View Single Post
Old 21st August 2015, 03:39 PM   #26
HSienzant
Philosopher
 
HSienzant's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: Never Mind
Posts: 5,074
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, 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".

Quote:
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.

Quote:
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:

Originally Posted by Robert Harris View Post
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
__________________
I have never ”refused” to provide evidence. I provide evidence if requested to do so in a specific and relevant manner.

Hanks ”method” [of requesting evidence] is not going to [get me to] provide any evidence since it has a completely different purpose. To create the the illusion of me not providing evidence when requested to do so.
- Manifesto
HSienzant is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top