In article
<43c3cf67-7eb0-4176-b718-6a8eb30af9f8@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>,
bigdog <jecorbett1951@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
> On Jan 27, 12:53 pm, Bob Harris <reharr...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
> > In article
> > <cca8f6a5-50fd-4668-b10f-a8408869d...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>,
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > bigdog <jecorbett1...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
> > > On Jan 26, 1:59 pm, Robert Harris <reharr...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
> > > > In article
> > > >
<a8e968a7-b1df-46de-ac60-b333a078d...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>,
> > > > Chuck Schuyler <chu...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
> >
> > > > > On Jan 24, 9:20 pm, Robert Harris <reharr...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
> > > > > > I recently posted a message entitled, "The Altgens Photo",
which
> > > > > > listed
> > > > > > a
> > > > > > number of witnesses who stated that they heard two shots after
> > > > > > events,
> > > > > > which we can see, had not yet occured, in the photo taken by
James
> > > > > > Altgens
> > > > > > at the equivalent of Z255.
> >
> > > > > > If these witnesses are correct, then the Posner scenario of
audible
> > > > > > shots
> > > > > > at 160, 224, 312 is false, and the final shots were indeed,
fired
> > > > > > well
> > > > > > after 255.
> >
> > > > > > For some reason, every time I post about this, the LN
theorists go
> > > > > > completely silent. Is it possible that they have no answer to
these
> > > > > > very
> > > > > > powerful visual corroborations of these Secret Service agents
and
> > > > > > law
> > > > > > enforcement professionals?
> >
> > > > > > But since none of them will tackle this issue, let me try
another
> > > > > > challenge:
> >
> > > > > > Can you find even one witness who sup****ts the Posner shot
timing,
> > > > > > who
> > > > > > can
> > > > > > be visually corroborated?
> >
> > > > > > IOW, can you find even a single witness who said something
like, "I
> > > > > > heard
> > > > > > two shots, seperated by 2-3 seconds, and then turned to look
to the
> > > > > > rear.".
> >
> > > > > > Of course, the corroboration would be that the witness could
be
> > > > > > seen,
> > > > > > turned to the rear in the Altgens, or other photo, or film.
> >
> > > > > > Just to show what a good s****t I am, I'll even give you a tip.
> > > > > > There
> > > > > > are a
> > > > > > number of other visible witnesses who described turning
around,
> > > > > > relative
> > > > > > to gunshots. They include Kellerman, Jackie, Greer, and Nellie
> > > > > > Connally.
> >
> > > > > > Any takers?
> >
> > > > > > Robert Harris
> >
> > > > > What is your infatuation with witnesses, Bob?
> >
> > > > I look at witness statements because those people were there
during the
> > > > assassination and can tell us what happened, Chuck.
> >
> > > > I then compare what they said, with their actions in the films and
> > > > photos, to confirm or deny their accuracy.
> >
> > > > > You tend to ignore
> > > > > witnesses that conflict with your theories, and prop up
witnesses
> > > > > that
> > > > > corroborate your theories.
> >
> > > > Nonsense.
> >
> > > > The entire purpose of my posting is, to ask people to post
verifiable
> > > > witness testimony that DISAGREES with me.
> >
> > > > Did you even bother to read the post you are attacking Chuck:-)
> >
> > > > > You can easily solve this case based on the rifle found on the
6th
> > > > > floor,
> > > > > the spent shells, the bullet/bullet fragments, and the wounds to
the
> > > > > victims.
> >
> > > > Wrong again, Chuck. You are talking about evidence against one of
the
> > > > shooters.
> >
> > > > > Everything else is speculation or a sideshow.
> >
> > > > Chuck, you seem to thrive on sweeping, unsup****ted
generalizations.
> > > > What
> > > > exactly is wrong, with examining witness statements and then
trying to
> > > > corroborate/deny their accuracy??
> >
> > > > Isn't your REAL mission, to convince everyone to stop looking so
> > > > closely
> > > > at the case?
> >
> > > > Does it bother you, that the evidence is almost 100% AGAINST your
> > > > single
> > > > assassin theory??
> >
> > > > Does it bother you, that there is NOT EVEN ONE verifiable witness
who
> > > > sup****ts your/Posner/Bugliosi/WC's shooting scenario??
> >
> > > Bull****!
> >
> > > SS agent Bennett description is perfectly in sync with Posner/
Bugliosi.
BTW, your example, does not meet the challenge I presented, since you
offer no photographic evidence to sup****t your interpretation of Bennett's
testimony.
> > > After hearing the first shot, he turned his attention toward JFK and
saw
> > > the second shot strike him high on the back and then the third shot
> > > strike
> > > him in the head. He wrote these observations down on Air Force One
on the
> > > way back to Wa****ngton. The WC committed to no scenario because they
> > > could
> > > not determine which of the three shots missed.
> >
> > Below,is my 1998 article on Bennett.
> >
> > The link to the Altgens blowup is no longer up, but I will try to make
> > the image available to you, today or tomorrow.
> >
> > Our first clue about this lies in his recollection that the explosive
> > headshot came "immediately" after the shot that he believed, caused
the
> > back wound. Does that sound like the five seconds between 223 and 313
to
> > you?
> >
> > Obviously, there is no way he could have seen the actual bullet strike
> > and looking at JFK's back, he should not have seen blood appear right
> > away. But Bennett was still looking to his right at frame 224, when
JFK
> > was hit in the back, but like everyone else, he never heard it.
> >
> > He then turned toward JFK, as the shot at Z285 was fired, which missed
> > and went on to cause Tague's minor wound. By then, the blood would
have
> > been visible, so seeing the wound for the first time, Bennett thought
> > that was the shot that hit him.
> >
> > This is the old article - I only changed the frame number for the
first
> > shot, which back then, I thought was at 177:
> >
> > SA Glen Bennett used to be one of those rare witnesses who apparently,
> > could be quoted in defense of Posner's theory that shots were fired at
> > Z160, 224, and 312. He was in fact, cited in Case Closed. But a little
> > common sense and a look at a key photograph dispels that notion
entirely.
> > As it turns out, Bennett was really just one more in a long line of
Z285
> > witnesses. This is from Bennett's original Treasury Dept. re****t,
> >
> > "..the motorcade continued down this grade enroute to the Trade Mart.
At
> > this point I heard what_sounded like a fire-cracker. I immediately
looked
> > from the right/crowd/physical area/and looked towards the President
who
> > was seated in the right rear seat of his limousine open convertible.
At
> > the moment I looked at the back of the President I heard another
> > fire-cracker noise and saw the shot hit the President about four
inches
> > down from the right shoulder. A second shot followed immediately and
hit
> > the right rear high of the President's head."
> >
> > At first glance, Glenn seems to be suggesting that the first shot
missed,
> > as Posner theorized. The shot then, that hit "four inches down" was
the
> > Z224 shot, and of course, the head shot came at Z312.
> >
> > But, Bennett's claim that "a second shot followed immediately", after
the
> > one that hit the President's back, has always suggested a somewhat
> > different scenario to me. Humor me for a moment and let's suppose
that
> > there were three audible shots fired at say, Z160, Z285 and Z312.
> >
> Then what caused the visible reaction by JFK at Z225 and the equally
> obvious reaction by JBC beginning at Z226?
That's because they were both shot then.. duh.
> There is no evidence of a
> shot at Z285.
Why do you waste time, posting unsup****ted assertions, Bigdog?
Why don't you instead, challenge me to prove my claim, or at the very
least, offer something to sup****t your denial?
> There is ample visual evidence of shot just prior to
> Z225. There is some disagreement among LNs as to precisely when the
> single bullet struck but there is consensus it was in the Z221-224
> time frame. We are quibbling about a quarter of a second.
Well, what LNs "believe" is not exactly evidence, but in this case, I
fully agree, as I have for the last 13 years.
>
> > What if Bennett, who said he was looking off to the right at the time
at
> > the time of the first shot, did what most of the other SA's did after
> > hearing that noise, and first glanced about, to see if he could spot
> > it's
> > source?
> >
> What if? As the old saying goes, put IF in one hand and **** in the
> other and see if you can tell them apart. Bennett did not look
> elsewhere after hearing the first shot.
But the first noise didn't sound like a "shot". As numerous witnesses,
including many of the secret service people confirmed, it sounded much
different than the shots that came later, and more like a firecracker than
anything else.
That's because the only sound that missed shot generated was as it hit the
pavement and shattered.
> He immediately turned his
> attention toward the man who he was duty bound to protect.
If the secret service people really believed they heard a rifle shot then,
they would have sprung into action immediately.
HSCA experts measured the sound level of MC rifle shots, at street level,
up and down Elm. The muzzle blast generated a sound that ranged from 115
db at the furthest point, to 130 db at the closest. The shock wave was
measured at 130 db inside a radius of 10 feet from the path of the bullet.
So, the shot at 160 would have been the loudest of the day. The second
shot would have been the second loudest. All of them, had they all come
from Oswald, would have been ear shattering. Had they continued for a few
seconds longer than they did, they would have caused permanent damage to
the limo passengers ear drums.
And yet, almost none of the witnesses in DP that day, even heard a second
shot. The overwhelming majority recalled a single "noise", and then
closely bunched shots at the very end.
And the large majority of witnesses, especially among the law enforcement
pros, recalled that the first noise sound much different than the later
ones, and more like a "firecracker" than a gunshot.
THAT is why the Secret Service appeared "sluggish" that day, Bigdog. They
heard nothing that sounded even remotely, like a gunshot until Z285, at
which time, they responded almost instantly.
Look at the limo passengers following frame 223. Do you see the passengers
reacting at all like they did after being startled by the shot at 312??
Do you see even the faintest startle reaction? But how could they NOT have
been startled after being subjected to a 125-130 decibel blast and shock
wave??
Clinical psychologists generate noises of around 90 db, to provoke
involuntary startle reactions in test subjects. That's 2-3 times louder
than a noise vacuum, Big dog.
The limo passengers would have heard sound levels SIXTEEN TIMES louder
than that, if each of the shots had been fired by Oswald.
So, why weren't those people startled by the first two shots, which should
have been louder that the final shots, Bigdog??
And why did the each testify to hearing only ONE noise, prior to closely
bunched shots at the end?
Why did Kellerman hear ONE noise, and then a "flurry" at the end?
Why did Greer hear ONE noise, and then near simultaneous shots at the end?
Why did Jackie hear ONE noise, which she was adamant, was not a gunshot,
and then TWO noises after Gov. Connally began to shout?
Why did Nellie recall ONE noise, which she believed wounded JFK, and then
two two more shots, the first of which, she believed wounded her husband?
Why did JBC fail to hear the shot that hit him?
Bigdog, if you want to see what involuntary startle reactions look like,
you can examine the limo passengers following Z312, or Z285. I am doing a
rewrite and of my website right now, but I tem****arily put up the old one
(some links do not work).
Go to jfkhistory.com and look at the animated GIF in the center of the
screen. I'm sure you will have a perfectly innocent explanation for the
actions, but perhaps you will also be able to explain why all of those
reactions began within 1/6th of a second of one another, and the startle
reaction by Zapruder which was identified by Dr. Luis Alvarez.
Perhaps you will also explain the reaction by Kellerman, who drops his
head and simultaneously raises his left hand to ****eld his left ear.
jfkhistory.com/royducks.gif
> The fact
> that he accurately described where the second shot struck JFK is clear
> evidence he was not looking elsewhere.
Fallacious argument. It only demonstrates that he saw the wound sometime
after the bullet struck.
> He could not have known during
> the plane ride back to Wa****ngton that JFK had been struck in the back
> if he had not witnessed that event first hand.
Nonsense - there is no way, he saw the bullet in flight. He could only
have seen the wound, after enough time had elapsed for the bleeding to
have made it visible.
>
> > Then, as he turned to inspect Kennedy, the Z285 shot was fired.
>
> There is not evidence of a Z285 shot.
How many times do you intend to post that unsup****ted assertion?
If you want to make absolute denials like that, you need to at least,
make an effort to refute the evidence I present.
>
> > Naturally,
> > hearing the shot, Bennett would check to see if the President was hit.
He
> > was of course, but by an earlier bullet. But Bennett, didn't know
that,
> > and having just heard the Z285 re****t, assigned that shot to the
> > President's back wound.
> >
> Again, how did Bennett know there was a back wound if he had not seen
> it happen.
Duh - he saw the blood. There's no other way he could have.
> No one at Parkland was aware of it because JFK was on his
> back the whole time. The back wound was not discovered until autopsy
> later in the evening. But Bennett did not need the autopsy to tell him
> what he had seen with his own eyes.
Are you claiming that he saw the bullet in flight, striking JFK's back???
That just did not happen.
>
> > The next shot came 1.5 seconds later, which is why he recalled that
the
> > head shot, "followed immediately".
> >
> Immediately is not a precise term. It could be one or two seconds or
> three or four. In this case, almost five.
Nonsense!
If "immediate" is a relative term, it is between one second and two.
You are going to argue that by "immediate", Bennett meant the time in
which he then looked away from JFK and went back to gawking off to his
right for awhile. You then would need to have him look back 5 seconds
later, just in time to see the first head shot.
That makes zero sense, BD. 1.5 seconds is right on the money.
>
> > While that all sounds good on paper, it certainly doesn't eliminate
the
> > possibility that Pos' was right all along. Perhaps, Bennett was a
little
> > screwed up in his recollections, and that third shot didn't really
come
> > "immediately" after the second, after all.
> >
> > Well, fortunately, we don't have to guess about that. While witnesses
do
> > occasionally get confused and forgetful, the photos do not.
> >
> > Remember, Bennett said he was looking at the "right/crowd/physical"
area
> > when he heard the first shot. We can confirm that part of his
statement,
> > through earlier photos taken by Willis and Betzner. Then he said he
> > turned to the front and heard the next two shots, as well as seeing
> > Kennedy's back and head wounds. Remember Bennett's recollection -
"At
> > the moment I looked at the back of the President I heard another
> > fire-cracker noise..". If Posner was right, then we know that he would
> > have had to have turned toward the President, no later than Z224.
> >
> > But in the extremely clear photo taken by James Altgens at Z255, we
can
> > look back through the wind****eld of the Secret Service followup car,
and
> > see Glen Bennett. There is no doubt about it at all, folks - he is
still
> > looking to his right! I have posted an image at my FTP site (address
is
> > in
> > the sig), entitled, "bennett.gif" which should make this fairly easy
to
> > see. Although his face is a bit ambiguous, we can see Bennett's dark
tie
> > on his white ****rt very clearly. He is still turned to his right!
> >
> > At Z255, Bennett has yet to turn toward the President, and is yet to
hear
> > the second and third audible shots!
> >
> Even if we assume that you are correct that Bennett was looking to his
> right at Z255, this does not preclude him looking at JFK at Z224. I
> would think that once he saw the boss had been hit, his natural
> instinct would be to look for the one doing the shooting.
That's not what he said.
"At the moment I looked at the back of the President I heard another
fire-cracker noise and saw the shot hit the President about four inches
down from the right shoulder. A second shot followed immediately and hit
the right rear high of the President's head. I immediately hollered
'he's hit' and reached for the AR-15 located on the floor of the rear
seat."
His next action, after witnessing closely spaced shots, was to go for
the rifle.
BTW, this is the image I referenced,
http://jfkhistory.com/pix/bennett.gif
Does it bother you at all, that even the WC confirmed that "most" of the
witnesses who expressed an opinion, said they heard only a single early
noise, and then closely bunched shots at the end?
Are you even slightly concerned that there is NOT EVEN ONE
contem****aneous re****t by a law enforcement professional, that the early
shots were closer than the final ones - in contrast to a small army, who
said exactly the opposite??
If you were correct, then Bennett would have been the ONLY pro who
re****ted the first shots closer than the final ones!
> Again I go
> back to the key argument. Bennett would have to have been looking at
> JFK when he was shot in the back to have precisely placed where that
> shot struck.
And that argument is BS because there is no way he saw the bullet in
flight. He would only have seen the wound AFTER the bullet strike.
> Bennett had not other source of information for this key
> fact. No one else at the time seemed to even be aware that JFK had
> been shot in the back.
No matter how many times you repeat it, your argument will remain false.
> > In every single instance when we can timestamp these shots through the
> > Altgens photo, as well as the Zapruder film, we see indisputable proof
> > that at least two shots came well after Z255, and that only one was
heard
> > before that frame.
> >
> > Warren Taylor, Milton Wright, Clint Hill, Jackie Kennedy, Nellie
> > Connally, Roy Kellerman, and Bill Greer, as well as Bennett, all place
> > the finalshots well after the Z250's, not just through some vague
> > recollections, but through indisputable and very clear photographic
> > evidence.
> >
> Vague is an understatement. If your rely on this colletion of
> witnesses to determine when the bullets struck, you would be very
> confused. Come to think of it...
LOL!!
Do you really think this is all the evidence I have:-)
http://jfkhistory.com/k/answers.html
>
> > I would challenge the LNers to produce even *ONE* similar example in
> > sup****t of Posner's scenario.
> >
> Oh, I get it. Originally you said there were NO witnesses who
> sup****ted Posner's scenario.
Please do not misrepresent me Bigdog.
I said there were no witnesses who could be corroborated in the photos
and films, in sup****t of the Posner shooting sequence.
Of course, there are a few out of nearly 200, who said the first shots
were closer, but they are so few that they are statistically
insignificant.
> I produce one, and now you want another
> one. Go figure.
No sir. The challenge was to produce visual evidence.
"Can you find even one witness who sup****ts the Posner shot timing, who
can be visually corroborated?"
You did not do that Bigdog, and you never will, because no such evidence
has ever existed.
>
> > The Z285 shot is *NOT* a theory, folks.
> >
> Of course it is a theory and a ridiculous one.
IC, and we should not pay attention to your total inability to refute a
single piece of evidence and testimony I have submitted??
> There is no visual
> evidence that anybody was hit by a bullet at Z285.
Of course there is.
Dr. Luis Alvarez proved that Zapruder was startled by a loud noise at
Z285, based on a series of blurrings, one third of a second apart,
beginning at Z290-291.
By his own admission, he dismissed the possibility of it being a
gunshot, mainly because it was only 1.5 seconds prior to 312 and both
could not have come from Oswald.
He also stated that the reactions to 285 were not as strong as those
following 312 - again, operating on the assumption that all shots came
from the same place and the same weapon.
But the Daltex building was 100 feet further east from the alleged SN.
So, it's predictable that the reactions then would be slightly weaker.
The clincher however, is the visible reactions by the limo passengers,
all four of which, began within 1/6th of a second of the initial
reaction by Zapruder.
Of course, involuntary startle reactions have to to begin within 1/3rd
of a second of the stimulus, or they are not involuntary.
> It is just another
> in a long line of cockamamie theories dreamed up over the years by CTs
> totally devoid of any evidence to sup****t them.
Check out my old website, Bigdog - and LEARN.
Robert Harris
|
