In article
<77ec2422-f7d6-46e1-bab5-20010ab39eff@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>,
Bud <sirslick@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
> Bob Harris wrote:
> > In article
> > <1ce8c3a4-f904-41ab-9e40-f5a27aab2441@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>,
> > Bud <sirslick@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
> >
> > > Robert Harris wrote:
> > > > In article
> > > >
<6263024c-16c2-40c9-af32-9c0a708c4afd@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>,
> > > > Bud <sirslick@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > Robert Harris 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?
> > > > >
> > > > > How well do people recount events generally?
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > That's why we verify/deny em in the photos Bud.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > > How well do they recount
> > > > > actions and observations made during the confusion of a surprise
> > > > > attack?
> > > >
> > > > That's why we check em out and see if they had it right.
> > >
> > > How? If a witness said they heard a shot and turned to their left,
> > > how do you establish they didn`t turn to their left and then heard
the
> > > shot?
> >
> > Sigh...
> >
> > Bud, do you REALLY think that these guys first overlooked a 130
decibel
> > shock wave and muzzle blast that would have damaged their eardrums in
a
> > few more seconds, and then hallucinated and heard a nonexistent shot
at
> > the end??
>
> Can you explain some of the witnesses missing hearing some or all
> of the shots?
Well, no-one missed the shots at 285 and 312.
Lots of people didn't notice the one at 160, including Clint Hill,
because it was much weaker than the two rifle shots and didn't sound
like a gunshot, as numerous witnesses confirmed.
Some people didn't notice the final shot because it was also much weaker
and because it was fired about half a second after the 312 shot, which
was the loudest one that day - or they noticed it but wrote it off as an
echo.
>
> > The Altgens photo provides objective, hard evidence of a dividing line
> > between the early shots and the shots that came after both JFK and JBC
> > were wounded. It makes those witness statements far stronger than a
> > subjective, "the last shots were closer than the first ones" kind of
> > statement.
>
> Yah, let`s keep in mind that there is only 3-4 seconds after that
photo
> was taken that the headshot occurred. You are trying to reconstruct
events
> to the split second using the accounts of people who`s primary thought
> must have been "what the **** is happening?".
No, I am not Bud.
The witness recollections were almost flawless when it came to recalling
their own actions. There is no reason to doubt them, when they said they
heard one re****t, prior to turning around, or stepping out of the car or
whatever, and then two after - especially when ALL who can be
time-stamped that way, gave exactly the same story.
>
> > In the case of the limo occupants, we can actually SEE some of the
> > reactions, which match perfectly with, and confirm the testimonies.
These
> > are even stronger than the Altgens witnesses.
>
> This perfection doesn`t make you suspicious? Couldn`t be that you
> are trying too hard to see what you want to see?
Please be specific.
Which ones do you doubt?
Even Larry Sturdevan, a fanatical conspiracy denier, admitted that the
reactions I described to the Z285 shot were exactly as I claimed, though
of course, he wouldn't admit to their obvious cause.
The turns, by Jackie and Nellie have never been in dispute and are quite
clear in the film.
The classic example is Nellie. It is ridiculously easy to see why she
thought JBC was hit by a later shot than the one that first wounded
Kennedy. She looks back and sees JFK wounded, and she glances at hubby,
but he has his back turned toward her. If she had seen his face, she
would have realized he was hit.
But as she testified, she thought he was looking back to check out JFK,
just like she was. And then, she suddenly spins back toward JBC and
pulls him back to her - obviously, THAT is when she thought he was hit.
Look at when she does that, Bud. YOU tell me the frame number when she
began that turn. Was it about a third of a second following Z285??
>
> > We can see when Jackie heard JBC shout, drawing her attention away
from
> > JFK - EXACTLY as she testified. And we see her then turn back to her
right
> > and toward JFK, in reaction to the shot that she thought, hit him a
> > fraction of a second after Z285, and again, exactly as she testified.
> >
> > We see Nellie do the same thing, within an 18th of a second of Jackie
-
> > matching perfectly with her own testimony that she heard a shot which
she
> > mistakenly believed hit her husband.
>
> See, I would think they`d be too confused and afraid to nail their
> recollection of events to the 18th of a second.
Did you even read what I said??
I said their *reactions* began within 1/18th of a second of one another.
Obviously, you looked at the ZFilm and confirmed that I was correct,
which is why you had to pretend that I said something entirely different.
Is that right, Bud?
Robert Harris
>
> > We see Greer spin back toward the front then, at a pace that was so
quick,
> > that some CT's thought it was humanly impossible (it isn't) and then
> > inadvertently hitting the brakes. Of course, he was startled by the
Z285
> > shot, and felt the "concussion" of its shock wave on his face, as he
was
> > turned to the rear - a position he could NOT have been in at 224, BTW.
> >
> > But of all the reactions, Kellerman's is IMO, the most definitive,
ducking
> > and ****elding his ear with his left hand. All of those reactions were
> > almost perfectly simultaneous with Zapruder's reaction, as described
by
> > Dr. Luis Alvarez.
> >
> > Hope that answers your question, Bud.
>
> The question was "If a witness said they heard a shot and turned to
> their left, how do you establish they didn`t turn to their left and then
> heard a shot?"
>
> How well do you think you did?
>
> Another possible consideration concerning the shot spacing is that
> between the first and second shot, not much occurred. Between the second
> and third, there was a good deal of activity, which could tend to skew
> perceptions of the passing of time.
>
> > Robert Harris
|
