David Josephs Posted October 1, 2018 Share Posted October 1, 2018 3 minutes ago, David Von Pein said: But who in all of Dealey Plaza could be considered to be exhibiting "startle" reactions at ANY time during the whole shooting timeline as seen in Zapruder's home movie? Anyone at all? If so, please point them out So the jiggles in the film at the same time as the shots... that's not Zapruder being "startled" by the shots? When JFK abruptly turns his head in a single frame 157,, with reactions from Rosemary Willis, Hickey and Connally Looking at the famous Altgens... if there was no sound, why isn't everyone looking at JFK/Jackie? If you claim JC was hit later In the film, 222 thru 236 would be a "startled" reaction I could go on... and on... so please DVP - with all your righteous indignation - sell the Brooklyn bridge to some other forum's members... K? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Micah Mileto Posted October 1, 2018 Share Posted October 1, 2018 3 hours ago, David Josephs said: Robert Croft, Hugh Betzner, and Phillip Willis all orient the first loud report as coming at about this time of z190-224, using the photographs they snapped as reference points. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David Von Pein Posted October 2, 2018 Share Posted October 2, 2018 (edited) David Josephs said: So the jiggles in the film at the same time as the shots... that's not Zapruder being "startled" by the shots? Yes, it probably is (although we could engage in a two-hour debate on the subject of "jiggle analysis" as well). But I wasn't counting Mr. Zapruder HIMSELF when tallying up the number of witnesses who exhibited startle reactions in Dealey Plaza. I was only thinking about the physical reactions we could actually see on the people whom Zapruder was filming. Quote When JFK abruptly turns his head in a single frame 157, with reactions from Rosemary Willis, Hickey and Connally. [...] I could go on... and on... so please DVP - with all your righteous indignation - sell the Brooklyn bridge to some other forum's members. We're talking about two different things, David. I'm looking for true "startle" reactions in the Dealey Plaza witnesses that we see in the Z-Film and the photos ---- not merely REACTIONS. I'm looking for sharp, jerky, "flinch"-like reactions. There's nothing "jerky" from the witnesses in the Z-Film at all that I can detect---except, of course, for John Connally's flinching and grimacing and hat-flipping and mouth-opening and lapel-bulging at Z224—Z226, which is when Lee Oswald's SBT bullet was crashing through his body (which is a shot that Connally did not HEAR at all; he only FELT it; so now we're talking about yet a third different type of "reaction", one that does not include the sense of hearing at all). But Rosemary Willis' reaction is not a "startle" reaction at all. Not even close. And Hickey's, Landis', and Ready's reactions aren't "startle" reactions either. They are simply "reactions"---period. They heard a shot (or shots) and are reacting to the source of the noise(s)---which was, of course, the TSBD, the building the SS agents are staring directly at at circa Z255. But apparently the fact those agents are turned and looking right at the front door of the Depository means nothing to many CTers, who seem to now want to believe that NO shots had been fired from that building by Z255, which is quite a bizarre stance, IMO. https://jfk-archives.blogspot.com/search?q=Startle+Reactions ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- IN A RELATED NOVEMBER 2014 INTERNET DISCUSSION, A CONSPIRACY THEORIST NAMED MIKE SAID: It is OBVIOUS that John Connally is exhibiting a STARTLE reaction to something that occurred on his LEFT side. His RAPID head movement to his LEFT and associated hat flip are all synchronous with JFK's movement of his hands to his throat. IT IS OBVIOUS to anyone who seriously looks at the film.DAVID VON PEIN SAID: But this so-called "startle reaction" that you are describing could not POSSIBLY be the result of an actual BULLET striking Governor Connally's body at that point in time on the Zapruder Film, right Mike? The "startle reaction" can ONLY be the result of Connally reacting to something whizzing by him---but definitely NOT hitting him. Is that your position? And I find it quite remarkable that the point in time in the Z-Film when the conspiracy believers think Connally actually WAS hit by a bullet, which was in the Z230s according to most conspiracy theorists, we don't see any kind of "jerky" arm movements or "flinching/hunching" of JBC's shoulders (which is what we do see from Z225 to about Z230 or so). So what we have here, per the CTers, is a situation which has John Connally exhibiting far MORE "jerky" movements BEFORE he was actually struck by the bullet than he does just after he was actually hit by the high-speed missile. Kind of funny, isn't it? Actually, it's quite hilarious. But, then too, watching the conspiracy theorists deny the obviousness of the Single-Bullet Theory has always been a rather amusing thing to witness. More....https://jfk-archives.blogspot.com/2014/11/jfk-assassination-arguments-part-833.html And some more.... Edited October 2, 2018 by David Von Pein Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Micah Mileto Posted October 2, 2018 Share Posted October 2, 2018 2 hours ago, David Von Pein said: Actually, it's quite hilarious. But, then too, watching the conspiracy theorists deny the obviousness of the Single-Bullet Theory has always been a rather amusing thing to witness. More.... It couldn't have been very obvious to Kennedy's autopsy pathologists if they chose to examine the chest with a y-incision to find the bullet that entered the back rather than examine the neck above it. And then there's all the evidence that the autopsy pathologists were aware bullet damage in the throat on the night of the body examination, but lied and claimed they weren't aware until the neck day. Why would they choose to lie about that? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ron Bulman Posted October 2, 2018 Share Posted October 2, 2018 1 hour ago, Micah Mileto said: It couldn't have been very obvious to Kennedy's autopsy pathologists if they chose to examine the chest with a y-incision to find the bullet that entered the back rather than examine the neck above it. And then there's all the evidence that the autopsy pathologists were aware bullet damage in the throat on the night of the body examination, but lied and claimed they weren't aware until the neck day. Why would they choose to lie about that? Because they butchered the small entry wound observed by Perry. His tracheotomy / tracheostomy enlarged it slightly. Look at the death stare photo. It looks like someone took a hacksaw to his throat. Why? To extract bullet fragments during pre autopsy surgery? Why are his eyes open in this Bethesda photo when the Priest in Dallas said they were closed when he last saw him there? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Micah Mileto Posted October 2, 2018 Share Posted October 2, 2018 1 hour ago, Ron Bulman said: Because they butchered the small entry wound observed by Perry. His tracheotomy / tracheostomy enlarged it slightly. Look at the death stare photo. It looks like someone took a hacksaw to his throat. Why? To extract bullet fragments during pre autopsy surgery? Why are his eyes open in this Bethesda photo when the Priest in Dallas said they were closed when he last saw him there? Perry said Humes called Friday night. John Stringer and John Ebersole clearly described contact with Dallas on the night of the autopsy. Which was also indicated in Manchester's 1967 book TDOAP. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mathias Baumann Posted October 2, 2018 Share Posted October 2, 2018 (edited) 15 hours ago, David Von Pein said: I'll repeat this question that I asked LNer Ed Bauer in a 2014 Facebook discussion (which went unanswered).... "But who in all of Dealey Plaza could be considered to be exhibiting "startle" reactions at ANY time during the whole shooting timeline as seen in Zapruder's home movie? Anyone at all? If so, please point them out, because I sure haven't seen any definitive signs of any startle reactions by anybody. And we KNOW that loud rifle shots WERE being fired at the President. Ergo, in my opinion, a lack of startle reactions throughout the ENTIRE film [or in any of the still photos] really proves....nothing." -- DVP; August 28, 2014 Hello David, that's a very good point you're raising here. The lack of startle reaction does certainly NOT prove that a shot from an unsuppressed high-powered rifle has just been fired. So people still smiling in the Altgens photo should make us very suspicious. Try out this calculator here: http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/Acoustic/isprob2.html Even at a distance of 50 meters the 150 decibel muzzle blast would still have a level of about 120 db, 10 db above the average human pain threshold. The sonic boom would still have been at 110 db at a distance of about 20 meters. You've also pointed out that the first sound was different than the others, as a large number of witnesses described it. How is that possible if all of the 3 shots were fired from the same rifle? How could Bonny Ray Williams not realize that the first shot had been fired from just a few meters above him? How could experienced polive officers mistake the first gunshot for a firecracker? Edited October 2, 2018 by Mathias Baumann Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mathias Baumann Posted October 2, 2018 Share Posted October 2, 2018 This could explain why we don't see any startle response: Quote There’s an oft-repeated anecdote about an experiment conducted with Buddhist monk Matthieu Ricard. During meditation, he responded quite differently than most people would to a sudden loud noise. While Ricard sat in a room and meditated, researchers set off a 115-decibel burst of noise, equivalent to a gunshot. It was loud, but as the story goes, Ricard didn’t notice – well, almost. Many reports that have circulated about the study say Ricard was able to completely suppress the facial muscle movement that people always show after being startled. https://www.lionsroar.com/stifling-the-startle-reflex-almost/ Maybe the spectators were meditating. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David Josephs Posted October 2, 2018 Share Posted October 2, 2018 22 minutes ago, Mathias Baumann said: This could explain why we don't see any startle response: Maybe the spectators were meditating. In reality, JFK was not shot.... in a bizarre case of miniaturized spontaneous pinpoint combustion in combination with a mass hypnotic suggestion.... With no sound and only the reactions of the crowd and the jiggling of the camera - one of the finest photographic interpretation canters in the world placed shots in a variety of possible locations... adding to well more than 3 possible shots, but more like 5-7 as Dino said... It is obvious from the Altgens I posted with everyone looking in different directions with different sets of reactions - which in turn has little bearing on the timing of shots, the time delay of sound vs sight, the layout of DP... and on and on... that you can still envoke the Silly Bullet Theory as the backbone of your arguments only shows how stuck in 1964 you remain Dave... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cliff Varnell Posted October 2, 2018 Share Posted October 2, 2018 (edited) On 10/1/2018 at 4:07 PM, Micah Mileto said: Robert Croft, Hugh Betzner, and Phillip Willis all orient the first loud report as coming at about this time of z190-224, using the photographs they snapped as reference points. Willis said he snapped his 5th photo (Z202) as a startle response to gunfire. Betzner said he heard gunfire right after taking his 3rd photo (Z186). We're looking at Z190 give or take a few frames. Those who say the shooting sequence is a matter of speculation are wrong. Throat shot -- between the Betzner and Willis photos. The back shot -- after Altgens 6 (Z255) photo, before the head shot/s. Altgens 6 shows Glenn Bennett with blurred features, consistent with head movement. He reported that he had been looking to the right at the time of the first shot, then looked over at Kennedy before the back shot. Bennett's contemporaneous notes and his next day official report are corroborated by Willis 5 (which shows him facing to the right), Altgens 6, and the location of the bullet holes in JFK's clothes. Edited October 22, 2018 by Cliff Varnell Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ray Mitcham Posted October 2, 2018 Share Posted October 2, 2018 17 hours ago, David Josephs said: So the jiggles in the film at the same time as the shots... that's not Zapruder being "startled" by the shots? When JFK abruptly turns his head in a single frame 157,, with reactions from Rosemary Willis, Hickey and Connally Looking at the famous Altgens... if there was no sound, why isn't everyone looking at JFK/Jackie? If you claim JC was hit later In the film, 222 thru 236 would be a "startled" reaction I could go on... and on... so please DVP - with all your righteous indignation - sell the Brooklyn bridge to some other forum's members... K? David, I don't know if you put the arrows on the above Altgens6 photo, but I disagree that the two SS agents on the right side of the limo are looking up towards the top of the TSBD. They look as they are looking straight to their right, IMO. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David Josephs Posted October 2, 2018 Share Posted October 2, 2018 1 minute ago, Ray Mitcham said: David, I don't know if you put the arrows on the above Altgens6 photo, but I disagree that the two SS agents on the right side of the limo are looking up towards the top of the TSBD. They look as they are looking straight to their right, IMO. Fair enough... most claimed the initial sound was street level with subsequent shots seemingly from an elevated position... The point being "startled" as a reaction is very difficult to see in a single frame as well as the fact so few people if any were in the frame when the shots came... Do we know of a TV or audio tape of a JFK motorcade passing? with cycles revving and all the rest... What did it really sound like at street level... ?? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ray Mitcham Posted October 3, 2018 Share Posted October 3, 2018 (edited) On 10/2/2018 at 3:42 AM, David Von Pein said: Yes, it probably is (although we could engage in a two-hour debate on the subject of "jiggle analysis" as well). But I wasn't counting Mr. Zapruder HIMSELF when tallying up the number of witnesses who exhibited startle reactions in Dealey Plaza. I was only thinking about the physical reactions we could actually see on the people whom Zapruder was filming. We're talking about two different things, David. I'm looking for true "startle" reactions in the Dealey Plaza witnesses that we see in the Z-Film and the photos ---- not merely REACTIONS. I'm looking for sharp, jerky, "flinch"-like reactions. There's nothing "jerky" from the witnesses in the Z-Film at all that I can detect---except, of course, for John Connally's flinching and grimacing and hat-flipping and mouth-opening and lapel-bulging at Z224—Z226, which is when Lee Oswald's SBT bullet was crashing through his body (which is a shot that Connally did not HEAR at all; he only FELT it; so now we're talking about yet a third different type of "reaction", one that does not include the sense of hearing at all). But Rosemary Willis' reaction is not a "startle" reaction at all. Not even close. And Hickey's, Landis', and Ready's reactions aren't "startle" reactions either. They are simply "reactions"---period. They heard a shot (or shots) and are reacting to the source of the noise(s)---which was, of course, the TSBD, the building the SS agents are staring directly at at circa Z255. But apparently the fact those agents are turned and looking right at the front door of the Depository means nothing to many CTers, who seem to now want to believe that NO shots had been fired from that building by Z255, which is quite a bizarre stance, IMO. https://jfk-archives.blogspot.com/search?q=Startle+Reactions ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- IN A RELATED NOVEMBER 2014 INTERNET DISCUSSION, A CONSPIRACY THEORIST NAMED MIKE SAID: It is OBVIOUS that John Connally is exhibiting a STARTLE reaction to something that occurred on his LEFT side. His RAPID head movement to his LEFT and associated hat flip are all synchronous with JFK's movement of his hands to his throat. IT IS OBVIOUS to anyone who seriously looks at the film.DAVID VON PEIN SAID: But this so-called "startle reaction" that you are describing could not POSSIBLY be the result of an actual BULLET striking Governor Connally's body at that point in time on the Zapruder Film, right Mike? The "startle reaction" can ONLY be the result of Connally reacting to something whizzing by him---but definitely NOT hitting him. Is that your position? And I find it quite remarkable that the point in time in the Z-Film when the conspiracy believers think Connally actually WAS hit by a bullet, which was in the Z230s according to most conspiracy theorists, we don't see any kind of "jerky" arm movements or "flinching/hunching" of JBC's shoulders (which is what we do see from Z225 to about Z230 or so). So what we have here, per the CTers, is a situation which has John Connally exhibiting far MORE "jerky" movements BEFORE he was actually struck by the bullet than he does just after he was actually hit by the high-speed missile. Kind of funny, isn't it? Actually, it's quite hilarious. But, then too, watching the conspiracy theorists deny the obviousness of the Single-Bullet Theory has always been a rather amusing thing to witness. More....https://jfk-archives.blogspot.com/2014/11/jfk-assassination-arguments-part-833.html And some more.... Hey, Dave, can you explain why, in Altgens6, Connolly is turning to his right, as he said, after the first shot which hit JFK? Would he be able to do this if he had already been hit in the back and wrist? As he said, " We had just made the turn, well, when I heard what I thought was a shot. I heard this noise which I immediately took to be a rifle shot. I instinctively turned to my right because the sound appeared to come from over my righshoulder, so I turned to look back over my right shoulder, and I saw nothing unusual except just people in the crowd, but I did not catch the President in the corner of my eye, and I was interested, because once I heard the shot in my own mind I identified it as a rifle shot, and I immediately--the only thought that crossed my mind was that this is an assassination attempt. So I looked, failing to see him, I was turning to look back over my left shoulder into the back seat, but I never got that far in my turn. I got about in the position I am in now facing you, looking a little bit to the left of center, and then I felt like someone had hit me in the back." Edited October 3, 2018 by Ray Mitcham Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David Von Pein Posted October 3, 2018 Share Posted October 3, 2018 (edited) 5 hours ago, Ray Mitcham said: Hey, Dave, can you explain why, in Altgens6, Connolly [sic] is turning to his right, as he said, after the first shot which hit JFK? Would he be able to do this if he had already been hit in the back and wrist? Of course. Why not? Connally was certainly still able to pivot around in his seat as late as the Z270s and Z280s (see Z275 below), and you surely aren't going to suggest to me (as some CTers have done) that Governor Connally hasn't yet been hit in his back with a bullet even as late as Z275....are you? (And also please take note of the fact that Mr. Connally is still holding his Stetson hat in Zapruder Frame #275 as well, debunking yet another long-standing myth endorsed by conspiracy theorists.) Z275.... Edited October 3, 2018 by David Von Pein Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
François Carlier Posted October 4, 2018 Share Posted October 4, 2018 (edited) On 10/1/2018 at 10:41 PM, François Carlier said: That's what I expected from you : an irrelevant answer… You did you not address my point. You just indulged yourself. Well, good for you. I know that you don't like the truth. So let me rephrase it for you. First of all, like it or not, YES, I was absolutely right : author Flip de Mey writes in his books that there is no question the shots came from the sniper's nest. Period. Or, maybe you didn't read his book ? The point is, you praised a book that claims that the shots came from the sniper's nest. Now, I know perfectly well that conspiracy theorists will claim that it was not Oswald who fired the shots. I know. I have been studying the case for thirty years and have read 150+ books, so I know perfectly well what you conspiracy theorists claim. But that was not the point. Mind you, in case you didn't notice I had not mentioned Lee Oswald in my post. Nor did I mention my wife, for that matter… But you did, in your irrelevant, besides-the-point answer. You totally missed my point. Again, I repeat, you praised an author who claims that the shots came from the sniper's nest. So, I asked you whether you were in essence telling members of this forum that they should believe that the shots came from the sniper's nest ? But, entangled in your foggy and ever-changing beliefs, you proved incapable of answering me straightforwardly, and instead you chose to use sarcasm and nonsense about wives (such an out-of-scope answer !). Well, whatever… Other members here can debate. I'll keep my energy for them. […] erased Edited October 4, 2018 by François Carlier Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Please sign in to comment
You will be able to leave a comment after signing in
Sign In Now