Originally Posted by
Robert Harris
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.
Originally Posted by
Robert Harris
...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.
Originally Posted by
Robert Harris
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.
Originally Posted by
Robert Harris
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?
Originally Posted by
Robert Harris
Obviously, he [Clint Hill] was not fooled into thinking he heard an additional shot at the end.
Straw man. I never argued for that.
Originally Posted by
Robert Harris
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.
Quote:
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