hit anybody but the President. I heard it hit. It was a very loud noise, just that audible, very clear.

We also saw the same type of testimony from the other occupants of the car ... where they described three sounds, two very close together. There is no reason to exclude a two-shot, one head impact scenario, but exclude it you do, ignoring entirely this was previously referenced in detail.

Here's where you ignored it most recently:

4. The absence of plausible, alternative explanations. The most common of these has been that the reactions were caused by the driver slamming on the brakes... The only other alternative which has been suggested, is that the noise at 285 was a motorcycle backfiring...

That's the logical fallacy where you incorrectly limit the options, ignoring the one that has been suggested right here in this forum as a very reasonable option.

All the best,

Hank

 

[RoboTimbo]

What I "think" or "feel", doesn't matter.

And yet in this very post you give your opinion again.

In that post I simply suggested that people make their own call, to determine whether the reactions following the various shots provoked the same kind of reactions.

And you've found that you haven't proven your case for startle reactions nor for phantom shots nor for phantom shooters nor for mob involvement nor for phantom suppressed rifles which disappear without having ever appeared to begin with.

It is ridiculously obvious that they didn't. Don't you agree?

See? You are again telling me what you "think" or "feel".

No, you haven't proven that your interpretations of a video are correct. In fact, you've failed utterly to provide any compelling evidence in support of your opinions.

 

[Liguid Wig]

My only comment is ask Robert Harris why he has never once addressed the single most relevant retort to his pet theory. That is one of 'consilience'. (Or in this case anti-consilience)?

Robert will you take a minute and address it?

 

[Tomtomkent]

One of my arguments is that there are no plausible alternatives. Do you dispute that?

Yes.
I also dispute that the reactions are "startle" reactions that require any explanation. I dispute that it is even possible to determine if somebody is startled from the information contained in a film. I certainly dispute that you can tell the people have heard something.

The reactions appear to be expected, given the situation they were in. They fit the human normal range for being in a car in which two people are being shot by three bullets.

I dispute your attempts to try and force subjective memories to fit an imagined scenario to "prove" additional bullets for which there are no evidence.

I am astounded you need me to recap the position I have been consistently voicing.

You claim there is no viable alternative. You have not provided suitable evidence that your claim is itself viable. Or plausible. Or worth considering. I keep asking for evidence that you have noticed something that even needs explaining, other than "confusion to the situation", and all your posts boil down to you really thinking it looks like they are startled, and really thinking they are a special kind of startled that apparently means extra bullets.

I on the other hand do not mistake your opinion for evidence.

I have just as much grounds to claim they must all be reacting to post hypnotic suggestions. Sure, I am not providing any evidence over what it looks like to me. But hey. You have not offered an alternative that is viable to me. So it HAS to be post hypnotic suggestion.

So before you dare to assume I can not possibly disagree with your argument, how about you actually make the foundation. I don't need to look for a plausible alternative to your analysis, before you can support your analysis with evidence. IE to show there is a "startle reaction" to be explained.

Thus far you HAVE NOT. The only person who sees this "anomaly" that needs explaining is you. All your "evidence" assumes as fact the very fact we have been asking you to establish.

Unfortunately much of what you claim to be able to discern from the film footage is fancy and wishful thinking. You try to match testimony and memories to the film with assumptions that every thought can be fitted to which ever pixel is most convenient to you.

But it is all just your opinion. Not evidence. Not a theory. And frankly, not plausible reason to assume there are bullets.

You make no room for the imperfection of memory, to the limitations of accuracy for any humans recollections. You take the expected confusion and try to weave it into a grand claim.

I dispute that.

 

[Tomtomkent]

That is flatly untrue. Let's look at what I stated:

1. They were in the middle of a shooting.

That is indisputably true and it certainly contributes to resolving the cause of the reactions. Had they been in a situation for example, in which sirens had been going off, that would support the notion that they reacted to a siren.

What 'reactions'? Why assume it is to a noise? That there is anything that needs to be explained IS YOUR INTERPRETATION AND OPINION of the film.

See? Right from the bat you are basing it on what the film looks like TO YOU.

Sure, they may have heard a noise. They are in the middle of a shooting. In a crowded plaza. Amazingly gunshots and noises are NOT the only thing to be reacting to.

How do you know one of them is not reacting to something they saw? Or looking around as an action, not a reaction. How do you know they are startled and not, quite sensibly, looking around to see where the secret service men were, or the police, or because something in the crowd caught their attention?

By what psychic power did you discern they heard anything at all?

It is ALL what you think you see in the film. Your opinion.

 

[CORed]

What I "think" or "feel", doesn't matter.

In that post I simply suggested that people make their own call, to determine whether the reactions following the various shots provoked the same kind of reactions.

It is ridiculously obvious that they didn't. Don't you agree?

What is ridiculously obvious is that the shots other than the three known to have been fired byOswald exist only in your imagination.

 

[HSienzant]

One of my arguments is that there are no plausible alternatives. Do you dispute that?

It has been disputed, right here in this thread. I've pointed out, repeatedly, that many of the witnesses' recollections you cite are fully consistent with only two shots being fired, with the impact on the head being heard as an additional third shot.

Indeed, two of the closest witnesses, SS Agent Clint Hill and Governor John Connally, said precisely that, differentiating between the sound of the gunshot and the sound of the impact on the head, saying they heard both.

All this was covered previously. You ignore it by claiming above there are no possible alternatives.

Let me cite some of those arguments now. For example:
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=10760856&postcount=3287

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=10763378&postcount=3432

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=10760332&postcount=3273

I've also pointed out that Kellerman's recollection of the time span of the shots - five seconds from first to last - is fully consistent with the 4.9 seconds between shots at Z223 and Z313 - again, fully consistent with a two-shot scenario. See here:

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=10763356&postcount=3430

etc. etc.

You ignore that too, in claiming there are no possible alternatives. There are, and it has been pointed out repeatedly.

Hank

 

[Robert Harris]

My only comment is ask Robert Harris why he has never once addressed the single most relevant retort to his pet theory. That is one of 'consilience'. (Or in this case anti-consilience)?

Robert will you take a minute and address it?

First, this is not my "pet theory". In fact, it is not a theory at all. It is simply and attempt to answer questions which everyone who is interested in this case, needs to address.

1. What caused these simultaneous reactions, following frame 285?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cv7Lz25Xyno

2. Why did most of the relevant witnesses only hear one early shot and why was no one visibly startled by those shots?

3. Why did most witnesses hear two closely bunched shots at the end of the attack?

4. Why did the Nobel prize winning physicist, Dr. Luis Alvarez, determine that there was a loud and startling noise, at frame 285?

So far, I can only think of one plausible answer. Can you think of another?

I'm not sure what you mean by a "consilience". Most researchers and authors who have studied this crime, have concluded that it was a conspiracy. That includes the head of the federal, HSCA investigation, as well as numerous Phds in various fields.

In recent years, we have been deluged with television documentaries which claim to have refuted the notion of conspiracy in the JFK case, but think back about the ones you have seen.

- one bullet passed through JFK and Connally, therefore, Oswald acted alone.

- the fatal shot at 313 came from the rear, therefore, Oswald acted alone.

- a laser test suggests that the fatal shot may have come from the alleged sniper's nest, therefore Oswald acted alone. (there's a bit more to that, btw)

But do you see a pattern here? None of those "proof", really prove anything related to the question of whether Oswald was the only shooter. And in fact, there is a plethora of evidence which proves that he did not.

And that evidence is all that matters. I wouldn't care in the slightest, if every expert on the planet thought otherwise. All that matters are the facts and evidence.

 

[Robert Harris]

What 'reactions'?

These reactions:

http://jfkhistory.com/ducking.gif

Why assume it is to a noise?

There is not need to "assume" anything.

You are begging the question - assuming that my arguments have been refuted, which of course, they have not.

That there is anything that needs to be explained IS YOUR INTERPRETATION AND OPINION of the film.

It is also my "interpretation and opinion" that this is a picture of an elephant

http://www.mikebirkhead.com/images/EyeForAnElephant.jpg

Are you suggesting that three people ducked, while two spun around at enormous speed, all in the same 1/6th of a second, were not reacting to something?

Alvarez concluded that Zapruder and Greer reacted to a loud and startling noise at frame 285 and he was corroborated by the award winning physicist, Dr. Michael Stroscio, who suggested that the "noise" was a gunshot, rather than a siren.

Do you think that they were the only two who were startled?

And how do you explain the fact that the testimonies of the nonvictims we see reacting, all confirmed gunshots at the points in time that they reacted?

See? Right from the bat you are basing it on what the film looks like TO YOU.

I based my conclusions on the best scientific evidence, the near unanimous testimonies of the people in Dealey Plaza who heard those shots, the fact that some of the reactions are classic, textbook startle reactions, and the fact that each of those reactions began in the same 1/6th of one second, which proves beyond any reasonable doubt, that they were startle reactions.

http://jfkhistory.com/simultaneous.gif

And yes, I believe it is ridiculously obvious that those people were reacting to something. So does almost everyone in this forum, who have comment on the subject. They argued that the passengers were being thrown around by Greer slamming on the brakes, or have tried to argue (as you have) that they were caused by something else.

Have you noticed however, that no one seems to be able to come up with another alternative, which as I have also stated, is because there aren't any.

Sure, they may have heard a noise. They are in the middle of a shooting. In a crowded plaza. Amazingly gunshots and noises are NOT the only thing to be reacting to.

But they are the only thing that was loud enough to provoke those kinds of reactions. The HSCA people confirmed that the shots were MUCH louder than the motorcycles, and all throughout the motorcade, the passengers were exposed to backfires, but NONE of them were loud enough to provoke reactions like we see following 285 and 313. Those reactions were unique. Those were the only times reactions like that occurred.

Some kind of bomb might qualify as an alternative, I suppose, but if that's what it was, we definitely have a conspiracy

How do you know one of them is not reacting to something they saw?

I think if they saw something startling enough to make them duck, they would have mentioned it in their testimonies. Do you really think that's a plausible explanation?

Or looking around as an action, not a reaction.

None of the people who reacted then, were "looking around".

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7GH5pGQy6yI

How do you know they are startled and not, quite sensibly, looking around to see where the secret service men were, or the police, or because something in the crowd caught their attention?

I know that because they weren't looking around, except perhaps at the floor of the car.

By what psychic power did you discern they heard anything at all?.

Sadly, because the psychic hotline is closed down now, I had to rely on the testimonies of those people - EVERY ONE OF WHOM, with the exception of the two victims, said they heard gunshots that were consistent with shots fired at 285 and 313, and EVERY ONE OF WHOM contradicted the lone nut theory.

I've cited them before, in this forum. Would you like me to do it again?

It is ALL what you think you see in the film. Your opinion.

I can't understand why you continue to say that, no matter how many times I cite this list of objective, facts and evidence which prove my case.

The people who reacted, told us what they were reacting to in their testimonies, and that just happens to be the only plausible explanation for why they reacted that way - and the only plausible explanation for the noise that Dr. Alvarez discovered at frame 285.

NONE of those facts have anything to do with my subjective opinion.

 

[Robert Harris]

Originally Posted by Robert Harris View Post
That's an excellent question, Zooterin. I will try to answer it for you.

1. They were in the middle of a shooting. That alone, might not constitute a 100% proof, but it certainly makes a gunshot, the most probable explanation.

2. The large consensus of witnesses was that they heard two closely bunched gunshots at the end of the attack. That is a perfect match with shots at 285 and 313, 1.5 seconds apart.

3. Bill Greer, the driver of the limo, stated that the second shot, which he described as almost simultaneous with the third, caused him to feel it's "concussion", which is exactly what we would expect him to have felt from the shock wave of a passing, high powered rifle shot.

4. The absence of plausible, alternative explanations. The most common of these has been that the reactions were caused by the driver slamming on the brakes, but the evidence proves that the reactions preceded the slowdown. That fact was confirmed by the Nobel prize winning physicist, Dr. Luis Alvarez, who I corroborated in this brief presentation.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HCDAg5c4x5U

The only other alternative which has been suggested, is that the noise at 285 was a motorcycle backfiring. But the witnesses confirmed that this backfiring was heard repeatedly all throughout the motorcades, but no similar reactions can be seen, either prior to frame 285 in the Zapruder film, or during movies taken prior to the limo's arrival in Dealey Plaza.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GleA2BHxGcM

In fact, reactions like those following frame 285, can ONLY be seen, following the fatal headshot at frame 313.

http://jfkhistory.com/duckstwice.gif

And finally, the HSCA confirmed that shots fired from Oswald's rifle, where much louder than motorcycle backfires. This is from their report,

All observers rated the rifle shots as very, very loud, and they were unable to understand how they could have been described as a firecracker or backfire..

We requested three motorcycles to be running during the test that would approximate the original listening conditions in Dealey Plaza. But the shots were so loud that any reasonable level of background noise woud have been low in comparison with the shots themselves.

5. Each of the nonvictims in the limousine, who we see reacting, stated that what they heard at the end of attack, were gunshots.

False. We've discussed this. For example, Clint Hill

Clint Hill was not one of the "nonvictims in the limousine". So why did you claim that my statement was false?

who rushed to the car as the final shot was fired, said he heard only two shots total. He said he also heard, almost simultaneous with the second shot, a different sound, which he described as "though someone was shooting a revolver into a hard object--it seemed to have some type of an echo".

That is untrue. He NEVER differentiated the shot fired "into a hard object", from the "second" shot that he heard. This is from his original report, of 11/22/63,

I heard a second firecracker type noise but it had a different sound-- like the sound of shooting a revolver into something hard.

He NEVER said he heard two separate shots then.

And as you previously admitted, Governor Connally heard only two shots total. He couldn't have described "gunshots" at the end of the attack.

Yes indeed, that's why I said,

5. Each of the nonvictims in the limousine, who we see reacting, stated that what they heard at the end of attack, were gunshots.

I'm sure you realize that he was a victim, not a "nonvictim" , do you not?

He did describe, and distinguish between, the sound of the final shot, and the sound of the impact on the head of the President.

No sir, he did not. He said he heard ONE shot striking something hard, which was obviously, the skull.

We also saw the same type of testimony from the other occupants of the car ...

I have read every relevant testimony in the WC report and I can assure you than none of the limo passengers said anything that even remotely implies that they confused one shot as two.

where they described three sounds, two very close together. There is no reason to exclude a two-shot, one head impact scenario

There is no way that the sound of the bullet striking the head, would sound like two separate gunshots. The shock wave emanated from the bullet itself; it arrived simultaneous with it striking the head. Clint Hill had it exactly right, when he said it was

[COLOR=Blue"like the sound of shooting a revolver into something hard." [/COLOR]

Now consider how SAIC, Roy Kellerman described those final shots,

"Let me give you an illustration, sir, before I can give you an answer. You have heard the sound barrier, of a plane breaking the sound barrier, bang, bang? That is it."

The other, even more serious problem with your theory, is that the reactions by the limo passengers as well as by Zapruder, as Dr. Alvarez confirmed, PRECEDED the headshot at 313. So they could NOT have been caused by the bullet striking the head.

This brief, annotated Zapruder segment matches up what Mrs. Kennedy and Connally said, in comparison with their reactions then.

http://jfkhistory.com/annotated.gif

but exclude it you do, ignoring entirely this was previously referenced in detail.

Exclude what?? You haven't cited anyone who thought that the headshot was really two separate shots, and none of those reactions are consistent with your theory, since they occurred, prior to the shot at 313.

And I certainly did reply, in considerable detail, when you posted your theory before. You have presented no evidence of any kind, which supports your theory and it is entirely inconsistent with the visible reactions as well as the scientific evidence of Drs. Alvarez and Stroscio.

Here's where you ignored it most recently:

4. The absence of plausible, alternative explanations. The most common of these has been that the reactions were caused by the driver slamming on the brakes... The only other alternative which has been suggested, is that the noise at 285 was a motorcycle backfiring...

That's the logical fallacy where you incorrectly limit the options,

I was talking about "plausible" alternatives. Illogical theories with zero evidential support do not fall into that category. Your own star witness, Clint Hill, was very specific that he heard a SINGLE shot at the end;

"like the sound of shooting a revolver into something hard."

And this is from his testimony,

Mr. SPECTER. How many shots have you described that you heard?
Mr. HILL. Two.
Mr. SPECTER. Did you hear any more than two shots?
Mr. HILL. No, sir.

Obviously, he was not fooled into thinking he heard an additional shot at the end. Neither was anyone else. Numerous witnesses for example, said there was 1 or 2 seconds between those two shots.

By the way, I made this presentation about Clint Hill, several years ago. You might find it interesting to learn that he jumped in direct reaction to the shot at 285,

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u08P2R2l5T8

 

[Robert Harris]

What is ridiculously obvious is that the shots other than the three known to have been fired byOswald exist only in your imagination.

What three shots were "known" to have been fired by Oswald and how exactly, was that proven?

None of the early shots could have come from a high powered rifle. Only one of them was even audible to most witnesses and neither of them were loud enough to provoke the kind of reactions we see following frames 285 and 313.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cv7Lz25Xyno

And those two shot were much too closely spaced for Oswald to have fired both.

 

[Robert Harris]

And yet there is no proof.

I guess that depends on how you define the term. If you are a big fan of ridiculously improbably coincidence, you might see it that way

Thousands of hours of FBI wire-taps,

Many of which, the FBI has refused to release to the public, often in defiance of the FOIA. Did you know that they have refused to release ANY of the hundreds of hours of Marcello recordings that they got when he was in prison?

hundreds of mafioso who turned state's evidence, and nobody is on the record.

There were some who did, but that wasn't exactly a healthy thing to do. Roselli for example, told the Washington Post that the mob ordered the murder of Oswald. As we both know, his dismembered body was found floating in an oil drum off the coast of Miami, shortly after that.

Traffcante denied having anything to do with the assassination in front of the HSCA.

He didn't admit being involved in the murder of the POTUS?!? How shocking is that

Giancana never admitted anything.

Sigh..

Ralph Salerno is a good resource for Mafia history, and this is what he said on this matter:

http://abcnews.go.com/WNT/story?id=131460

Think about the absurdity of his argument:

Salerno: I think Carlos Marcello was too smart to have done something like that. Carlos Marcello, if he engineered a plot to kill the president of the United States, he would know that it would be looked on very unfavorably by his peers throughout the country

So... Marcello was so afraid that other mobsters would look down on him for killing JFK, that he swore in front of fellow mafioso that he was going to do exactly that, and years later, told other mobsters that he did??

This guy was proud of what he did. He said he wished he could have been the guy who actually did it.

[/QUOTE]The big problem with your thesis is the same on all JFK CTs have:

You haven't effectively removed Oswald from the picture, [/QUOTE]

Why should I? I told you before that I believe he was probably involved in the attack, and very likely, fired one of those final shots.

in fact you largely ignore him. It was his gun, two of his three bullets that made the kill.

Prove it. CE399 could not possibly have been the bullet that wounded Connally and probably JFK. John Connally himself, confirmed that the actual bullet was picked up by a nurse and he was confirmed by DA Henry Wade, who saw that bullet, which the nurse stated, came from Connally's gurney, which is exactly where if fell from.

She then passed it to officer Bobby Nolan, who also heard her say it came from the gurney. He delivered it that evening to the Dallas police department.

That could not have been the same bullet that was recovered by Daryl Tomlinson in the hospital basement, which also was not CE399, since CE399 bore none of the initials of the two men who marked it at Parkland.

This article explains in detail. It is required reading for anyone who cares about this case.

http://jfkhistory.com/bell/bellarticle/BellArticle.html

And yes, there were fragments found in the limo which supposedly matched with Oswald's rifle, which might actually be from his rifle, but you can only be certain of that if you have a lot of unjustified faith in Mr. Hoover and his boys.

Oswald's actions before the shooting, such as stalking the area around the plaza for a better shooting angle,

I don't recall anyone saying that, but I wouldn't be surprised if he did. I have little doubt that he was one of the shooters.

and then his actions after the killing (running, shooting Tippet, and almost killing a second cop during his arrest) should be enough to put this subject to rest.

What subject?

Not only do I believe he was involved in the attack, but I probably have better reasons to believe that, than you guys do

Then there is the problem with a "silenced" rifle. You continue to ignore the fact that no marksmen used them in 1963,

That's quite an assertion. Would you mind posting a verifiable citation to prove it?

nor have you been able to suggest a specific weapon that could have been silenced and still did the damage to the President and the Governor.

As I told you before, pretty much any subsonic rifle could do that trick. All that would be necessary would be to mount a suppressor on it. As I also pointed out, suppressors first appeared in this country, by 1919. They were used by snipers on both sides, in WW2.

It has also been claimed that a guy named Mitchell Werbel, who later founded the Scionics company which specialized in suppressors, provided them for snipers who took part in the assassination.

http://spartacus-educational.com/JFKwerbell.htm

I can't call that a certainty, but as the article points out, he definitely had close connections to people who have been considered top suspects, mainly by the "CIA did it" group, which greatly outnumber me.

Look, I say the mob probably did it, because there is a lot of evidence that they did. But they had been closely allied with the CIA back then, which leaves open the possibility that this was a joint operation, much like their alliance to kill Castro.

But whether it was the mob or the boy scouts, it wasn't Oswald acting alone. There can be no doubt about that at all.

 

[Tomtomkent]

These reactions:

http://jfkhistory.com/ducking.gif



There is not need to "assume" anything.

And yet you do. You assume those are 'startle' reactions. You base your argument on these needing explanation. You go to great lengths to assume there could be nothing other than gunshots to explain an interpretation only you apply to them.

You are begging the question - assuming that my arguments have been refuted, which of course, they have not.

No. You are assuming your arguments have been accepted and need refuting.

Nobody here seems convinced by your argument. There is nobody to whom I can refute the argument. It has not reached the minimum standards required to be accepted by the other forum users.

This has been pointed out to you. Along with advice on how you could convince us. You have chosen to ignore this.

It is also my "interpretation and opinion" that this is a picture of an elephant

http://www.mikebirkhead.com/images/EyeForAnElephant.jpg

Would be my opinion if I told you the elephant was startled, then told you which noise is the only noise I thought could make the elephant look like that?

Are you suggesting that three people ducked, while two spun around at enormous speed, all in the same 1/6th of a second, were not reacting to something?

I am suggesting, and have been suggesting for several posts, that they could have been reacting to any number of things.

I am suggesting that their psychological state, and claims of what noise they heard, the specifics of a gun shot, etc, is not provable from the film.

Alvarez concluded that Zapruder and Greer reacted to a loud and startling noise at frame 285 and he was corroborated by the award winning physicist, Dr. Michael Stroscio, who suggested that the "noise" was a gunshot, rather than a siren.

And? That is still a case of 'what the film looks like'. Not evidence, not proof.

Do you think that they were the only two who were startled?

And how do you explain the fact that the testimonies of the nonvictims we see reacting, all confirmed gunshots at the points in time that they reacted?

What is there to explain? Human memory is flawed. Human memory is not based on frame numbers, or precise enough to pinpoint the time and say for sure those are the reactions described.

You are STILL taking the expected discrepancy between the film and the testimony and trying to turn it into gunshots. It isn't. It's an expected discrepancy.

I based my conclusions on the best scientific evidence, the near unanimous testimonies of the people in Dealey Plaza who heard those shots, the fact that some of the reactions are classic, textbook startle reactions, and the fact that each of those reactions began in the same 1/6th of one second, which proves beyond any reasonable doubt, that they were startle reactions.

No. It proves they look like startle reactions TO YOU. Your interpretation of the testimony has been shown to be flawed. The method of trying to make it fit the film (based entirely and solely upon your opinions of what it looks like somebody has heard) is flawed. Doubts are entirely reasonable.

http://jfkhistory.com/simultaneous.gif

And yes, I believe it is ridiculously obvious that those people were reacting to something. So does almost everyone in this forum, who have comment on the subject. They argued that the passengers were being thrown around by Greer slamming on the brakes, or have tried to argue (as you have) that they were caused by something else.

Something other than the silenced bullets, that apparently defied the laws of physics being both silent, and loud, at the same time, with characteristics of hollywood bullets instead of real bullets?

Sure. I think there are any number of alternate explanations. Many of them more likely by virtue of being known to exist.

Have you noticed however, that no one seems to be able to come up with another alternative, which as I have also stated, is because there aren't any.

Hold on:

They argued that the passengers were being thrown around by Greer slamming on the brakes, or have tried to argue (as you have) that they were caused by something else.

So nobody mentioned any other alternative, despite you having discussed somebody offering an alternative, in this very post?

The only reason you discount other explanations is because YOU claim they are startle reactions. Which can not be discerned from the film footage.

By all means prove they were all reacting to the same thing, and these were not individual reactions to the realisation that two people had just been shot.
By all means prove these are not reactions within the larger pattern of the situation, and are all to a specific and singular noise within the larger pattern.
By all means, prove they were not reacting to each other, in the car, to the movement of the car, the secret service, the crowd, sirens, engine noise, or some other unknown factor.

But to prove any of those, you will need better evidence.

Otherwise you continue to assume factors not in evidence as proven.


Or an alternative: Learn to say "it looks to me like", or "I believe", instead of "proven beyond reasonable doubt". Understand that no matter how much you wish this to be true, it does not pass a minimum and is not accepted by others as fact.

 

[HSienzant]

Robert,

You're still not dealing with the arguments I made.

You're dealing with strawmen of your own design.

Do try to rebut the points I made, not the ones you wish I made.

For example, you're rebutting the claim that Hill heard two shots at the end here:

Your own star witness, Clint Hill, was very specific that he heard a SINGLE shot at the end;

"like the sound of shooting a revolver into something hard."

And this is from his testimony,

Mr. SPECTER. How many shots have you described that you heard?
Mr. HILL. Two.
Mr. SPECTER. Did you hear any more than two shots?
Mr. HILL. No, sir.

Obviously, he was not fooled into thinking he heard an additional shot at the end.

But I never made that argument. I argued that Hill, like Connally, heard two SOUNDS at the end, the sound of the final shot and the sound of the near-simulantaneous impact of that shot on the head.

I argued that here:

Indeed, two of the closest witnesses, SS Agent Clint Hill and Governor John Connally, said precisely that, differentiating between the sound of the gunshot and the sound of the impact on the head, saying they heard both.

You ignored that.

I also pointed out that others also described hearing two loud sounds at the end of the shooting, and that the impact of a bullet on the skull might have been thought by them to be a near-simultaneous shot.

You ignored that as well.

I pointed out that Kellerman said the entire shooting took "five seconds, if that."

And that the known shots at approximately Z223 and Z313 are 4.9 seconds apart.

You ignored that as well.

You also dispute that Connally heard the sound of the final shot and the sound of the impact, but his words are clear he heard both and differentiated between each.

Governor CONNALLY. ...then, of course, the third shot sounded, and I heard the shot very clearly. I heard it hit him. I heard the shot hit something, and I assumed again--it never entered my mind that it ever hit anybody but the President. I heard it hit. It was a very loud noise, just that audible, very clear.

He heard the shot; and he heard it hit. You simply deny he ever said that here:

No sir, he did not. He said he heard ONE shot striking something hard, which was obviously, the skull.

He said he heard the shot, and the impact of the shot. "I heard the shot... I heard it hit"

I previously pointed out that others in Dealey Plaza said they heard two different sounds at the end of the shooting.

For example, Sam Holland, was quite clear that the two shots he heard at the end of the shooting sounded entirely different from each other.

Mr. HOLLAND - I observed it. It knocked him completely down on the floor. Over, just slumped completely over. That second---
Mr. STERN - Did you hear a third report?
Mr. HOLLAND - I heard a third report and I counted four shots and about the same time all this was happening, and in this group of trees--[indicating].
Mr. STERN - Now, you are indicating trees on the north side of Elm Street?
Mr. HOLLAND - These trees right along here [indicating].
Mr. STERN - Let's mark this Exhibit C and draw a circle around the trees you are referring to.
Mr. HOLLAND - Right in there. (Indicating.)
There was a shot, a report, I don't know whether it was a shot. I can't say that. And a puff of smoke came out about 6 or 8 feet above the ground right out from under those trees. And at just about this location from where I was standing you could see that puff of smoke, like someone had thrown a firecracker, or something out, and that is just about the way it sounded. It wasn't as loud as the previous reports or shots.
Mr. STERN - What number would that have been in the----
Mr. HOLLAND - Well, that would--they were so close together.
Mr. STERN - The second and third or the third and fourth?
Mr. HOLLAND - The third and fourth. The third and the fourth.
Mr. STERN - So, that it might have been the third or the fourth?
Mr. HOLLAND - It could have been the third or fourth, but there were definitely four reports.
Mr. STERN - You have no doubt about that?
Mr. HOLLAND - I have no doubt about it.

Holland was also quite clear that he differentiated between the sound of the shot and the other sound, which he called a "report", and that those two sounds were quite close together.

Your claim that

I have read every relevant testimony in the WC report and I can assure you than none of the limo passengers said anything that even remotely implies that they confused one shot as two.

Is just another strawman argument, as I never argued that either. I said the sound of the impact of a bullet on the skull, and the sound of the bullet being fired would be heard by the witnesses as two separate sounds, and those two sounds would fit the witnesses testimony that the final two shots were very close together.

Please deal with the points I made.

Hank

 

[HSienzant]

Exclude what?? You haven't cited anyone who thought that the headshot was really two separate shots...

Because that's not my argument. It's your strawman.

...You have presented no evidence of any kind, which supports your theory and it is entirely inconsistent with the visible reactions as well as the scientific evidence of Drs. Alvarez and Stroscio.

Do quote the conclusions of Alvarez and Stroscio that there was a shot at Z285. I don't see the "visible reactions" to a gunshot you claim to see.

4. The absence of plausible, alternative explanations. The most common of these has been that the reactions were caused by the driver slamming on the brakes... The only other alternative which has been suggested, is that the noise at 285 was a motorcycle backfiring...

I was talking about "plausible" alternatives.

With you as the arbiter of what is plausible, of course. You continue to ignore the plausible alternative argument I presented: Two shots, and the impact of the head shot as a third, loud sound, being heard by the witnesses as three shots. This explains at least as well as your second and/or third shooter the witnesses who described two closely-bunched shots at the end.

Illogical theories with zero evidential support do not fall into that category.

You mean, like multiple shooters that are unseen, leave no evidence of their presence behind, and appear and vanish as needed? Those kind of illogical theories with zero evidential support?

Obviously, he [Clint Hill] was not fooled into thinking he heard an additional shot at the end.

Straw man. I never argued for that.

Neither was anyone else. Numerous witnesses for example, said there was 1 or 2 seconds between those two shots.

But not Hill. By your own admission, he only heard two shots. Not three or four or five. One early and one late. And the sound of that second shot being fired into something hard. Like the President's skull.

I heard a second firecracker type noise but it had a different sound-- like the sound of shooting a revolver into something hard.

And of course, others put the time difference between the last two sounds as almost simultaneous. Kellerman, for example. Hill said the final shot had the sound of firing a bullet into something hard. Sam Holland, for yet another. He described the final two sounds as different, and although he called both shots at some points in his testimony, he also testified he wasn't certain the next-to-last sound he heard was a shot. Governor Connally also differentiated between hearing the final shot and hearing the impact of the shot on the head, saying quite clearly he heard both those sounds.

The final shot, and the impact of the final shot, then, explains the witnesses who thought they heard two closely bunched sounds at the end of the shooting -- and thought both those sounds were shots.

Do rebut the points I make.

Hank