View Single Post
Old 22nd August 2015, 11:45 PM   #38
Tomtomkent
Philosopher
 
Tomtomkent's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Posts: 8,607
Originally Posted by Robert Harris View Post
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.


Originally Posted by Robert Harris View Post
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.

Originally Posted by Robert Harris View Post
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?


Originally Posted by Robert Harris View Post
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.


Originally Posted by Robert Harris View Post
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.

Originally Posted by Robert Harris View Post
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.

Originally Posted by Robert Harris View Post
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.


Originally Posted by Robert Harris View Post

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.

Originally Posted by Robert Harris View Post

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:
Quote:
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.
__________________
@tomhodden

Never look up an E-book because this signature line told you. Especially not Dead Lament (ASIN: B00JEN1MWY). Or A Little Trouble (ASIN: B00GQFZZQW).
Tomtomkent 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