Robert Harris
2017-06-30 03:43:37 UTC
American Heritage dictionary:
refute |rəˈfyo͞ot|
verb [ with obj. ]
prove (a statement or theory) to be wrong or false; disprove: these
claims have not been convincingly refuted.
• prove that (someone) is wrong.
• deny or contradict (a statement or accusation): a spokesman totally
refuted the allegation of bias.
respond |rəˈspänd|
verb [ reporting verb ]
say something in reply: [ no obj. ] : she could not get Robert to
respond to her words | [ with clause ] : he responded that it would not
be feasible | [ with direct speech ] : “It's not part of my job,”
Belinda responded.
Over the years, the same scenario has played out many times. It goes
like this:
1. I state that no one has refuted my analysis regarding the shots
during the assassination.
2. McAdams replies, "Haw, haw, Harris say's no-one *responds* to him"
Of course, there always follows, my correction that of course people
have responded - usually with insults and unsupported blurtations.
McAdams then ignores the correction and declares that he will censor me
if I ever claim that I have been evaded, even when it is ridiculously
obvious that I have:-)
But let's consider whether I have actually been *refuted*. This should
not be confused with the much different argument (which I have never
made), that no one has proven there was not a shot at 285.
A refutation need only address the analysis I present, and answer the
critical questions better than I have.
Of course, there have been attempts. Let's review:
1. The startling noise at 285 was a siren.
Nobody supports that anymore, since not only did none of the witnesses
report a siren then, but those same witnesses told us exactly what they
*did* hear - high powered, closely spaced rifle shots at the end of the
attack.
2. The noise was a backfire
Backfires were indeed heard, all throughout the motorcade, from the
airport to Dealey, but in the numerous films provided by the DCA, we
never see anyone ducking or reacting even remotely like they did
following 285 and 313.
Furthermore, SA Greer said he felt a "concussion" from the second shot
he heard. That could only have been the shock wave of a passing bullet.
3. Greer hit the brakes, throwing the passengers forward
Greer did indeed, slow the limo, but Dr. Alvarez confirmed that the
slowdown began at about frame 300, which was *after* the limo passengers
began to react at 290-292.
I was able to corroborate Alvarez in this short video presentation. In
it, we can easily see the limo slow down, but not until after frame 300.
It is interesting BTW, that the promoters of all three of the above
theories, put the lie to those who pretended they could see no startle
responses at all:-)
Perhaps, the worst of the attempts to refute this, is the claim that it
is entirely based on my "subjective" opinion.
The evidence is empirical and measurable - from the number of degrees
that three of the passengers dropped their heads, to the empirical
proof, that the reactions all began in the same 1/6th of one second,
from 290 to 292.
Loading Image...
And that included Abraham Zapruder, who Alvarez determined, reacted at
290. It is easy to see the heavily blurred frames at that instant.
Loading Image...
Perhaps the most conclusive reactions however, are those of SA Roy
Kellerman. Kellerman reacted simultaneously with the others and
Zapruder, but in addition to ducking, he simultaneously raised his hand
to shield his ear and shrugged his shoulders upward, briefly hiding the
the collar of his shirt.
Loading Image...
Notice that he also recovered simultaneously from each of those
reactions - straightening back up, dropping his hand, and then dropping
his shoulders to their normal position. The reactions and recoveries all
took place within a single second.
And that is *exactly* what we should expect. Britannica:
"Startle reaction, also called Startle Pattern, an extremely rapid
psychophysiological response of an organism to a sudden and unexpected
stimulus such as a loud sound or a blinding flash of light. In human
beings it is characterized by involuntary bending of the limbs and a
spasmodic avoidance movement of the head. Musculature returns to normal
in less than one second"
https://www.britannica.com/topic/startle-reaction
We can see Kellerman's reactions from a different perspective in this
brief presentation:
Loading Image...
Robert Harris
refute |rəˈfyo͞ot|
verb [ with obj. ]
prove (a statement or theory) to be wrong or false; disprove: these
claims have not been convincingly refuted.
• prove that (someone) is wrong.
• deny or contradict (a statement or accusation): a spokesman totally
refuted the allegation of bias.
respond |rəˈspänd|
verb [ reporting verb ]
say something in reply: [ no obj. ] : she could not get Robert to
respond to her words | [ with clause ] : he responded that it would not
be feasible | [ with direct speech ] : “It's not part of my job,”
Belinda responded.
Over the years, the same scenario has played out many times. It goes
like this:
1. I state that no one has refuted my analysis regarding the shots
during the assassination.
2. McAdams replies, "Haw, haw, Harris say's no-one *responds* to him"
Of course, there always follows, my correction that of course people
have responded - usually with insults and unsupported blurtations.
McAdams then ignores the correction and declares that he will censor me
if I ever claim that I have been evaded, even when it is ridiculously
obvious that I have:-)
But let's consider whether I have actually been *refuted*. This should
not be confused with the much different argument (which I have never
made), that no one has proven there was not a shot at 285.
A refutation need only address the analysis I present, and answer the
critical questions better than I have.
Of course, there have been attempts. Let's review:
1. The startling noise at 285 was a siren.
Nobody supports that anymore, since not only did none of the witnesses
report a siren then, but those same witnesses told us exactly what they
*did* hear - high powered, closely spaced rifle shots at the end of the
attack.
2. The noise was a backfire
Backfires were indeed heard, all throughout the motorcade, from the
airport to Dealey, but in the numerous films provided by the DCA, we
never see anyone ducking or reacting even remotely like they did
following 285 and 313.
Furthermore, SA Greer said he felt a "concussion" from the second shot
he heard. That could only have been the shock wave of a passing bullet.
3. Greer hit the brakes, throwing the passengers forward
Greer did indeed, slow the limo, but Dr. Alvarez confirmed that the
slowdown began at about frame 300, which was *after* the limo passengers
began to react at 290-292.
I was able to corroborate Alvarez in this short video presentation. In
it, we can easily see the limo slow down, but not until after frame 300.
It is interesting BTW, that the promoters of all three of the above
theories, put the lie to those who pretended they could see no startle
responses at all:-)
Perhaps, the worst of the attempts to refute this, is the claim that it
is entirely based on my "subjective" opinion.
The evidence is empirical and measurable - from the number of degrees
that three of the passengers dropped their heads, to the empirical
proof, that the reactions all began in the same 1/6th of one second,
from 290 to 292.
Loading Image...
And that included Abraham Zapruder, who Alvarez determined, reacted at
290. It is easy to see the heavily blurred frames at that instant.
Loading Image...
Perhaps the most conclusive reactions however, are those of SA Roy
Kellerman. Kellerman reacted simultaneously with the others and
Zapruder, but in addition to ducking, he simultaneously raised his hand
to shield his ear and shrugged his shoulders upward, briefly hiding the
the collar of his shirt.
Loading Image...
Notice that he also recovered simultaneously from each of those
reactions - straightening back up, dropping his hand, and then dropping
his shoulders to their normal position. The reactions and recoveries all
took place within a single second.
And that is *exactly* what we should expect. Britannica:
"Startle reaction, also called Startle Pattern, an extremely rapid
psychophysiological response of an organism to a sudden and unexpected
stimulus such as a loud sound or a blinding flash of light. In human
beings it is characterized by involuntary bending of the limbs and a
spasmodic avoidance movement of the head. Musculature returns to normal
in less than one second"
https://www.britannica.com/topic/startle-reaction
We can see Kellerman's reactions from a different perspective in this
brief presentation:
Loading Image...
Robert Harris
