Hank's theory

[[e-mail]]

Hank Sieznant argues that the headshot at 313 sounded like two high
powered rifle shots, thus explaining why the large consensus of witnesses
reported two closely spaced shots at the end of the attack.

Let's review the facts:

1. Most witnesses only heard one of the early shots and two at the end of
the attack. Only the last two were loud enough to provoke startle
reactions, beginning within a third of a second following frames 285
and then 313.

2. Dr. Luis Alvarez determined that there was a startling noise at frame
285, speculating that it was a siren, mainly because as he stated
himself, 285 was too close to 313 for both to have been fired by
Oswald.

3. A single shot could not have startled the limo passengers at 285 and
then again, at 313.

I will not call Hank a liar. Perhaps he just forgot the full context of
the discussion in the skeptics forum.

Jay Utah had declared from the start, that the LN theory would be
considered the status quo and that somehow, that freed THEM from having to
provide any evidence or analysis demonstrating that Oswald acted alone.

As Hank knows, I NEVER made a claim like that about my side of the case.
In fact, I liked nothing better, than proving that Oswald could not have
fired all of the shots.

He could not have fired the shots at 285 and 313, which were 1.5 seconds
apart and he could not have fired any of the shots prior to 285, since
none of them were loud enough to provoke startle reactions among the limo
passengers like we see following 285 and 313.

HSCA experts determined that the shockwave from Oswald's rifle measured
130 decibels, at ground level - many times louder to the ears of the limo
passengers than will provoke involuntary startle responses - like we
clearly see following 285 and 313.

The fact that Hank never presented a shred of evidence for his theory, or
examples of witnesses claiming that gunshots to the heads of human or
animal skulls sounded like two separate high powered rifle shots, by
itself, makes his theory unworthy of consideration.

The fact that he ignored 90% of the relevant facts related to this issue,
proves that like his fellow nutters, he is helpless to refute the simple
fact that Oswald could not have been the only person shooting at the
President that day.


Bob Harris

[Bud]

Post by ***@gmail.com
Hank Sieznant argues that the headshot at 313 sounded like two high
powered rifle shots, thus explaining why the large consensus of witnesses
reported two closely spaced shots at the end of the attack.
1. Most witnesses only heard one of the early shots and two at the end of
the attack. Only the last two were loud enough to provoke startle
reactions, beginning within a third of a second following frames 285
and then 313.
http://youtu.be/cv7Lz25Xyno
2. Dr. Luis Alvarez determined that there was a startling noise at frame
285, speculating that it was a siren, mainly because as he stated
himself, 285 was too close to 313 for both to have been fired by
Oswald.
3. A single shot could not have startled the limo passengers at 285 and
then again, at 313.
I will not call Hank a liar. Perhaps he just forgot the full context of
the discussion in the skeptics forum.
Jay Utah had declared from the start, that the LN theory would be
considered the status quo and that somehow, that freed THEM from having to
provide any evidence or analysis demonstrating that Oswald acted alone.

I will not call you a liar, Harris. Perhaps he just forgot the full
context of the discussion in the skeptics forum.

Here is what Jay Utah actually said...

"There is no "our" case. There is the conventional narrative and the
evidence supporting it. You are well aware of that narrative and
presumably aware of the body of evidence from which the conventional
conclusions are drawn. These are the conclusions you are trying to unseat
with what we hope will be a more explanatory theory.

As I said, baiting critics into accepting an affirmative burden of proof
for the conventional narrative is one of the oldest and lamest tactics JFK
conspiracists use. You are the one with the affirmative claim. Trying to
force your critics to affirm a counterclaim by way of preface or rebuttal
is a rather easily seen-through shell game."

Also...

"In something like 20 years of listening to JFK conspiracy theories, I
have yet to see a single conspiracy theorist who has the slightest
interest in solving the crime. Instead they're obsessed with recruiting
some palookah to accept the burden to affirm the conventional narrative,
so that all their irrelevant, speculative nit-pickings have something to
bounce off of."

You showed up saying you had a better explanation for what occurred.
They heard you out and pointed out the flaws in your approach and
reasoning. But just like anything anyone has ever said to you concerning
your ideas it fell on deaf ears.

You wanted to play the silly game where you detract from the
conventional narrative and puff up your own ideas so that in *your* eyes
your ideas become superior. They weren`t playing that game, they were
playing "put up or shut up", put an an explanation that better explains
the event. Your approach is "I see this problem, and I`ve contrived this
solution to this problem". They rightfully pointed out this is a begged
premise to subjective issues. They also pointed out that your ideas rely
heavily on shifting the burden, as if your subjective ideas are the
established default that had to be unseated.

Post by ***@gmail.com
As Hank knows, I NEVER made a claim like that about my side of the case.
In fact, I liked nothing better, than proving that Oswald could not have
fired all of the shots.
He could not have fired the shots at 285 and 313, which were 1.5 seconds
apart and he could not have fired any of the shots prior to 285, since
none of them were loud enough to provoke startle reactions among the limo
passengers like we see following 285 and 313.
HSCA experts determined that the shockwave from Oswald's rifle measured
130 decibels, at ground level - many times louder to the ears of the limo
passengers than will provoke involuntary startle responses - like we
clearly see following 285 and 313.
The fact that Hank never presented a shred of evidence for his theory, or
examples of witnesses claiming that gunshots to the heads of human or
animal skulls sounded like two separate high powered rifle shots, by
itself, makes his theory unworthy of consideration.
The fact that he ignored 90% of the relevant facts related to this issue,
proves that like his fellow nutters, he is helpless to refute the simple
fact that Oswald could not have been the only person shooting at the
President that day.
Bob Harris

[Anthony Marsh]

Post by Bud

Post by ***@gmail.com
Hank Sieznant argues that the headshot at 313 sounded like two high
powered rifle shots, thus explaining why the large consensus of witnesses
reported two closely spaced shots at the end of the attack.
1. Most witnesses only heard one of the early shots and two at the end of
the attack. Only the last two were loud enough to provoke startle
reactions, beginning within a third of a second following frames 285
and then 313.
http://youtu.be/cv7Lz25Xyno
2. Dr. Luis Alvarez determined that there was a startling noise at frame
285, speculating that it was a siren, mainly because as he stated
himself, 285 was too close to 313 for both to have been fired by
Oswald.
3. A single shot could not have startled the limo passengers at 285 and
then again, at 313.
I will not call Hank a liar. Perhaps he just forgot the full context of
the discussion in the skeptics forum.
Jay Utah had declared from the start, that the LN theory would be
considered the status quo and that somehow, that freed THEM from having to
provide any evidence or analysis demonstrating that Oswald acted alone.

I will not call you a liar, Harris. Perhaps he just forgot the full

McAdams would let YOU call HIM a liar, but he will not let ME call YOU
a liar. YOU are protected.

Post by Bud
context of the discussion in the skeptics forum.
Here is what Jay Utah actually said...
"There is no "our" case. There is the conventional narrative and the
evidence supporting it. You are well aware of that narrative and
presumably aware of the body of evidence from which the conventional
conclusions are drawn. These are the conclusions you are trying to unseat
with what we hope will be a more explanatory theory.
As I said, baiting critics into accepting an affirmative burden of proof
for the conventional narrative is one of the oldest and lamest tactics JFK
conspiracists use. You are the one with the affirmative claim. Trying to
force your critics to affirm a counterclaim by way of preface or rebuttal
is a rather easily seen-through shell game."
Also...
"In something like 20 years of listening to JFK conspiracy theories, I
have yet to see a single conspiracy theorist who has the slightest
interest in solving the crime. Instead they're obsessed with recruiting
some palookah to accept the burden to affirm the conventional narrative,

That is not true. YOU have done other to solve the case. Only cover it
up. Maybe you aren't old enough to remember the HSCA. But it was formed
to try to solve the case. Many JFK researchers including me helped that
effort. You have never done anything ever.

Post by Bud
so that all their irrelevant, speculative nit-pickings have something to
bounce off of."
You showed up saying you had a better explanation for what occurred.
They heard you out and pointed out the flaws in your approach and
reasoning. But just like anything anyone has ever said to you concerning
your ideas it fell on deaf ears.
You wanted to play the silly game where you detract from the
conventional narrative and puff up your own ideas so that in *your* eyes
your ideas become superior. They weren`t playing that game, they were
playing "put up or shut up", put an an explanation that better explains
the event. Your approach is "I see this problem, and I`ve contrived this
solution to this problem". They rightfully pointed out this is a begged
premise to subjective issues. They also pointed out that your ideas rely
heavily on shifting the burden, as if your subjective ideas are the
established default that had to be unseated.

Post by ***@gmail.com
As Hank knows, I NEVER made a claim like that about my side of the case.
In fact, I liked nothing better, than proving that Oswald could not have
fired all of the shots.
He could not have fired the shots at 285 and 313, which were 1.5 seconds
apart and he could not have fired any of the shots prior to 285, since
none of them were loud enough to provoke startle reactions among the limo
passengers like we see following 285 and 313.
HSCA experts determined that the shockwave from Oswald's rifle measured
130 decibels, at ground level - many times louder to the ears of the limo
passengers than will provoke involuntary startle responses - like we
clearly see following 285 and 313.
The fact that Hank never presented a shred of evidence for his theory, or
examples of witnesses claiming that gunshots to the heads of human or
animal skulls sounded like two separate high powered rifle shots, by
itself, makes his theory unworthy of consideration.
The fact that he ignored 90% of the relevant facts related to this issue,
proves that like his fellow nutters, he is helpless to refute the simple
fact that Oswald could not have been the only person shooting at the
President that day.
Bob Harris

[Bud]

Post by Anthony Marsh

Post by Bud

Post by ***@gmail.com
Hank Sieznant argues that the headshot at 313 sounded like two high
powered rifle shots, thus explaining why the large consensus of witnesses
reported two closely spaced shots at the end of the attack.
1. Most witnesses only heard one of the early shots and two at the end of
the attack. Only the last two were loud enough to provoke startle
reactions, beginning within a third of a second following frames 285
and then 313.
http://youtu.be/cv7Lz25Xyno
2. Dr. Luis Alvarez determined that there was a startling noise at frame
285, speculating that it was a siren, mainly because as he stated
himself, 285 was too close to 313 for both to have been fired by
Oswald.
3. A single shot could not have startled the limo passengers at 285 and
then again, at 313.
I will not call Hank a liar. Perhaps he just forgot the full context of
the discussion in the skeptics forum.
Jay Utah had declared from the start, that the LN theory would be
considered the status quo and that somehow, that freed THEM from having to
provide any evidence or analysis demonstrating that Oswald acted alone.

I will not call you a liar, Harris. Perhaps he just forgot the full

McAdams would let YOU call HIM a liar,

Can you read?

Post by Anthony Marsh
but he will not let ME call YOU
a liar. YOU are protected.

I used the words Harris used on Hank against him.

Post by Anthony Marsh

Post by Bud
context of the discussion in the skeptics forum.
Here is what Jay Utah actually said...
"There is no "our" case. There is the conventional narrative and the
evidence supporting it. You are well aware of that narrative and
presumably aware of the body of evidence from which the conventional
conclusions are drawn. These are the conclusions you are trying to unseat
with what we hope will be a more explanatory theory.
As I said, baiting critics into accepting an affirmative burden of proof
for the conventional narrative is one of the oldest and lamest tactics JFK
conspiracists use. You are the one with the affirmative claim. Trying to
force your critics to affirm a counterclaim by way of preface or rebuttal
is a rather easily seen-through shell game."
Also...
"In something like 20 years of listening to JFK conspiracy theories, I
have yet to see a single conspiracy theorist who has the slightest
interest in solving the crime. Instead they're obsessed with recruiting
some palookah to accept the burden to affirm the conventional narrative,

That is not true. YOU have done other to solve the case. Only cover it
up. Maybe you aren't old enough to remember the HSCA. But it was formed
to try to solve the case. Many JFK researchers including me helped that
effort. You have never done anything ever.

Assumes something needed to be done. The DPD had the thing wrapped up
before Oswald was cold.

Post by Anthony Marsh

Post by Bud
so that all their irrelevant, speculative nit-pickings have something to
bounce off of."
You showed up saying you had a better explanation for what occurred.
They heard you out and pointed out the flaws in your approach and
reasoning. But just like anything anyone has ever said to you concerning
your ideas it fell on deaf ears.
You wanted to play the silly game where you detract from the
conventional narrative and puff up your own ideas so that in *your* eyes
your ideas become superior. They weren`t playing that game, they were
playing "put up or shut up", put an an explanation that better explains
the event. Your approach is "I see this problem, and I`ve contrived this
solution to this problem". They rightfully pointed out this is a begged
premise to subjective issues. They also pointed out that your ideas rely
heavily on shifting the burden, as if your subjective ideas are the
established default that had to be unseated.

Post by ***@gmail.com
As Hank knows, I NEVER made a claim like that about my side of the case.
In fact, I liked nothing better, than proving that Oswald could not have
fired all of the shots.
He could not have fired the shots at 285 and 313, which were 1.5 seconds
apart and he could not have fired any of the shots prior to 285, since
none of them were loud enough to provoke startle reactions among the limo
passengers like we see following 285 and 313.
HSCA experts determined that the shockwave from Oswald's rifle measured
130 decibels, at ground level - many times louder to the ears of the limo
passengers than will provoke involuntary startle responses - like we
clearly see following 285 and 313.
The fact that Hank never presented a shred of evidence for his theory, or
examples of witnesses claiming that gunshots to the heads of human or
animal skulls sounded like two separate high powered rifle shots, by
itself, makes his theory unworthy of consideration.
The fact that he ignored 90% of the relevant facts related to this issue,
proves that like his fellow nutters, he is helpless to refute the simple
fact that Oswald could not have been the only person shooting at the
President that day.
Bob Harris

[John Corbett]

Post by ***@gmail.com
Hank Sieznant argues that the headshot at 313 sounded like two high
powered rifle shots, thus explaining why the large consensus of witnesses
reported two closely spaced shots at the end of the attack.
1. Most witnesses only heard one of the early shots and two at the end of
the attack. Only the last two were loud enough to provoke startle
reactions, beginning within a third of a second following frames 285
and then 313.
http://youtu.be/cv7Lz25Xyno
2. Dr. Luis Alvarez determined that there was a startling noise at frame
285, speculating that it was a siren, mainly because as he stated
himself, 285 was too close to 313 for both to have been fired by
Oswald.
3. A single shot could not have startled the limo passengers at 285 and
then again, at 313.
I will not call Hank a liar. Perhaps he just forgot the full context of
the discussion in the skeptics forum.
Jay Utah had declared from the start, that the LN theory would be
considered the status quo and that somehow, that freed THEM from having to
provide any evidence or analysis demonstrating that Oswald acted alone.
As Hank knows, I NEVER made a claim like that about my side of the case.
In fact, I liked nothing better, than proving that Oswald could not have
fired all of the shots.
He could not have fired the shots at 285 and 313, which were 1.5 seconds
apart and he could not have fired any of the shots prior to 285, since
none of them were loud enough to provoke startle reactions among the limo
passengers like we see following 285 and 313.
HSCA experts determined that the shockwave from Oswald's rifle measured
130 decibels, at ground level - many times louder to the ears of the limo
passengers than will provoke involuntary startle responses - like we
clearly see following 285 and 313.
The fact that Hank never presented a shred of evidence for his theory, or
examples of witnesses claiming that gunshots to the heads of human or
animal skulls sounded like two separate high powered rifle shots, by
itself, makes his theory unworthy of consideration.
The fact that he ignored 90% of the relevant facts related to this issue,
proves that like his fellow nutters, he is helpless to refute the simple
fact that Oswald could not have been the only person shooting at the
President that day.

Bob, nobody cares about this zombie Z285 theory of yours. Apparently you
left us and shopped it around to other discussion groups and couldn't find
any buyers so you came back to us. We're still not interested either.

[Anthony Marsh]

Post by John Corbett

Post by ***@gmail.com
Hank Sieznant argues that the headshot at 313 sounded like two high
powered rifle shots, thus explaining why the large consensus of witnesses
reported two closely spaced shots at the end of the attack.
1. Most witnesses only heard one of the early shots and two at the end of
the attack. Only the last two were loud enough to provoke startle
reactions, beginning within a third of a second following frames 285
and then 313.
http://youtu.be/cv7Lz25Xyno
2. Dr. Luis Alvarez determined that there was a startling noise at frame
285, speculating that it was a siren, mainly because as he stated
himself, 285 was too close to 313 for both to have been fired by
Oswald.
3. A single shot could not have startled the limo passengers at 285 and
then again, at 313.
I will not call Hank a liar. Perhaps he just forgot the full context of
the discussion in the skeptics forum.
Jay Utah had declared from the start, that the LN theory would be
considered the status quo and that somehow, that freed THEM from having to
provide any evidence or analysis demonstrating that Oswald acted alone.
As Hank knows, I NEVER made a claim like that about my side of the case.
In fact, I liked nothing better, than proving that Oswald could not have
fired all of the shots.
He could not have fired the shots at 285 and 313, which were 1.5 seconds
apart and he could not have fired any of the shots prior to 285, since
none of them were loud enough to provoke startle reactions among the limo
passengers like we see following 285 and 313.
HSCA experts determined that the shockwave from Oswald's rifle measured
130 decibels, at ground level - many times louder to the ears of the limo
passengers than will provoke involuntary startle responses - like we
clearly see following 285 and 313.
The fact that Hank never presented a shred of evidence for his theory, or
examples of witnesses claiming that gunshots to the heads of human or
animal skulls sounded like two separate high powered rifle shots, by
itself, makes his theory unworthy of consideration.
The fact that he ignored 90% of the relevant facts related to this issue,
proves that like his fellow nutters, he is helpless to refute the simple
fact that Oswald could not have been the only person shooting at the
President that day.

Bob, nobody cares about this zombie Z285 theory of yours. Apparently you

I do. I love Zombie movies. I cried when I heard that they killed the
Walking Dead.

So please tell me more about these Zombies.

Post by John Corbett
left us and shopped it around to other discussion groups and couldn't find
any buyers so you came back to us. We're still not interested either.

Like a Zombie?

[Hank Sienzant (AKA Joe Zircon)]

Post by ***@gmail.com
Hank Sieznant argues that the headshot at 313 sounded like two high
powered rifle shots, thus explaining why the large consensus of witnesses
reported two closely spaced shots at the end of the attack.

Sienzant, Robert.

I didn't argue the headshot sounded like two high-powered rifle shots. I
said the sound of the gunshot, plus the impact on the head, sounded like
two separate shots. It may be that the sound of the impact on the limo
frame was the second sound.

Let's look at what Clint Hill said, for example: He said he heard only two
shots, about five seconds apart. Agreed?
== QUOTE ==
Representative BOGGS. This was the first shot?
Mr. HILL. This is the first sound that I heard; yes, sir. I jumped from
the car, realizing that something was wrong, ran to the Presidential
limousine. Just about as I reached it, there was another sound, which was
different than the first sound. I think I described it in my statement as
though someone was shooting a revolver into a hard object--it seemed to
have some type of an echo.
...
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.
...
Mr. SPECTER. Now, what is your best estimate on the timespan between the
first firecracker-type noise you heard and the second shot which you have
described?
Mr. HILL. Approximately 5 seconds.
...

Mr. HILL. It was right, but I cannot say for sure that it was rear,
because when I mounted the car it was--it had a different sound, first of
all, than the first sound that I heard. The second one had almost a double
sound--as though you were standing against something metal and firing into
it, and you hear both the sound of a gun going off and the sound of the
cartridge hitting the metal place, which could have been caused probably
by the hard surface of the head. But I am not sure that that is what
caused it.
Mr. SPECTER. Are you describing this double sound with respect to what you
heard on the occasion of the second shot?
Mr. HILL. The second shot that I heard; yes, sir.
== UNQUOTE ==

I submit that Hill heard the shots at approximately Z223 and Z313. There is
90 frames between those two shots.

Post by ***@gmail.com
1. Most witnesses only heard one of the early shots and two at the end of
the attack.

At most that's three shots, at least that's two and the sound of one impact.

Post by ***@gmail.com
Only the last two were loud enough to provoke startle
reactions, beginning within a third of a second following frames 285
and then 313.

You're begging the question. Nobody but you accepts your arguments for the
supposed shot at Z285.
I'm giving you an alternate scenario that doesn't imply pop-up assassins
that fire and disappear.

Post by ***@gmail.com
http://youtu.be/cv7Lz25Xyno
2. Dr. Luis Alvarez determined that there was a startling noise at frame
285, speculating that it was a siren, mainly because as he stated
himself, 285 was too close to 313 for both to have been fired by
Oswald.
3. A single shot could not have startled the limo passengers at 285 and
then again, at 313.

Nobody buys the Z285 startle reactions you argue for except you.

Post by ***@gmail.com
I will not call Hank a liar. Perhaps he just forgot the full context of
the discussion in the skeptics forum.

I didn't forget. I reviewed it before I posted. You never did show why the
two-shot plus an impact scenario wouldn't explain the one early shot and
two later ones at least as well as yours does, but mine doesn't suffer
from multiple unseen assassins shooting from multiple unseen locations
using multiple unseen weapons.

Post by ***@gmail.com
Jay Utah had declared from the start, that the LN theory would be
considered the status quo and that somehow, that freed THEM from having to
provide any evidence or analysis demonstrating that Oswald acted alone.

The Warren Commission scenario is well known by you. You have the same
evidence we do on that side. A lone shooter is the default, because we
both know JFK died by gunfire in Dealey Plaza. Thus, if one shooter is the
most economical explanation, and can explain all the wounds, there's no
need to invoke two or more shooters, as your scenario does.

Post by ***@gmail.com
As Hank knows, I NEVER made a claim like that about my side of the case.
In fact, I liked nothing better, than proving that Oswald could not have
fired all of the shots.

You beg the question by assuming your scenario is correct, then argue that
Oswald couldn't get off two shots at Z285 and Z313.

Begging the question is just one of the logical fallacies you commit.

Post by ***@gmail.com
He could not have fired the shots at 285 and 313, which were 1.5 seconds
apart and he could not have fired any of the shots prior to 285, since
none of them were loud enough to provoke startle reactions among the limo
passengers like we see following 285 and 313.

Yep. Exactly that circular argument.

Post by ***@gmail.com
HSCA experts determined that the shockwave from Oswald's rifle measured
130 decibels, at ground level - many times louder to the ears of the limo
passengers than will provoke involuntary startle responses - like we
clearly see following 285 and 313.

Nobody except you clearly sees startle reactions at Z285 and Z313.

Post by ***@gmail.com
The fact that Hank never presented a shred of evidence for his theory, or
examples of witnesses claiming that gunshots to the heads of human or
animal skulls sounded like two separate high powered rifle shots, by
itself, makes his theory unworthy of consideration.

I presented the testimony of numerous witnesses that talked about the two
close shots, and examined, like for Hill above, how his testimony fit a
two-shot scenario.

Post by ***@gmail.com
The fact that he ignored 90% of the relevant facts related to this issue,

No I didn't.

Post by ***@gmail.com
proves that like his fellow nutters, he is helpless to refute the simple
fact that Oswald could not have been the only person shooting at the
President that day.

Still circular, Bob.

Post by ***@gmail.com
Bob Harris

[BT George]

Post by Hank Sienzant (AKA Joe Zircon)

Post by ***@gmail.com
Hank Sieznant argues that the headshot at 313 sounded like two high
powered rifle shots, thus explaining why the large consensus of witnesses
reported two closely spaced shots at the end of the attack.

Sienzant, Robert.
I didn't argue the headshot sounded like two high-powered rifle shots. I
said the sound of the gunshot, plus the impact on the head, sounded like
two separate shots. It may be that the sound of the impact on the limo
frame was the second sound.
Let's look at what Clint Hill said, for example: He said he heard only two
shots, about five seconds apart. Agreed?
== QUOTE ==
Representative BOGGS. This was the first shot?
Mr. HILL. This is the first sound that I heard; yes, sir. I jumped from
the car, realizing that something was wrong, ran to the Presidential
limousine. Just about as I reached it, there was another sound, which was
different than the first sound. I think I described it in my statement as
though someone was shooting a revolver into a hard object--it seemed to
have some type of an echo.
...
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.
...
Mr. SPECTER. Now, what is your best estimate on the timespan between the
first firecracker-type noise you heard and the second shot which you have
described?
Mr. HILL. Approximately 5 seconds.
...
Mr. HILL. It was right, but I cannot say for sure that it was rear,
because when I mounted the car it was--it had a different sound, first of
all, than the first sound that I heard. The second one had almost a double
sound--as though you were standing against something metal and firing into
it, and you hear both the sound of a gun going off and the sound of the
cartridge hitting the metal place, which could have been caused probably
by the hard surface of the head. But I am not sure that that is what
caused it.
Mr. SPECTER. Are you describing this double sound with respect to what you
heard on the occasion of the second shot?
Mr. HILL. The second shot that I heard; yes, sir.
== UNQUOTE ==
I submit that Hill heard the shots at approximately Z223 and Z313. There is
90 frames between those two shots.

Post by ***@gmail.com
1. Most witnesses only heard one of the early shots and two at the end of
the attack.

At most that's three shots, at least that's two and the sound of one impact.

Post by ***@gmail.com
Only the last two were loud enough to provoke startle
reactions, beginning within a third of a second following frames 285
and then 313.

You're begging the question. Nobody but you accepts your arguments for the
supposed shot at Z285.
I'm giving you an alternate scenario that doesn't imply pop-up assassins
that fire and disappear.

Post by ***@gmail.com
http://youtu.be/cv7Lz25Xyno
2. Dr. Luis Alvarez determined that there was a startling noise at frame
285, speculating that it was a siren, mainly because as he stated
himself, 285 was too close to 313 for both to have been fired by
Oswald.
3. A single shot could not have startled the limo passengers at 285 and
then again, at 313.

Nobody buys the Z285 startle reactions you argue for except you.

Post by ***@gmail.com
I will not call Hank a liar. Perhaps he just forgot the full context of
the discussion in the skeptics forum.

I didn't forget. I reviewed it before I posted. You never did show why the
two-shot plus an impact scenario wouldn't explain the one early shot and
two later ones at least as well as yours does, but mine doesn't suffer
from multiple unseen assassins shooting from multiple unseen locations
using multiple unseen weapons.

Post by ***@gmail.com
Jay Utah had declared from the start, that the LN theory would be
considered the status quo and that somehow, that freed THEM from having to
provide any evidence or analysis demonstrating that Oswald acted alone.

The Warren Commission scenario is well known by you. You have the same
evidence we do on that side. A lone shooter is the default, because we
both know JFK died by gunfire in Dealey Plaza. Thus, if one shooter is the
most economical explanation, and can explain all the wounds, there's no
need to invoke two or more shooters, as your scenario does.

Post by ***@gmail.com
As Hank knows, I NEVER made a claim like that about my side of the case.
In fact, I liked nothing better, than proving that Oswald could not have
fired all of the shots.

You beg the question by assuming your scenario is correct, then argue that
Oswald couldn't get off two shots at Z285 and Z313.
Begging the question is just one of the logical fallacies you commit.

Post by ***@gmail.com
He could not have fired the shots at 285 and 313, which were 1.5 seconds
apart and he could not have fired any of the shots prior to 285, since
none of them were loud enough to provoke startle reactions among the limo
passengers like we see following 285 and 313.

Yep. Exactly that circular argument.

Post by ***@gmail.com
HSCA experts determined that the shockwave from Oswald's rifle measured
130 decibels, at ground level - many times louder to the ears of the limo
passengers than will provoke involuntary startle responses - like we
clearly see following 285 and 313.

Nobody except you clearly sees startle reactions at Z285 and Z313.

Interestingly, some recognized experts *expressly* disagree with Bob as I
have told him:

https://groups.google.com/g/alt.assassination.jfk/c/gSCImh2OIGg/m/OSGyH8s2dOUJ

Yes. And you ignored virtually all of his other findings and the fact
that the HSCA Photographic panel specifically dissmissed the
startle/jiggle episode beginning around Z290 as follows:

"A fifth episode E possibly associated with a shot occurs at frames
290-293. Although it contains a very small blur detected both Hartmann and
Scott as well as a more substantial blur in Alvarez data, the Panel found
no visual indications of reactions to a shot by the limousine's occupants
coinciding with this segment of blur in the film."

In short Bob, the reality is that YOU are the only authority you really
agree with and the opinion of other experts (even when highly accomplished
ones) are easily brushed aside whenever it disagrees with YOUR beliefs."

Post by Hank Sienzant (AKA Joe Zircon)

Post by ***@gmail.com
The fact that Hank never presented a shred of evidence for his theory, or
examples of witnesses claiming that gunshots to the heads of human or
animal skulls sounded like two separate high powered rifle shots, by
itself, makes his theory unworthy of consideration.

I presented the testimony of numerous witnesses that talked about the two
close shots, and examined, like for Hill above, how his testimony fit a
two-shot scenario.

Post by ***@gmail.com
The fact that he ignored 90% of the relevant facts related to this issue,

No I didn't.

Post by ***@gmail.com
proves that like his fellow nutters, he is helpless to refute the simple
fact that Oswald could not have been the only person shooting at the
President that day.

Still circular, Bob.

Post by ***@gmail.com
Bob Harris

[Hank Sienzant (AKA Joe Zircon)]

Post by BT George

Post by Hank Sienzant (AKA Joe Zircon)

Post by ***@gmail.com
Hank Sieznant argues that the headshot at 313 sounded like two high
powered rifle shots, thus explaining why the large consensus of witnesses
reported two closely spaced shots at the end of the attack.

Sienzant, Robert.
I didn't argue the headshot sounded like two high-powered rifle shots. I
said the sound of the gunshot, plus the impact on the head, sounded like
two separate shots. It may be that the sound of the impact on the limo
frame was the second sound.
Let's look at what Clint Hill said, for example: He said he heard only two
shots, about five seconds apart. Agreed?
== QUOTE ==
Representative BOGGS. This was the first shot?
Mr. HILL. This is the first sound that I heard; yes, sir. I jumped from
the car, realizing that something was wrong, ran to the Presidential
limousine. Just about as I reached it, there was another sound, which was
different than the first sound. I think I described it in my statement as
though someone was shooting a revolver into a hard object--it seemed to
have some type of an echo.
...
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.
...
Mr. SPECTER. Now, what is your best estimate on the timespan between the
first firecracker-type noise you heard and the second shot which you have
described?
Mr. HILL. Approximately 5 seconds.
...
Mr. HILL. It was right, but I cannot say for sure that it was rear,
because when I mounted the car it was--it had a different sound, first of
all, than the first sound that I heard. The second one had almost a double
sound--as though you were standing against something metal and firing into
it, and you hear both the sound of a gun going off and the sound of the
cartridge hitting the metal place, which could have been caused probably
by the hard surface of the head. But I am not sure that that is what
caused it.
Mr. SPECTER. Are you describing this double sound with respect to what you
heard on the occasion of the second shot?
Mr. HILL. The second shot that I heard; yes, sir.
== UNQUOTE ==
I submit that Hill heard the shots at approximately Z223 and Z313. There is
90 frames between those two shots.

Post by ***@gmail.com
1. Most witnesses only heard one of the early shots and two at the end of
the attack.

At most that's three shots, at least that's two and the sound of one impact.

Post by ***@gmail.com
Only the last two were loud enough to provoke startle
reactions, beginning within a third of a second following frames 285
and then 313.

You're begging the question. Nobody but you accepts your arguments for the
supposed shot at Z285.
I'm giving you an alternate scenario that doesn't imply pop-up assassins
that fire and disappear.

Post by ***@gmail.com
http://youtu.be/cv7Lz25Xyno
2. Dr. Luis Alvarez determined that there was a startling noise at frame
285, speculating that it was a siren, mainly because as he stated
himself, 285 was too close to 313 for both to have been fired by
Oswald.
3. A single shot could not have startled the limo passengers at 285 and
then again, at 313.

Nobody buys the Z285 startle reactions you argue for except you.

Post by ***@gmail.com
I will not call Hank a liar. Perhaps he just forgot the full context of
the discussion in the skeptics forum.

I didn't forget. I reviewed it before I posted. You never did show why the
two-shot plus an impact scenario wouldn't explain the one early shot and
two later ones at least as well as yours does, but mine doesn't suffer
from multiple unseen assassins shooting from multiple unseen locations
using multiple unseen weapons.

Post by ***@gmail.com
Jay Utah had declared from the start, that the LN theory would be
considered the status quo and that somehow, that freed THEM from having to
provide any evidence or analysis demonstrating that Oswald acted alone.

The Warren Commission scenario is well known by you. You have the same
evidence we do on that side. A lone shooter is the default, because we
both know JFK died by gunfire in Dealey Plaza. Thus, if one shooter is the
most economical explanation, and can explain all the wounds, there's no
need to invoke two or more shooters, as your scenario does.

Post by ***@gmail.com
As Hank knows, I NEVER made a claim like that about my side of the case.
In fact, I liked nothing better, than proving that Oswald could not have
fired all of the shots.

You beg the question by assuming your scenario is correct, then argue that
Oswald couldn't get off two shots at Z285 and Z313.
Begging the question is just one of the logical fallacies you commit.

Post by ***@gmail.com
He could not have fired the shots at 285 and 313, which were 1.5 seconds
apart and he could not have fired any of the shots prior to 285, since
none of them were loud enough to provoke startle reactions among the limo
passengers like we see following 285 and 313.

Yep. Exactly that circular argument.

Post by ***@gmail.com
HSCA experts determined that the shockwave from Oswald's rifle measured
130 decibels, at ground level - many times louder to the ears of the limo
passengers than will provoke involuntary startle responses - like we
clearly see following 285 and 313.

Nobody except you clearly sees startle reactions at Z285 and Z313.

Interestingly, some recognized experts *expressly* disagree with Bob as I
https://groups.google.com/g/alt.assassination.jfk/c/gSCImh2OIGg/m/OSGyH8s2dOUJ
Yes. And you ignored virtually all of his other findings and the fact
that the HSCA Photographic panel specifically dissmissed the
"A fifth episode E possibly associated with a shot occurs at frames
290-293. Although it contains a very small blur detected both Hartmann and
Scott as well as a more substantial blur in Alvarez data, the Panel found
no visual indications of reactions to a shot by the limousine's occupants
coinciding with this segment of blur in the film."
In short Bob, the reality is that YOU are the only authority you really
agree with and the opinion of other experts (even when highly accomplished
ones) are easily brushed aside whenever it disagrees with YOUR beliefs."

So after his arguments got thoroughly trashed here (back in 2013) he went
to the International Skeptics site and saw his arguments get thoroughly
trashed there.

And now he's back to rinse and repeat.

Interesting.

Hank

[BT George]

Post by Hank Sienzant (AKA Joe Zircon)

Post by BT George

Post by Hank Sienzant (AKA Joe Zircon)

Post by ***@gmail.com
Hank Sieznant argues that the headshot at 313 sounded like two high
powered rifle shots, thus explaining why the large consensus of witnesses
reported two closely spaced shots at the end of the attack.

Sienzant, Robert.
I didn't argue the headshot sounded like two high-powered rifle shots. I
said the sound of the gunshot, plus the impact on the head, sounded like
two separate shots. It may be that the sound of the impact on the limo
frame was the second sound.
Let's look at what Clint Hill said, for example: He said he heard only two
shots, about five seconds apart. Agreed?
== QUOTE ==
Representative BOGGS. This was the first shot?
Mr. HILL. This is the first sound that I heard; yes, sir. I jumped from
the car, realizing that something was wrong, ran to the Presidential
limousine. Just about as I reached it, there was another sound, which was
different than the first sound. I think I described it in my statement as
though someone was shooting a revolver into a hard object--it seemed to
have some type of an echo.
...
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.
...
Mr. SPECTER. Now, what is your best estimate on the timespan between the
first firecracker-type noise you heard and the second shot which you have
described?
Mr. HILL. Approximately 5 seconds.
...
Mr. HILL. It was right, but I cannot say for sure that it was rear,
because when I mounted the car it was--it had a different sound, first of
all, than the first sound that I heard. The second one had almost a double
sound--as though you were standing against something metal and firing into
it, and you hear both the sound of a gun going off and the sound of the
cartridge hitting the metal place, which could have been caused probably
by the hard surface of the head. But I am not sure that that is what
caused it.
Mr. SPECTER. Are you describing this double sound with respect to what you
heard on the occasion of the second shot?
Mr. HILL. The second shot that I heard; yes, sir.
== UNQUOTE ==
I submit that Hill heard the shots at approximately Z223 and Z313. There is
90 frames between those two shots.

Post by ***@gmail.com
1. Most witnesses only heard one of the early shots and two at the end of
the attack.

At most that's three shots, at least that's two and the sound of one impact.

Post by ***@gmail.com
Only the last two were loud enough to provoke startle
reactions, beginning within a third of a second following frames 285
and then 313.

You're begging the question. Nobody but you accepts your arguments for the
supposed shot at Z285.
I'm giving you an alternate scenario that doesn't imply pop-up assassins
that fire and disappear.

Post by ***@gmail.com
http://youtu.be/cv7Lz25Xyno
2. Dr. Luis Alvarez determined that there was a startling noise at frame
285, speculating that it was a siren, mainly because as he stated
himself, 285 was too close to 313 for both to have been fired by
Oswald.
3. A single shot could not have startled the limo passengers at 285 and
then again, at 313.

Nobody buys the Z285 startle reactions you argue for except you.

Post by ***@gmail.com
I will not call Hank a liar. Perhaps he just forgot the full context of
the discussion in the skeptics forum.

I didn't forget. I reviewed it before I posted. You never did show why the
two-shot plus an impact scenario wouldn't explain the one early shot and
two later ones at least as well as yours does, but mine doesn't suffer
from multiple unseen assassins shooting from multiple unseen locations
using multiple unseen weapons.

Post by ***@gmail.com
Jay Utah had declared from the start, that the LN theory would be
considered the status quo and that somehow, that freed THEM from having to
provide any evidence or analysis demonstrating that Oswald acted alone.

The Warren Commission scenario is well known by you. You have the same
evidence we do on that side. A lone shooter is the default, because we
both know JFK died by gunfire in Dealey Plaza. Thus, if one shooter is the
most economical explanation, and can explain all the wounds, there's no
need to invoke two or more shooters, as your scenario does.

Post by ***@gmail.com
As Hank knows, I NEVER made a claim like that about my side of the case.
In fact, I liked nothing better, than proving that Oswald could not have
fired all of the shots.

You beg the question by assuming your scenario is correct, then argue that
Oswald couldn't get off two shots at Z285 and Z313.
Begging the question is just one of the logical fallacies you commit.

Post by ***@gmail.com
He could not have fired the shots at 285 and 313, which were 1.5 seconds
apart and he could not have fired any of the shots prior to 285, since
none of them were loud enough to provoke startle reactions among the limo
passengers like we see following 285 and 313.

Yep. Exactly that circular argument.

Post by ***@gmail.com
HSCA experts determined that the shockwave from Oswald's rifle measured
130 decibels, at ground level - many times louder to the ears of the limo
passengers than will provoke involuntary startle responses - like we
clearly see following 285 and 313.

Nobody except you clearly sees startle reactions at Z285 and Z313.

Interestingly, some recognized experts *expressly* disagree with Bob as I
https://groups.google.com/g/alt.assassination.jfk/c/gSCImh2OIGg/m/OSGyH8s2dOUJ
Yes. And you ignored virtually all of his other findings and the fact
that the HSCA Photographic panel specifically dissmissed the
"A fifth episode E possibly associated with a shot occurs at frames
290-293. Although it contains a very small blur detected both Hartmann and
Scott as well as a more substantial blur in Alvarez data, the Panel found
no visual indications of reactions to a shot by the limousine's occupants
coinciding with this segment of blur in the film."
In short Bob, the reality is that YOU are the only authority you really
agree with and the opinion of other experts (even when highly accomplished
ones) are easily brushed aside whenever it disagrees with YOUR beliefs."

So after his arguments got thoroughly trashed here (back in 2013) he went
to the International Skeptics site and saw his arguments get thoroughly
trashed there.
And now he's back to rinse and repeat.
Interesting.
Hank

Correct. He's always hoping for a new set of dupes.

[John Corbett]

Post by BT George

Post by Hank Sienzant (AKA Joe Zircon)

Post by BT George

Post by Hank Sienzant (AKA Joe Zircon)

Post by ***@gmail.com
Hank Sieznant argues that the headshot at 313 sounded like two high
powered rifle shots, thus explaining why the large consensus of witnesses
reported two closely spaced shots at the end of the attack.

Sienzant, Robert.
I didn't argue the headshot sounded like two high-powered rifle shots. I
said the sound of the gunshot, plus the impact on the head, sounded like
two separate shots. It may be that the sound of the impact on the limo
frame was the second sound.
Let's look at what Clint Hill said, for example: He said he heard only two
shots, about five seconds apart. Agreed?
== QUOTE ==
Representative BOGGS. This was the first shot?
Mr. HILL. This is the first sound that I heard; yes, sir. I jumped from
the car, realizing that something was wrong, ran to the Presidential
limousine. Just about as I reached it, there was another sound, which was
different than the first sound. I think I described it in my statement as
though someone was shooting a revolver into a hard object--it seemed to
have some type of an echo.
...
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.
...
Mr. SPECTER. Now, what is your best estimate on the timespan between the
first firecracker-type noise you heard and the second shot which you have
described?
Mr. HILL. Approximately 5 seconds.
...
Mr. HILL. It was right, but I cannot say for sure that it was rear,
because when I mounted the car it was--it had a different sound, first of
all, than the first sound that I heard. The second one had almost a double
sound--as though you were standing against something metal and firing into
it, and you hear both the sound of a gun going off and the sound of the
cartridge hitting the metal place, which could have been caused probably
by the hard surface of the head. But I am not sure that that is what
caused it.
Mr. SPECTER. Are you describing this double sound with respect to what you
heard on the occasion of the second shot?
Mr. HILL. The second shot that I heard; yes, sir.
== UNQUOTE ==
I submit that Hill heard the shots at approximately Z223 and Z313. There is
90 frames between those two shots.

Post by ***@gmail.com
1. Most witnesses only heard one of the early shots and two at the end of
the attack.

At most that's three shots, at least that's two and the sound of one impact.

Post by ***@gmail.com
Only the last two were loud enough to provoke startle
reactions, beginning within a third of a second following frames 285
and then 313.

You're begging the question. Nobody but you accepts your arguments for the
supposed shot at Z285.
I'm giving you an alternate scenario that doesn't imply pop-up assassins
that fire and disappear.

Post by ***@gmail.com
http://youtu.be/cv7Lz25Xyno
2. Dr. Luis Alvarez determined that there was a startling noise at frame
285, speculating that it was a siren, mainly because as he stated
himself, 285 was too close to 313 for both to have been fired by
Oswald.
3. A single shot could not have startled the limo passengers at 285 and
then again, at 313.

Nobody buys the Z285 startle reactions you argue for except you.

Post by ***@gmail.com
I will not call Hank a liar. Perhaps he just forgot the full context of
the discussion in the skeptics forum.

I didn't forget. I reviewed it before I posted. You never did show why the
two-shot plus an impact scenario wouldn't explain the one early shot and
two later ones at least as well as yours does, but mine doesn't suffer
from multiple unseen assassins shooting from multiple unseen locations
using multiple unseen weapons.

Post by ***@gmail.com
Jay Utah had declared from the start, that the LN theory would be
considered the status quo and that somehow, that freed THEM from having to
provide any evidence or analysis demonstrating that Oswald acted alone.

The Warren Commission scenario is well known by you. You have the same
evidence we do on that side. A lone shooter is the default, because we
both know JFK died by gunfire in Dealey Plaza. Thus, if one shooter is the
most economical explanation, and can explain all the wounds, there's no
need to invoke two or more shooters, as your scenario does.

Post by ***@gmail.com
As Hank knows, I NEVER made a claim like that about my side of the case.
In fact, I liked nothing better, than proving that Oswald could not have
fired all of the shots.

You beg the question by assuming your scenario is correct, then argue that
Oswald couldn't get off two shots at Z285 and Z313.
Begging the question is just one of the logical fallacies you commit.

Post by ***@gmail.com
He could not have fired the shots at 285 and 313, which were 1.5 seconds
apart and he could not have fired any of the shots prior to 285, since
none of them were loud enough to provoke startle reactions among the limo
passengers like we see following 285 and 313.

Yep. Exactly that circular argument.

Post by ***@gmail.com
HSCA experts determined that the shockwave from Oswald's rifle measured
130 decibels, at ground level - many times louder to the ears of the limo
passengers than will provoke involuntary startle responses - like we
clearly see following 285 and 313.

Nobody except you clearly sees startle reactions at Z285 and Z313.

Interestingly, some recognized experts *expressly* disagree with Bob as I
https://groups.google.com/g/alt.assassination.jfk/c/gSCImh2OIGg/m/OSGyH8s2dOUJ
Yes. And you ignored virtually all of his other findings and the fact
that the HSCA Photographic panel specifically dissmissed the
"A fifth episode E possibly associated with a shot occurs at frames
290-293. Although it contains a very small blur detected both Hartmann and
Scott as well as a more substantial blur in Alvarez data, the Panel found
no visual indications of reactions to a shot by the limousine's occupants
coinciding with this segment of blur in the film."
In short Bob, the reality is that YOU are the only authority you really
agree with and the opinion of other experts (even when highly accomplished
ones) are easily brushed aside whenever it disagrees with YOUR beliefs."

So after his arguments got thoroughly trashed here (back in 2013) he went
to the International Skeptics site and saw his arguments get thoroughly
trashed there.
And now he's back to rinse and repeat.
Interesting.
Hank

Correct. He's always hoping for a new set of dupes.

His pattern seems to be to bounce around from one group to the next in
hopes somebody will buy his bridge. He was probably hoping there would be
some new blood in this group but that doesn't seem to be the case. When I
found this group back in 2008, there were a lot more regulars than there
are now. Interest in the subject seems to be waning with each passing year
and old chestnuts like Bob's imagined 285 shot aren't likely to rekindle
any.

[c***@gmail.com]

Post by ***@gmail.com
Hank Sieznant argues that the headshot at 313 sounded like two high
powered rifle shots, thus explaining why the large consensus of witnesses
reported two closely spaced shots at the end of the attack.
1. Most witnesses only heard one of the early shots and two at the end of
the attack. Only the last two were loud enough to provoke startle
reactions, beginning within a third of a second following frames 285
and then 313.
http://youtu.be/cv7Lz25Xyno
2. Dr. Luis Alvarez determined that there was a startling noise at frame
285, speculating that it was a siren, mainly because as he stated
himself, 285 was too close to 313 for both to have been fired by
Oswald.
3. A single shot could not have startled the limo passengers at 285 and
then again, at 313.
I will not call Hank a liar. Perhaps he just forgot the full context of
the discussion in the skeptics forum.
Jay Utah had declared from the start, that the LN theory would be
considered the status quo and that somehow, that freed THEM from having to
provide any evidence or analysis demonstrating that Oswald acted alone.
As Hank knows, I NEVER made a claim like that about my side of the case.
In fact, I liked nothing better, than proving that Oswald could not have
fired all of the shots.
He could not have fired the shots at 285 and 313, which were 1.5 seconds
apart and he could not have fired any of the shots prior to 285, since
none of them were loud enough to provoke startle reactions among the limo
passengers like we see following 285 and 313.
HSCA experts determined that the shockwave from Oswald's rifle measured
130 decibels, at ground level - many times louder to the ears of the limo
passengers than will provoke involuntary startle responses - like we
clearly see following 285 and 313.
The fact that Hank never presented a shred of evidence for his theory, or
examples of witnesses claiming that gunshots to the heads of human or
animal skulls sounded like two separate high powered rifle shots, by
itself, makes his theory unworthy of consideration.
The fact that he ignored 90% of the relevant facts related to this issue,
proves that like his fellow nutters, he is helpless to refute the simple
fact that Oswald could not have been the only person shooting at the
President that day.
Bob Harris

Round and round and round we go...

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?t=279669&page=45

[Hank Sienzant (AKA Joe Zircon)]

Post by ***@gmail.com
Hank Sieznant argues that the headshot at 313 sounded like two high
powered rifle shots, thus explaining why the large consensus of witnesses
reported two closely spaced shots at the end of the attack.
1. Most witnesses only heard one of the early shots and two at the end of
the attack. Only the last two were loud enough to provoke startle
reactions, beginning within a third of a second following frames 285
and then 313.
http://youtu.be/cv7Lz25Xyno
2. Dr. Luis Alvarez determined that there was a startling noise at frame
285, speculating that it was a siren, mainly because as he stated
himself, 285 was too close to 313 for both to have been fired by
Oswald.
3. A single shot could not have startled the limo passengers at 285 and
then again, at 313.
I will not call Hank a liar. Perhaps he just forgot the full context of
the discussion in the skeptics forum.

...

Post by ***@gmail.com
The fact that Hank never presented a shred of evidence for his theory, or
examples of witnesses claiming that gunshots to the heads of human or
animal skulls sounded like two separate high powered rifle shots, by
itself, makes his theory unworthy of consideration.
The fact that he ignored 90% of the relevant facts related to this issue,
proves that like his fellow nutters, he is helpless to refute the simple
fact that Oswald could not have been the only person shooting at the
President that day.
Bob Harris

If you need a refresher course on my argument, you can find it starting
here:
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=10752298&postcount=2869

You will see I presented evidence starting with the first post.

Hank

[[e-mail]]

Post by Hank Sienzant (AKA Joe Zircon)

Post by ***@gmail.com
Hank Sieznant argues that the headshot at 313 sounded like two high
powered rifle shots, thus explaining why the large consensus of witnesses
reported two closely spaced shots at the end of the attack.
1. Most witnesses only heard one of the early shots and two at the end of
the attack. Only the last two were loud enough to provoke startle
reactions, beginning within a third of a second following frames 285
and then 313.
http://youtu.be/cv7Lz25Xyno
2. Dr. Luis Alvarez determined that there was a startling noise at frame
285, speculating that it was a siren, mainly because as he stated
himself, 285 was too close to 313 for both to have been fired by
Oswald.
3. A single shot could not have startled the limo passengers at 285 and
then again, at 313.
I will not call Hank a liar. Perhaps he just forgot the full context of
the discussion in the skeptics forum.

...

Post by ***@gmail.com
The fact that Hank never presented a shred of evidence for his theory, or
examples of witnesses claiming that gunshots to the heads of human or
animal skulls sounded like two separate high powered rifle shots, by
itself, makes his theory unworthy of consideration.
The fact that he ignored 90% of the relevant facts related to this issue,
proves that like his fellow nutters, he is helpless to refute the simple
fact that Oswald could not have been the only person shooting at the
President that day.
Bob Harris

If you need a refresher course on my argument, you can find it starting
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=10752298&postcount=2869

How can you embarrass yourself like this? Over and over you respond to
witnesses confirming closely bunched shots at the end of the attack,
claiming that they didn't say 285!

They probably didn't know who Zapruder was.

Just like here, Hank. You did nothing except evade the crux of the
argument. You pretend that the reactions to the shot at 285 were just a
matter of subjective opinion.

But I have proven many times in this newsgroup that three people began to
drop their heads within the same 1/6th of a second, following 285, by at
least 30 degrees. Bill Greer began to make almost inhuman turns, beginning
in that same fraction of a second, which also happens to be when Dr.
Alvarez identified Abraham Zapruder being startled.

That's 5 people reacting at almost exactly the same instant.

High powered rifles generate extreme sound levels. Oswald's was confirmed
to generate a 130 decibel shock wave within 10 feet of the bullet's path.
That's many times louder than the level at which involuntary startle
reactions will occur. Other high powered rifles are louder than his.
Obviously, it was that rifle or one like it that caused those reactions.

We ONLY see startle responses, within a third of a second following 285
and then 313.

But to the ears of the limo passengers, the early shots would have been
the loudest and most startling. Not only was no-one ducking, spinning at
high speed, etc. prior to 285, but only ONE of those early shots was even
noticed. They did NOT come from Oswald's or anyone else's high powered
rifle.



Robert Harris

[John Corbett]

Post by ***@gmail.com

Post by Hank Sienzant (AKA Joe Zircon)

Post by ***@gmail.com
Hank Sieznant argues that the headshot at 313 sounded like two high
powered rifle shots, thus explaining why the large consensus of witnesses
reported two closely spaced shots at the end of the attack.
1. Most witnesses only heard one of the early shots and two at the end of
the attack. Only the last two were loud enough to provoke startle
reactions, beginning within a third of a second following frames 285
and then 313.
http://youtu.be/cv7Lz25Xyno
2. Dr. Luis Alvarez determined that there was a startling noise at frame
285, speculating that it was a siren, mainly because as he stated
himself, 285 was too close to 313 for both to have been fired by
Oswald.
3. A single shot could not have startled the limo passengers at 285 and
then again, at 313.
I will not call Hank a liar. Perhaps he just forgot the full context of
the discussion in the skeptics forum.

...

Post by ***@gmail.com
The fact that Hank never presented a shred of evidence for his theory, or
examples of witnesses claiming that gunshots to the heads of human or
animal skulls sounded like two separate high powered rifle shots, by
itself, makes his theory unworthy of consideration.
The fact that he ignored 90% of the relevant facts related to this issue,
proves that like his fellow nutters, he is helpless to refute the simple
fact that Oswald could not have been the only person shooting at the
President that day.
Bob Harris

If you need a refresher course on my argument, you can find it starting
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=10752298&postcount=2869

How can you embarrass yourself like this? Over and over you respond to
witnesses confirming closely bunched shots at the end of the attack,
claiming that they didn't say 285!

Witnesses don't confirm. Witnesses need to be confirmed.

Post by ***@gmail.com
They probably didn't know who Zapruder was.
Just like here, Hank. You did nothing except evade the crux of the
argument. You pretend that the reactions to the shot at 285 were just a
matter of subjective opinion.

They are. Your subjective opinion. I don't know anyone on this newsgroup
that shares your opinion.

Post by ***@gmail.com
But I have proven many times in this newsgroup that three people began to
drop their heads within the same 1/6th of a second, following 285, by at
least 30 degrees. Bill Greer began to make almost inhuman turns, beginning
in that same fraction of a second, which also happens to be when Dr.
Alvarez identified Abraham Zapruder being startled.

You've claimed that countless times and proven it zero.

Post by ***@gmail.com
That's 5 people reacting at almost exactly the same instant.

You assume their movements are reactions. In reality they are
continuations of movements that began before Z285.

Post by ***@gmail.com
High powered rifles generate extreme sound levels. Oswald's was confirmed
to generate a 130 decibel shock wave within 10 feet of the bullet's path.
That's many times louder than the level at which involuntary startle
reactions will occur. Other high powered rifles are louder than his.
Obviously, it was that rifle or one like it that caused those reactions.

The fragmented bullet which was the head shot has been positively
identified as coming from Oswald's rifle and that bullet struck at Z313.
That pretty much eliminates that rifle having fired a shot at Z285.

Post by ***@gmail.com
We ONLY see startle responses, within a third of a second following 285
and then 313.
But to the ears of the limo passengers, the early shots would have been
the loudest and most startling. Not only was no-one ducking, spinning at
high speed, etc. prior to 285, but only ONE of those early shots was even
noticed. They did NOT come from Oswald's or anyone else's high powered
rifle.

Your mistake (actually one of many) is you assume how people would react
to the sound of a rifle. Connolly has testified he heard the early shot
and immediately rec= ognized it as a rifle shot. He didn't react by
ducking. He reacted by turning to look over his right shoulder where he
perceived the shot came from. We see him do that at Z164.

We should probably thank you for returning because it actually gives us
something to talk about regarding the JFK assassination. There hasn't been
much new to talk about lately which is why so many threads have cropped up
unrelated to JFK and why John is now clamping down. We haven't had to deal
with your nonsense for so long that it almost seems fresh. I have no doubt
it will become boring soon too, but for now it gives us something to talk
about that is relevant to the assassination.

[Anthony Marsh]

Post by ***@gmail.com

Post by Hank Sienzant (AKA Joe Zircon)

Post by ***@gmail.com
Hank Sieznant argues that the headshot at 313 sounded like two high
powered rifle shots, thus explaining why the large consensus of witnesses
reported two closely spaced shots at the end of the attack.
1. Most witnesses only heard one of the early shots and two at the end of
the attack. Only the last two were loud enough to provoke startle
reactions, beginning within a third of a second following frames 285
and then 313.
http://youtu.be/cv7Lz25Xyno
2. Dr. Luis Alvarez determined that there was a startling noise at frame
285, speculating that it was a siren, mainly because as he stated
himself, 285 was too close to 313 for both to have been fired by
Oswald.
3. A single shot could not have startled the limo passengers at 285 and
then again, at 313.
I will not call Hank a liar. Perhaps he just forgot the full context of
the discussion in the skeptics forum.

...

Post by ***@gmail.com
The fact that Hank never presented a shred of evidence for his theory, or
examples of witnesses claiming that gunshots to the heads of human or
animal skulls sounded like two separate high powered rifle shots, by
itself, makes his theory unworthy of consideration.
The fact that he ignored 90% of the relevant facts related to this issue,
proves that like his fellow nutters, he is helpless to refute the simple
fact that Oswald could not have been the only person shooting at the
President that day.
Bob Harris

If you need a refresher course on my argument, you can find it starting
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=10752298&postcount=2869

How can you embarrass yourself like this? Over and over you respond to
witnesses confirming closely bunched shots at the end of the attack,
claiming that they didn't say 285!
They probably didn't know who Zapruder was.
Just like here, Hank. You did nothing except evade the crux of the
argument. You pretend that the reactions to the shot at 285 were just a
matter of subjective opinion.
But I have proven many times in this newsgroup that three people began to
drop their heads within the same 1/6th of a second, following 285, by at
least 30 degrees. Bill Greer began to make almost inhuman turns, beginning
in that same fraction of a second, which also happens to be when Dr.
Alvarez identified Abraham Zapruder being startled.
That's 5 people reacting at almost exactly the same instant.
High powered rifles generate extreme sound levels. Oswald's was confirmed
to generate a 130 decibel shock wave within 10 feet of the bullet's path.
That's many times louder than the level at which involuntary startle
reactions will occur. Other high powered rifles are louder than his.
Obviously, it was that rifle or one like it that caused those reactions.
We ONLY see startle responses, within a third of a second following 285
and then 313.
But to the ears of the limo passengers, the early shots would have been
the loudest and most startling. Not only was no-one ducking, spinning at
high speed, etc. prior to 285, but only ONE of those early shots was even
noticed. They did NOT come from Oswald's or anyone else's high powered
rifle.
Robert Harris

How dARE YOU?

Using logic and science? Don't you know wich newsgroup you are in? This
newsgroup is only for personal insults. Save the serious messssges for the
Nut House.

[Hank Sienzant (AKA Joe Zircon)]

Post by Anthony Marsh

Post by ***@gmail.com

Post by Hank Sienzant (AKA Joe Zircon)

Post by ***@gmail.com
Hank Sieznant argues that the headshot at 313 sounded like two high
powered rifle shots, thus explaining why the large consensus of witnesses
reported two closely spaced shots at the end of the attack.
1. Most witnesses only heard one of the early shots and two at the end of
the attack. Only the last two were loud enough to provoke startle
reactions, beginning within a third of a second following frames 285
and then 313.
http://youtu.be/cv7Lz25Xyno
2. Dr. Luis Alvarez determined that there was a startling noise at frame
285, speculating that it was a siren, mainly because as he stated
himself, 285 was too close to 313 for both to have been fired by
Oswald.
3. A single shot could not have startled the limo passengers at 285 and
then again, at 313.
I will not call Hank a liar. Perhaps he just forgot the full context of
the discussion in the skeptics forum.

...

Post by ***@gmail.com
The fact that Hank never presented a shred of evidence for his theory, or
examples of witnesses claiming that gunshots to the heads of human or
animal skulls sounded like two separate high powered rifle shots, by
itself, makes his theory unworthy of consideration.
The fact that he ignored 90% of the relevant facts related to this issue,
proves that like his fellow nutters, he is helpless to refute the simple
fact that Oswald could not have been the only person shooting at the
President that day.
Bob Harris

If you need a refresher course on my argument, you can find it starting
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=10752298&postcount=2869

How can you embarrass yourself like this? Over and over you respond to
witnesses confirming closely bunched shots at the end of the attack,
claiming that they didn't say 285!
They probably didn't know who Zapruder was.
Just like here, Hank. You did nothing except evade the crux of the
argument. You pretend that the reactions to the shot at 285 were just a
matter of subjective opinion.
But I have proven many times in this newsgroup that three people began to
drop their heads within the same 1/6th of a second, following 285, by at
least 30 degrees. Bill Greer began to make almost inhuman turns, beginning
in that same fraction of a second, which also happens to be when Dr.
Alvarez identified Abraham Zapruder being startled.
That's 5 people reacting at almost exactly the same instant.
High powered rifles generate extreme sound levels. Oswald's was confirmed
to generate a 130 decibel shock wave within 10 feet of the bullet's path.
That's many times louder than the level at which involuntary startle
reactions will occur. Other high powered rifles are louder than his.
Obviously, it was that rifle or one like it that caused those reactions.
We ONLY see startle responses, within a third of a second following 285
and then 313.
But to the ears of the limo passengers, the early shots would have been
the loudest and most startling. Not only was no-one ducking, spinning at
high speed, etc. prior to 285, but only ONE of those early shots was even
noticed. They did NOT come from Oswald's or anyone else's high powered
rifle.
Robert Harris

How dARE YOU?
Using logic and science? Don't you know wich newsgroup you are in? This
newsgroup is only for personal insults. Save the serious messssges for the
Nut House.

Bob's logic' is pretty much limited to logical fallacies, mostly begging
the question, but he throws in other logical fallacies like ad hominem,
shifting the burden of proof, and non sequiturs as well. And no, pointing
out Bob's penchant for relying on logical fallacies is not a personal
insult. It's an attack on his methodology and his argument.

Hank

[Hank Sienzant (AKA Joe Zircon)]

Post by ***@gmail.com

Post by Hank Sienzant (AKA Joe Zircon)

Post by ***@gmail.com
Hank Sieznant argues that the headshot at 313 sounded like two high
powered rifle shots, thus explaining why the large consensus of witnesses
reported two closely spaced shots at the end of the attack.
1. Most witnesses only heard one of the early shots and two at the end of
the attack. Only the last two were loud enough to provoke startle
reactions, beginning within a third of a second following frames 285
and then 313.
http://youtu.be/cv7Lz25Xyno
2. Dr. Luis Alvarez determined that there was a startling noise at frame
285, speculating that it was a siren, mainly because as he stated
himself, 285 was too close to 313 for both to have been fired by
Oswald.
3. A single shot could not have startled the limo passengers at 285 and
then again, at 313.
I will not call Hank a liar. Perhaps he just forgot the full context of
the discussion in the skeptics forum.

...

Post by ***@gmail.com
The fact that Hank never presented a shred of evidence for his theory, or
examples of witnesses claiming that gunshots to the heads of human or
animal skulls sounded like two separate high powered rifle shots, by
itself, makes his theory unworthy of consideration.
The fact that he ignored 90% of the relevant facts related to this issue,
proves that like his fellow nutters, he is helpless to refute the simple
fact that Oswald could not have been the only person shooting at the
President that day.
Bob Harris

If you need a refresher course on my argument, you can find it starting
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=10752298&postcount=2869

How can you embarrass yourself like this? Over and over you respond to
witnesses confirming closely bunched shots at the end of the attack,
claiming that they didn't say 285!

Stop pretending to rebut my arguments. I never said anything of the sort,
and we both know you won't be able to quote me saying anything of the
sort.

Post by ***@gmail.com
They probably didn't know who Zapruder was.

Not I, Bob.

*YOU* were the one who cited the testimony to exclude a shot linked to a
specific Zapruder frame! Did you forget?

You did that here: https://groups.google.com/g/alt.assassination.jfk/c/BxoRWELvBOQ/m/QPPwB1j1BwAJ
When you wrote: "But no one heard the one at 223."

I established the likelihood that Clint Hill, who said he heard two shots,
the head shot plus an earlier shot, about five seconds earlier, most
likely heard the shots at Z223 and Z313, as there is about 4.9 seconds
between those shots.

You argued with the witness, telling us why Hill was confused about all
that. But his recollection matches almost perfectly with two shots you
admit were fired, and yet you discard his recollection.

I asked you what frames you link Hill's testimony to, if not Z223 and
Z313. You ignored the question. So I'll ask again: What two frames do you
link Hill's two shots, fired about five seconds apart, to in the Zapruder
film?

Post by ***@gmail.com
Just like here, Hank. You did nothing except evade the crux of the
argument. You pretend that the reactions to the shot at 285 were just a
matter of subjective opinion.

I did not. I pointed out the logical fallacies you're invoking in making
the claim. You are begging the question when you claim they are "reactions
to the shot at 285". You are begging the question when you claim you are
an objective observer. You are donning a mantel of expertise you don't
possess to make the claims you make.

Post by ***@gmail.com
But I have proven many times in this newsgroup that three people began to
drop their heads within the same 1/6th of a second, following 285, by at
least 30 degrees. Bill Greer began to make almost inhuman turns, beginning
in that same fraction of a second, which also happens to be when Dr.
Alvarez identified Abraham Zapruder being startled.
That's 5 people reacting at almost exactly the same instant.

That's what *you* see. That's not what everyone sees. It has been
explained to you that some of these "reactions" you profess to see don't
start after Z285, like Jackie's. It's been explained that not everyone
reacts the same way to loud noises, it's been explained that you have no
evidence of a rifle being fired at that time, it's been explained that
large fragments found in the limo link to Oswald's weapon, and those large
fragments establish beyond any doubt that Oswald's weapon fired the fatal
head shot at Z313, but you ignore all that to continue to assert an
unproven shot at Z285 based on what you think you see in the film.

Post by ***@gmail.com
High powered rifles generate extreme sound levels. Oswald's was confirmed
to generate a 130 decibel shock wave within 10 feet of the bullet's path.
That's many times louder than the level at which involuntary startle
reactions will occur. Other high powered rifles are louder than his.
Obviously, it was that rifle or one like it that caused those reactions.

Obviously, this is just more begging the question of "reactions to a loud
noise", just as you begged the others above it.

Post by ***@gmail.com
We ONLY see startle responses, within a third of a second following 285
and then 313.

Who is this "We" in the above? You mean, "I, Robert Harris" above, don't
you?

Who else is included in this "We" of which you write, Bob?

Post by ***@gmail.com
But to the ears of the limo passengers, the early shots would have been
the loudest and most startling. Not only was no-one ducking, spinning at
high speed, etc. prior to 285, but only ONE of those early shots was even
noticed. They did NOT come from Oswald's or anyone else's high powered
rifle.

You mean the silenced weapons that no one saw, carried into buildings by
assassins no one saw, brought out of buildings by the assassins no one
saw, that struck no one and left no trace of themselves anywhere?

Those shots from those weapons?

As I have pointed out before, your evidence for silenced weapons used in
the JFK assassination is exactly as strong as the evidence for pink
unicorns acting as spotters for these supposed assassins with silenced
weapons you conjecture.

There is no evidence for assassins (plural), one or more silenced weapons
wielded by one or more assassins, or pink unicorns acting as spotters.
None whatsover. They all fit into the realm of fantasy. And they can be
explained the same way you explain the lack of evidence for these silenced
weapons and assassins. They didn't want to be seen, so they weren't.

Hank

[Hank Sienzant (AKA Joe Zircon)]

Post by ***@gmail.com

Post by Hank Sienzant (AKA Joe Zircon)

Post by ***@gmail.com
Hank Sieznant argues that the headshot at 313 sounded like two high
powered rifle shots, thus explaining why the large consensus of witnesses
reported two closely spaced shots at the end of the attack.
1. Most witnesses only heard one of the early shots and two at the end of
the attack. Only the last two were loud enough to provoke startle
reactions, beginning within a third of a second following frames 285
and then 313.
http://youtu.be/cv7Lz25Xyno
2. Dr. Luis Alvarez determined that there was a startling noise at frame
285, speculating that it was a siren, mainly because as he stated
himself, 285 was too close to 313 for both to have been fired by
Oswald.
3. A single shot could not have startled the limo passengers at 285 and
then again, at 313.
I will not call Hank a liar. Perhaps he just forgot the full context of
the discussion in the skeptics forum.

...

Post by ***@gmail.com
The fact that Hank never presented a shred of evidence for his theory, or
examples of witnesses claiming that gunshots to the heads of human or
animal skulls sounded like two separate high powered rifle shots, by
itself, makes his theory unworthy of consideration.
The fact that he ignored 90% of the relevant facts related to this issue,
proves that like his fellow nutters, he is helpless to refute the simple
fact that Oswald could not have been the only person shooting at the
President that day.
Bob Harris

If you need a refresher course on my argument, you can find it starting
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=10752298&postcount=2869

How can you embarrass yourself like this? Over and over you respond to
witnesses confirming closely bunched shots at the end of the attack,
claiming that they didn't say 285!
They probably didn't know who Zapruder was.
Just like here, Hank. You did nothing except evade the crux of the
argument. You pretend that the reactions to the shot at 285 were just a
matter of subjective opinion.
But I have proven many times in this newsgroup that three people began to
drop their heads within the same 1/6th of a second, following 285, by at
least 30 degrees. Bill Greer began to make almost inhuman turns, beginning
in that same fraction of a second, which also happens to be when Dr.
Alvarez identified Abraham Zapruder being startled.
That's 5 people reacting at almost exactly the same instant.
High powered rifles generate extreme sound levels. Oswald's was confirmed
to generate a 130 decibel shock wave within 10 feet of the bullet's path.
That's many times louder than the level at which involuntary startle
reactions will occur. Other high powered rifles are louder than his.
Obviously, it was that rifle or one like it that caused those reactions.
We ONLY see startle responses, within a third of a second following 285
and then 313.
But to the ears of the limo passengers, the early shots would have been
the loudest and most startling. Not only was no-one ducking, spinning at
high speed, etc. prior to 285, but only ONE of those early shots was even
noticed. They did NOT come from Oswald's or anyone else's high powered
rifle.
Robert Harris

Hi Bob,

Is there a reason you ignored my earlier post, here...

https://groups.google.com/g/alt.assassination.jfk/c/AkODqiAPPTo/m/e6IyCM7VBwAJ

... where I went into greater detail about what I think you got wrong and
why, and instead responded only to the lesser throwaway post where I
pointed out a link to where your arguments were debated in great detail on
another forum, while excising anything beyond the link?


Hank