|
Welcome to the International Skeptics Forum, where we discuss skepticism, critical thinking, the paranormal and science in a friendly but lively way. You are currently viewing the forum as a guest, which means you are missing out on discussing matters that are of interest to you. Please consider registering so you can gain full use of the forum features and interact with other Members. Registration is simple, fast and free! Click here to register today. |
15th August 2015, 07:24 PM | #1 | ||
Muse
Join Date: Jun 2015
Posts: 867
|
JFK Conspiracy Theories IV: The One With The Whales
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. The facts and evidence prove beyond any reasonable doubt, that those reactions were caused by exactly what the people who reacted, said it was - a high powered rifle shot. Oswald might have fired that shot or he might have fired the one that followed, but he couldn't have fired both. |
||
16th August 2015, 12:20 PM | #2 |
Muse
Join Date: Jun 2015
Posts: 867
|
None of them even attempt to refute my analysis. They address issues like the direction the 313 headshot came from, and are in full agreement with me, that it came from the rear.
The ABC documentary also agrees with me, that one bullet passed through both John Kennedy and Governor Connally. None of the documentaries you listed, address the fact that shots were fired at frames 285 and 313, which were too close together for both to have been fired by Oswald. And none of them address the fact that only one of the early shots was loud enough to be audible to most witness and neither was loud enough to provoke the kind of startle responses we see, following 285 and 313. It is ridiculously obvious, that all the shots did not come from the same rifle. The final shots were much too close together and the early shots were not nearly as loud as the ones at the end. Those facts are indisputable and will never be refuted. |
16th August 2015, 04:17 PM | #3 |
Philosopher
Join Date: Mar 2012
Location: Central California Coast
Posts: 6,863
|
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
This is foolish. You have no objective data point to anchor your case. Just because some guy says the MC was a certain Db doesn't tell us how sound traveled in Dealey Plaza, and does not tell us how sound traveled on that day. What does the the MC sound like 6 floors up? How does the shock wave move through the air conditions of that day? Then you throw the word "Involuntary" around as if it is universal, and it is not. You assume everyone would react to a loud noise the same and this claim has NEVER been true. |
17th August 2015, 01:15 AM | #4 |
Philosopher
Join Date: Jul 2010
Posts: 8,607
|
So no evidence for there being reactions to gunshots. Just your opinion.
|
__________________
@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). |
|
17th August 2015, 06:18 AM | #5 |
Hostile Nanobacon
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Rachel, KS
Posts: 33,127
|
Well, no, they actually agree with each other on their disagreement with you. Sorry but they show your opinions to be incorrect.
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
The videos I posted are conclusive. Your misperceived "startle reactions" aren't, therefore magical thinking to invent phantom shooters with phantom weapons firing from phantom locations with phantom bullets which didn't hit anything in Texas isn't required. What more can you tell me about your opinion of someone firing from the storm drain? Maybe that will be better able to withstand scrutiny. |
17th August 2015, 06:32 AM | #6 |
Muse
Join Date: Jun 2015
Posts: 867
|
Did you overlook my reply to Zooterkin?
Perhaps it would be better to address the evidence I presented, before declaring that I didn't post any evidence. 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. The facts and evidence prove beyond any reasonable doubt, that those reactions were caused by exactly what the people who reacted, said it was - a high powered rifle shot. Oswald might have fired that shot or he might have fired the one that followed, but he couldn't have fired both. |
17th August 2015, 07:15 AM | #7 |
Muse
Join Date: Jun 2015
Posts: 867
|
Let's review. You stated your subjective opinion that the mob would not have been involved in the assassination. I pointed out that some of the nation's top experts on the mob said they were, and that the three of them wrote books on the subject which referenced a great deal of evidence.
I think we should go with them rather than settle for your or my opinions, don't you?
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Can you find another source that disputes their measurements?
Quote:
Quote:
Furthermore, the reactions following 285, PRECEDED 313, so it couldn't have been an echo of that shot. The 223 shot was 3.44 seconds prior to 285 and obviously, was not nearly as loud, since most people never heard it and it provoked no visible startle reactions. The "echo" theory fails on all counts.
Quote:
Quote:
http://jfkhistory.com/ducking.gif
Quote:
Drs. Alvarez and Stroscio were correct that there was a loud and startling noise at precisely frame 285. They identified Zapruder's reaction as the heavily blurred frames at 290-291, while the limo passengers reacted at 290-292. They were also correct that this same noise caused Greer to inadvertently lift his foot from the gas, causing the limo to slow down. His turn from rear to front then, was so rapid that some people claimed it was humanly impossible. That was the same shot that Greer said, caused him to feel its "concussion". The evidence is overwhelming. This was a gunshot. |
17th August 2015, 04:48 PM | #8 |
Muse
Join Date: Jun 2015
Posts: 867
|
This article by Howard Kohn, the Pulitzer prize winning editor of Rolling Stone magazine, goes into great detail about the mob's connection to the JFK assassination and the HSCA investigation.
It was written prior to Carlos Marcello's confession to an FBI informant, but even then, the mafia's role in the case was quite obvious. Robert Blakey, the head of the HSCA, wrote a book on the case, stating his belief that Marcello was behind the assassination - also before Marcello confessed. http://jfkhistory.com/mobsters/Nicoletti.html |
18th August 2015, 10:33 PM | #9 |
Philosopher
Join Date: Jul 2010
Posts: 8,607
|
That is still not actual evidence. It is all just your interpretation. You can blather on all you like, but you are not supplying any EVIDENCE to support your claims. Simply repeating what you think people react to, is not evidence.
You offer no reason to believe you can read more into silent film footage than anybody else. If you want me to look at evidence, please consider including some! |
__________________
@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). |
|
19th August 2015, 12:44 AM | #10 |
Muse
Join Date: Jun 2015
Posts: 867
|
|
19th August 2015, 09:31 AM | #11 |
Hostile Nanobacon
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Rachel, KS
Posts: 33,127
|
|
19th August 2015, 11:24 AM | #12 |
Muse
Join Date: Jun 2015
Posts: 867
|
Resolving the conspiracy question is easy. You don't need me and you don't need Gerald Posner to do if for you. You can do it by yourself, without anyone's help.
Just get a good quality copy of the Zapruder film and watch the reactions by the people closest to JFK. Watch them react to the early shots and then watch them react at the end, following frames 285 and then 313. Then ask yourself whether all of those shots came from the same kind of rifle. |
19th August 2015, 06:01 PM | #13 |
Philosopher
Join Date: Mar 2012
Location: Central California Coast
Posts: 6,863
|
Quote:
The President of the United States is murdered right in front of them. They were there to see a parade, not scientific observation.
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Wait, what? A mob guy was in the best strip club in Dallas the night before the assassination? I'd be more shocked if he hadn't been there. I love this part of the failed argument, CTers make it sound suspicious that mafia guys frequented a high class strip club, and then go on to talk about being "mob experts". Ruby is always described as a nightclub owner, but let's face it, the place was an upscale nudie bar. Ruby would have known lots of mob guys, he also knew a lot of Dallas PD. It's where you went to look at mostly naked women dance. Not sure why this needs to be explained. If Campisi visited him it was to see if he needed a lawyer, and to reinforce that Ruby was not to cut any deals with the Feds to get a lighter sentence. Then again they might just have been friends. |
20th August 2015, 10:19 AM | #14 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Sep 2011
Location: The great American West
Posts: 24,911
|
|
20th August 2015, 10:45 AM | #15 | ||
Hostile Nanobacon
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Rachel, KS
Posts: 33,127
|
And yet you clearly feel the need to "help" others to see your interpretation of evidence since nobody but you sees startle reactions.
Quote:
Quote:
The videos I've posted definitively debunk your subjective interpretations of movement. If you've posted somewhere your credentials of expertise in such interpretations, I may have overlooked them. Can you post them again, please? |
||
20th August 2015, 10:39 PM | #16 |
Muse
Join Date: Jun 2015
Posts: 867
|
|
20th August 2015, 11:07 PM | #17 |
Philosopher
Join Date: Jul 2010
Posts: 8,607
|
How about this.
How about we watch the film. Then we ask the more important question: ARE ALL THOSE REACTIONS TO GUNSHOTS? There is no reason to believe all the reactions you identify are to gunshots. Only YOU claim they are. You keep arguing as though as you HAVE to be correct. There is no evidence to support your claim. All your 'evidence' is based on a flawed assumption. Not having your psychic ability to discern thoughts from movements on film, and ken what people had just heard, or what they thought the noise was. If there is no reason to believe the reactions are to gunshots, there is no reason to ask where additional gunshots came from. |
__________________
@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). |
|
20th August 2015, 11:43 PM | #18 |
Muse
Join Date: Jun 2015
Posts: 867
|
That is untrue. They heard three and remembered three - a single, early shot and then two closely bunched shots at the end. Those were the only audible shots.
And there was no hysteria prior to the very end of the attack. Show me one person ducking or diving to the ground, prior to frame 285. Furthermore, none of the Secret Service agents did more than look around, prior to frame 285. Hill jumped within about one second following that shot. Before that, they heard nothing they believed was a gunshot. Check out all the smiling faces in the Altgens photo, taken at the equivalent of frame 255, after YOUR theory alleges that two 130 decibel, high powered rifle shots have been fired. Look at Dave Powers grinning ear to ear. http://jfkhistory.com/altgens.jpg The early shots were fired from low caliber, suppressed weapons. The ones following 285 and 313, were hugely louder and provoked, clear startle reactions.
Quote:
Don't you find it amazing that such a large consensus reported exactly the same pattern of 1/2? And don't you find it even stranger that the reactions following 285 and 313 were a perfect match with their description of two closely bunched shots at the end? http://jfkhistory.com/duckstwice.gif
Quote:
This wasn't "different people". It is the same people. I have read every relevant WC testimony, and I could not find a single law enforcement professional, including police officers, Secret Service, Sheriff's deputies, and even Hwy patrolmen who were there that day, who testified or reported that they heard early shots that were closer together than the ones at the end. Have you? Obviously, they weren't fooled by echoes either. Most of them, who commented on the spacing of the shots, were in full agreement with the other witnesses and the people we see reacting in the limo.
Quote:
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. 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.
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
This is how Campisi was described in the PBS Frontline investigation: In 1963, Sam and Joe Campisi were leading figures in the Dallas underworld. Jack knew the Campisis and had been seen with them on many occasions. The Campisis were lieutenants of Carlos Marcello, the Mafia boss who had reportedly talked of killing the President.
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
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. |
21st August 2015, 06:24 AM | #19 |
Hostile Nanobacon
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Rachel, KS
Posts: 33,127
|
|
21st August 2015, 06:49 AM | #20 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: San Francisco
Posts: 13,087
|
Your presumption isn't true. We can account for the rounds fired by LHO, the rifle was recovered at the TSBD and the actual evidence in hand (please note, what you assert is evidence, isn't) supports the conclusion that LHO was the shooter.
Please also consider the fact that microphones, then and now, can produce a "spike" simply from impact against any hard surface and can also produce a "spike" if the mic is shut off and on. |
21st August 2015, 10:50 AM | #21 |
Muse
Join Date: Jun 2015
Posts: 867
|
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." |
21st August 2015, 10:57 AM | #22 |
Muse
Join Date: Jun 2015
Posts: 867
|
|
21st August 2015, 10:59 AM | #23 |
Muse
Join Date: Jun 2015
Posts: 867
|
|
21st August 2015, 11:57 AM | #24 |
Muse
Join Date: Jun 2015
Posts: 867
|
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 |
21st August 2015, 02:18 PM | #25 |
Philosopher
Join Date: Mar 2012
Location: Central California Coast
Posts: 6,863
|
Quote:
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:
Quote:
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. |
21st August 2015, 03:39 PM | #26 |
Philosopher
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: Never Mind
Posts: 5,074
|
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:
Quote:
Here's where you ignored it most recently: 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 |
|
21st August 2015, 03:44 PM | #27 |
Hostile Nanobacon
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Rachel, KS
Posts: 33,127
|
And yet in this very post you give your opinion again.
Quote:
Quote:
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. |
21st August 2015, 08:49 PM | #28 |
New Blood
Join Date: Aug 2015
Posts: 1
|
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? |
21st August 2015, 11:56 PM | #29 |
Philosopher
Join Date: Jul 2010
Posts: 8,607
|
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. |
__________________
@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). |
|
22nd August 2015, 12:04 AM | #30 |
Philosopher
Join Date: Jul 2010
Posts: 8,607
|
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. |
__________________
@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). |
|
22nd August 2015, 06:47 AM | #31 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Dec 2008
Location: Central City, Colorado, USA
Posts: 10,589
|
|
22nd August 2015, 09:01 AM | #32 |
Philosopher
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: Never Mind
Posts: 5,074
|
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...postcount=3287 http://www.internationalskeptics.com...postcount=3432 http://www.internationalskeptics.com...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...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 |
__________________
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 |
|
22nd August 2015, 11:32 AM | #33 |
Muse
Join Date: Jun 2015
Posts: 867
|
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. |
22nd August 2015, 12:13 PM | #34 |
Muse
Join Date: Jun 2015
Posts: 867
|
These reactions:
http://jfkhistory.com/ducking.gif
Quote:
You are begging the question - assuming that my arguments have been refuted, which of course, they have not.
Quote:
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?
Quote:
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.
Quote:
Some kind of bomb might qualify as an alternative, I suppose, but if that's what it was, we definitely have a conspiracy:-)
Quote:
Quote:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7GH5pGQy6yI
Quote:
Quote:
I've cited them before, in this forum. Would you like me to do it again?
Quote:
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. |
22nd August 2015, 01:13 PM | #35 |
Muse
Join Date: Jun 2015
Posts: 867
|
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. Clint Hill was not one of the "nonvictims in the limousine". So why did you claim that my statement was false?
Quote:
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.
Quote:
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?
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
[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
Quote:
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.
Quote:
Quote:
"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 |
22nd August 2015, 06:28 PM | #36 |
Muse
Join Date: Jun 2015
Posts: 867
|
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. |
22nd August 2015, 07:29 PM | #37 |
Muse
Join Date: Jun 2015
Posts: 867
|
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:-)
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
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.
Quote:
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.
Quote:
Quote:
Not only do I believe he was involved in the attack, but I probably have better reasons to believe that, than you guys do:-)
Quote:
Quote:
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. |
22nd August 2015, 11:45 PM | #38 |
Philosopher
Join Date: Jul 2010
Posts: 8,607
|
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.
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. 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? 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. And? That is still a case of 'what the film looks like'. Not evidence, not proof. 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. 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. 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. Hold on:
Quote:
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). |
|
23rd August 2015, 03:26 AM | #39 |
Philosopher
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: Never Mind
Posts: 5,074
|
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:
Quote:
I argued that here:
Quote:
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.
Quote:
Quote:
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.
Quote:
Your claim that
Quote:
Please deal with the points I made. 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 |
|
23rd August 2015, 04:10 AM | #40 |
Philosopher
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: Never Mind
Posts: 5,074
|
Because that's not my argument. It's your strawman.
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. 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. 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? Straw man. I never argued for that. 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:
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 |
__________________
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 |
|
Thread Tools | |
|
|