From - Mon Dec 09 11:37:16 1996 From: brundage@aimnet.com (Martin Brundage) Newsgroups: alt.conspiracy.jfk,alt.conspiracy.jfk.moderated Subject: Re: Was There a Shot at Z-285? Approved: aja@thuntek.net Followup-To: alt.conspiracy.jfk.moderated Date: Sun, 08 Dec 1996 03:27:58 GMT Organization: Netcom Lines: 845 Message-ID: <32a9e631.132141068@nntp.ix.netcom.com> References: <6DEC199611434819@csa1.lbl.gov> Reply-To: brundage@aimnet.com X-NETCOM-Date: Sat Dec 07 7:28:36 PM PST 1996 X-Newsreader: Forte Agent .99d/32.182 Content-Type: text Content-Length: 42578 Status: O Originator: jmcadams@homer.thenet.net NNTP-Posting-Host: 206.64.182.2 Path: mcadams.posc.mu.edu!jmcadams Although Robert Harris is more than capable of defending his Z-285 theory, I am posting this reply because of the subtle logical flaws in the argument presented in this article, which tend to be obscured by the details of the Z-285 theory under discussion. Harris' theory is important insofar as it appears to be the first proven hard evidence of conspiracy in the JFK case. The value of refutations of Harris theory, therefore, are of interest. zeitlin@csa1.lbl.gov (Cary Zeitlin) wrote: > 1. Introduction > a. Harris' Shooting Scenario > b. How Could a Professional Shooter Miss So Badly? > 2. Eye- and Earwitness Testimony > 3. The (Absence of) Hard Physical Evidence Supporting a 285 Shot > a. The Weapon and Bullets > b. The Wounds > 4. The "Jiggle" Analyses of the Zapruder Film > a. Alvarez' Analysis and Discoveries > b. Stroscio's Analysis -- A Possible Early Shot > c. Stroscio on the Effect of Bullet Shock Waves > d. The HSCA Analysis > 5. The Geometry of Shock Wave Propagation > 6. Conclusions > 7. Summary > > > > COULD THERE HAVE BEEN A SHOT AT Z284/285? > > Cary Zeitlin > > > >1. INTRODUCTION > >Robert Harris has put forth the claim that he has found absolute, irrefutable >proof of a shot at Z284/5. Mr. Harris raises several interesting points in his >analysis, which is certainly worthy of a response. In the following, I will >attempt to address these points systematically. As discussed below, it is >impossible to either fully prove or disprove Mr. Harris' speculations; but >we can assess the separate components that he points to as evidence, and >decide whether the case for the Z284/5 shot is as clear-cut as he claims. > > >1a. Harris' Shooting Scenario > >Mr. Harris believes the first shot was fired from the TSBD around Z186, and >struck both President Kennedy and Governor Connally. This is the same time >the HSCA investigation determined that the so-called magic bullet struck. >More recent single-assassin scenarios cite the flip of Governor Connally's >lapel at frame Z224 as strong evidence of a bullet strike in the preceding >frame or two. Mr. Harris dismisses the lapel flip as having been caused by >a gust of wind, and posits a considerable delay in Gov. Connally's reaction >to his wounds. > >According to Harris, the second shot came from the Dal-Tex building, and >missed high over the limousine and its occupants. This bullet is said by >Harris to have continued on to strike either Main St. or possibly the curb >in front of James Tague. Whether it struck one spot or the other, Harris >believes this bullet caused the damage to the curb and the small cut on >Tague's cheek. Mr. Harris claims this bullet passed closest to the limousine >somewhere in the range Z284/285. > >The third shot, in this scenario, is the fatal bullet which struck the >President at approximately frame 313, some 1.5-1.6 seconds after the 284/5 >shot. If the TSBD shooter had fired Oswald's Mannlicher-Carcano rifle for a >284/5 shot, he would almost certainly not have been able to work the bolt and >re-acquire the target quickly enough to make a shot at 313. Thus, hard proof >of a shot at 284/5 would, by itself, be tantamount to proof of multiple >shooters, and hence in all likelihood a conspiracy. > >Mr. Harris also claims there was a fourth shot which struck President Kennedy >at frame 322. According to Harris, this was a pistol shot fired from the >storm drain to the right front of the Presidential limousine; the shot is >said to have entered through the gaping skull wound caused by the exit of >the rear shot which struck at frame 313. This highly dubious, extremely >controversial allegation is an entirely separate issue from the 284/5 shot, >and will be discussed no further in this article. > >In summary, Harris posits four shots from three locations (two of which, the >TSBD and Dal-Tex, are adjacent to one another), with a gap of about 5 seconds >between shots 1 and 2, 1.5 seconds between shots 2 and 3, and about 0.5 second >between the final two shots. > > >1b. How Could a Professional Shooter Miss So Badly? > >In order to explain how a hired marksman could miss his target so badly, >Harris has spun off a rather implausible scenario. First, the assassin >had planned so incredibly poorly that he did not realize his line of >sight to the President would be blocked for an extended period of time. >This supposes that the assassin (and, presumably, those who had hired >him) had neglected to study previous motorcades and as well had neglected >to map out Dealey Plaza sufficiently to anticipate the problem. Second, >Harris claims that the DalTex shooter had, for an extremely brief moment, >a clear line of sight to the President as the limousine swerved slightly >at a time corresponding to the late Z270's. Third, Harris claims that, >before the shooter could fire, his view was blocked by Secret Service >agents standing on the running boards of the followup car. Rather >than try to shoot the President through the agents, or to fell one or >more agents to clear his view, the shooter, according to Harris, chose to >*intentionally* miss high, thus avoiding the agents and entirely missing >the President's limousine. > >Perhaps more than any other aspect of Harris' theory, this one >piles absurdity upon absurdity. He asks us to believe in incredibly >sloppy planning by people who have otherwise kept their conspiratorial >cabal perfectly hidden for over 30 years. He asks us to believe that a >professional shooter would act humanely and not hit Secret Service >agents, since they were not the intended victims. And he asks us to >believe that this professional would chose to shoot, knowing he would >miss, rather than to hold his fire. It really doesn't matter how or why the shooter missed, as long as the physical evidence is correctly interpreted. Speculation about the reasons for the miss is perhaps interesting, but entirely immaterial regarding Harris' theory and conclusions. > > >2. EYE- AND EARWITNESS TESTIMONY > >Mr. Harris, both in a.c.jfk and in his Web page, asserts that several >witnesses gave testimony that match, with extreme precision, his version >of events. Here's a typical example of his hyperbole, taken from a >recent post of his: > > "This is why the testimonies of Jackie, Nellie, Kellerman, Greer, and Jean > Hill (63-64 only) are so marvelous...(T)hese people were almost perfect > in the accuracy of their recollections. They moved and turned precisely > when they said they did. They responded to the Z285 gunshot, also exactly > when they claimed it happened." > >A few specific comments are in order here. First, none of these witnesses >was ever asked to examine the Zapruder film frame-by-frame to make a >determination of when they thought shots had happened. Thus, the claim that >"they claimed it happened" at Z285 is unfounded. Second, Mr. Harris is, >in most cases, talking about witness testimony which is non-specific with >regard to shot timing. Through the magic of his unique interpretation, he >finds that these statements are "almost perfect" in matching his scenario. >It is worth noting that none of the other photo analysts who have examined >the Zapruder film, including bona fide experts employed by the HSCA, found >any such indication of a Z285 shot. > >Now, let's back up a second and make some common-sense observations about >human perceptions and recollections. As we all know from experience, our >abilities are limited; we sometimes don't see all the details around us, >and we certainly can't always recall things with perfect accuracy. Second, >traumatic events that catch us off-guard are particularly difficult to >reconstruct from memory. Third, memory is not a fixed thing, but a malleable >one that can be affected unconsciously. These observations are nothing new >or striking. In his FAQ for the a.c.jfk newsgroup, John Locke has done an >outstanding job of summarizing the problems with witness testimony. >The following is excerpted from the FAQ. > >"The weakest large class of evidence is eyewitness testimony. This is >because of the inherent unreliability of human memory. Studies have >shown that memory is subject to many forms of suggestion. Not only >do memories alter over time, even surprisingly short periods, but >memories are seldom accurate in the first place. However, memories can >indicate the general shape of an event. People are good at remembering >faces or other broad details which directly focus attention. Memory is >less accurate at peripheral details, duration of time, or sequences of >events. This is what modern science tells us about memory. (See, especially, >the work of Elizabeth Loftus.) Nevertheless, we tend to place misguided >faith in our own memories and the memories of others. This isn't to say >that eyewitness testimony should be ignored altogether, rather that it >has to be accepted for its limited worth. It can never be regarded as >incontrovertible truth, regardless of the confidence of the witness." Nevertheless Harris has compensated for the weakness of eyewitness testimony by showing the consistency of the testimony of numerous eyewitnesses. Here you have supplied neither a critique of Harris' interpretation of that testimony, nor an alternative interpretation. > >With these points in mind, it would seem highly unlikely that a number of >witnesses would report events identically, and with split-second precision. >In fact, it is highly unlikely that a single individual would perfectly >remember his or her precise movements, down to the turning of their head, >to a fraction of a second, in the midst of a traumatic event. That Harris >tries to tell us that not just one, but several, witnesses had such >perfect recall, and that they were all in perfect agreement with each >other, should cause even the most credulous reader discomfort. The film itself is used to establish the precise timing. Eyewitness testimony is only used as a confirmation of the Z-film. > > >3. HARD PHYSICAL EVIDENCE SUPPORTING A Z285 SHOT > >This part of the analysis is mercifully brief. There is *no* hard physical >evidence that supports a Z285 shot. In the remainder of this section, I >summarize the hard physical evidence in the case, all of which is consistent >with a total of three shots having been fired from Oswald's rifle, from the >6th floor of the TSBD. The Z-film is hard evidence, as are the lead smear, Tague wound, and trajetory analysis based on photographic evidence and measurements. > > >3a. The Weapon and Bullets > >A total of one nearly-whole bullet and two large bullet fragments were >recovered after the shooting. All were ballistically linked to Oswald's >Mannlicher-Carcano rifle, to the exclusion of all other weapons. Three >shells were found near the window on the 6th floor of the TSBD, the same >window several witnesses identified as the one from which a rifle was >protruding during the shooting. The rifle itself was found on the same >floor of the TSBD shortly after the shooting. All this is totally irrelevant to Harris' claims. No other weapon, bullets, >or fragments which would indicate a second gunman were found. > > >3b. The Wounds > >The wounds to President Kennedy and Governor Connally are adequately >explained by a total of two shots striking the President, one in the >neck (which then continued on to injure the Governor) and one in the >head. There were no other wounds among persons riding in the motorcade. Another irrelevant argument, since Harris already claims the shot missed the motorcade, and even requires that assumption to explain the curb mark. > >Bystander James Tague suffered a minor wound when his cheek was scratched >by an unknown projectile. The curb in front of Tague had a mark which >appeared to have been caused by a bullet, and a smear of lead which was >consistent with coming from a bullet's core. No bullet or fragment >associated with the Tague wound was recovered, and no definitive proof >of what caused the wound has been obtained. Tague's wound provides >fertile ground for speculation, but, because so little about it is >well-established, it is of little or no use in determining the >sequence of events in Dealey Plaza. With Harris' analysis, the cause of Tague's wound *is* well established, since it dovetails perfectly with the other evidence in Harris' analysis. > > >4. THE "JIGGLE" ANALYSES OF THE ZAPRUDER FILM > > >4a. Alvarez' Analysis and Discoveries > >The physicist Luis Alvarez, a Nobel Laureate, was also an expert on the >stabilization of hand-held movie cameras. As such, he was aware that >a startling stimulus could induce a neuromuscular spasm in most people, >and that these spasms are characterized by a frequency of 3 cycles/sec. >In the case of the Zapruder film, where Mr. Zapruder was constantly moving >his camera to track the progress of the Presidential limousine through >Dealey Plaza, a neuromuscular spasm would result in streaks at approximately >6-frame intervals following the onset of the spasm. Alvarez hypothesized >that the crack of gunfire would be sufficient to cause a spasm, and that, >therefore, one could gain insight into the shooting sequence by making >a systematic study of the film streaking. Alvarez, examining frames >starting at Z170, found at least four episodes of streaking, including >one with an onset at frame Z290. Had he examined frames prior to Z170, >he would have found at least one more episode, for a total of 5. > >Alvarez noted a streaking in frame Z313, at almost the precise instant that >the fatal shot struck the President. It is virtually impossible that the >acceleration of the camera by Mr. Zapruder at this frame was due to a >conscious response to the sight of the President being killed; he could >not have reacted that fast. Likewise, it is impossible that he was reacting >to the sound of the shot -- the muzzle blast had not yet reached him when >the President was struck. Alvarez hypothesized that the streaking at Z313 >was in fact due to the direct interaction of the fatal bullet's shock wave >with Zapruder's camera. The streaking is in the proper direction, consistent >with the camera being pushed from Zapruder's left to right, and the streaking >is not particularly strong, as expected. Alvarez noted that, due to well- >understood physical principles, one would not expect to see a visible effect >of bullet shock waves at the earlier times in the film where he believed >there were shots (Z175 and Z215). > >Mr. Harris claims that the sequence of jiggles seen to start at frame >290 is indicative of a response to a gunshot. This shot allegedly passed >nearest to the President's limousine at about frame 284/5. However, if >this were true, a bullet shock wave should be seen in the film at or >near frame 286. There is no significant streaking seen in that frame. There is a *very* simple explanation the lack of streaking from the shockwave. There are several milliseconds between frames when the shutter is closed. The shock wave itself passed in approximately one millisecond, and could have passed the camera between frames, leaving no streaking. Moreover, the streaking theory is unsubstantiated, making it worthless for refuting Harris' theory. An even more compelling reason is that the streaking would occur at around Z-290 not Z-185, because of the lag time for both the bullet travel time and the travel time of the shockwave. Later on you give credence to Stroscio who makes exactly this point, but reject it for the same erroneous reason you give here. If the delay proves to be different than what I assume here, you can move the shot time a few frames without invalidating the theory. The timeline is established by the reactions of the limo occupants, and the time of the shot is deduced by working backwards. How far backwards you place the shot depends on your assumption of the bullet speed. > >Alvarez was aware of the jiggles starting at Z290, but did not believe >they were due to a gunshot. He wrote: "I was bothered for some time by >the weaker set of pulses lasting a short time, that show in Fig. 3, from >frames 290 through 298. They don't look like the ones that seemed clearly >associated with bullets." Alvarez went on to hypothesize that the jiggles >were caused by Zapruder's startle response to the blast of a siren at Z284/5. >(He allowed for a 5-6 frame reaction time.) Alvarez noted that this jiggle >sequence comes in near-perfect coincidence with a slowing-down of the >limousine; he notes that lifting one's foot off the gas pedal is a typical >response to the sound of a siren. Where is your evidence of a siren? Alvarez also freely admitted that the >witness testimony was unanimously in disagreement with this scenario, and >also admitted that his idea was no more than speculation. Alvarez was wrong about the testimony, as Harris' analysis clearly demonstrates, and Harris theory *is* more than speculation. > > >4b. Stroscio's Analysis -- a Possible Early Shot > >Dr. Michael Stroscio performed a follow-up analysis of the Zapruder film >using Alvarez' technique for analyzing jiggles. Stroscio also fleshed out >some additional details that Alvarez either didn't consider or, at the >very least, didn't see fit to publish. Of particular relevance, Stroscio >analyzed the frames before Z170, and found a good deal of streaking in >those frames. Particularly large camera accelerations were found in frames >158, 160, 163 and 166, consistent with a gunshot in the vicinity of Z160. >This fits with the theory promoted by Gerald Posner in Case Closed that >the first shot was fired around this time and deflected off a tree branch, >away from the limousine and towards James Tague. 1. How does this refute the argument for a Z285 shot? 2. Where is the evidence of the broken tree branch? > > >4c. Stroscio on the Effect of Bullet Shock Waves > >Following up on Alvarez' speculation about the streaking of frame 313, >Stroscio showed that, at that frame, a bullet shock wave would produce a >force on Zapruder's camera that is sufficient to explain the streaking. >He writes, "Thus, the streaks noticed by Luis Alvarez on Thanksgiving >weekend in 1966 were indeed of roughly the right length to have been >caused by shock waves 'pushing' Mr. Zapruder's camera." Clearly, Stroscio >supported Alvarez' contention that the 313 streaking was due to a shock wave. > >In regard to the Z290 jiggles, Stroscio noted, "a projectile moving to the >west at the time of frame 290 would have likely caused a direct shock-wave >interaction with A. Zapruder's camera; this is entirely consistent with >the angular acceleration pattern commencing at frame 290." Note that the >interpretation of the Z290 jiggling offered by Stroscio is significantly >different from that offered either by Alvarez or Harris, both of whom >speculate that it was a response to a stimulus 1/3 of a second earlier. You claim that comparison with the Z-313 shot predicts that the Z-290 shot should produce similar film streaking effects, and here Stroscio is providing the evidence that this is the case, but you reject it because of your previous incorrect assumption that the shock wave arrives at the moment of the shot, Z-285. First you say that Alvarez theories predict streaking, but it is absent from the Z-film, and this refutes Harris theory. But now you are saying Stroscio claims the streaking is present, and this *also* refutes Harris' theory, because the streaking is at the wrong time, namely at Z-290 instead of Z-285. If these theories you are so fond of seem to support your conclusions, you accept them. If they support Harris, you invent reasons why they don't work. >Stroscio's reasoning here is quite consistent: a shock wave is seen >at Z313, and the geometric relationship between a bullet trajectory from >the TSBD and Zapruder is almost exactly the same at Z290 (and Z285 as well). >Thus, if there were a shot at Z284/5, we would expect to see a jiggle >induced by its shock wave; the jiggle should appear by 285/6, the slight >lag being due to the propagation of the wave over about 90 feet at the >speed of sound (1140 feet/second). However, no shock-wave-induced jiggle >is seen in these frames. Incorrect on several points: 1) The Z-313 JFK head wound, using the same reasoning as in the Z-285 analysis, occurred at around Z-310. To be consistent we should be calling the Z-313 shot the Z-310 shot, but I didn't invent the terminology. 2) The Z-285 shot, not the stimulus, occurred 1/3 of a second earlier than the response by the limo occupants. 3) The stimulus occurred after the shock wave reached the limo occupants about two Z-film frames later, at about Z-287, assuming a bullet speed exceeding 3000fps. 4) The limo occupants started reacting at about Z-289, as expected. 5) The time the shock was reached the Zapruder camera is dependent on the speed of the bullet. Since Harris hypothesizes a higher speed bullet for the Z-285 shot, this in effect extends the delay of the streaking compared to the delay seen in the Z-313 shot. 6) The velocity of the limo changes the angle between Zapruder and the limo, and the bullet trajectory, between Z-290 and Z-313. Zapruder is further from the trajectory of the Z-285 shot. This also delays the streaking as compared with the Z-313 shot. > >Mr. Harris has, in a discussion in a.c.jfk, tried to argue that the lack >of a shock wave at Z285/6 is not a damaging blow to his theory. He's right, for all the above reasons, including the possibility that the shock wave passed between frames, or the theories are incorrect, rendering all arguments moot. He notes >that there is no shock wave observed which would correspond to the shot >that struck the President and Governor at frame 222, and indeed, this >is the case. However, as discussed below, there are well-understood reasons >for there to be no shock wave for this shot (and any shot that may have >come earlier than this). As we shall see, the reasons for there being >no shock wave for Z222 are purely geometric, and *do not apply* at Z285/6. > >As had Alvarez before him, Stroscio addressed the lack of a shock wave >for the Z222 shot. He noted that "a bullet coming from the TSBD and >striking its target at frame 221 would indeed produce weaker shock waves >at Mr. Zapruder's position than a bullet traveling from the TSBD to the >position of President Kennedy at frame 313. Indeed, from Figure III the >pressure of the shock would have been *several times weaker*..." (emphasis >added). Note that a 221 strike is within one frame, or 1/18 of a second, >of the striking time that would have caused Governor Connally's lapel to >move noticeably at Z224. Stroscio's conclusion about the shock wave strength >at Z221 accords very well with Alvarez'. Here again you place credence in the Alvarez/Stroscio theories, in favor of your argument, of course. > > >4d. The HSCA Analysis > >The Select Committee had the following to say about the jiggle episode >around Z290: > >"A fifth [streaking] episode (E) possibly associated with a shot occurs at >frames 290-293. Although it contains a very small blur detected by both >Hartmann and Scott [the HSCA blur analysts], as well as a more substantial >blur in Alvarez's data, the Panel found no visual indications of reaction >to a shot by the limousine's occupants coinciding with this segment of the >blur in the film." > >Note that not only did the panel call the blurs "very small" (echoing >Alvarez description of them as "weaker"), the Panel *explicitly* examined >the film to try and find possible reactions to a gunshot in this vicinity. Then what *were* they reacting to at Z-290??? Your failure to provide an alternate explanation renders this argument inert. >They found "no visual indications" of such. Thus, they concluded that >there was no shot at that time. > > >5. THE GEOMETRY OF SHOCK WAVE PROPAGATION > >It is well-established that a supersonic bullet is accompanied by a >conical shock wave which propagates at the speed of sound. The angle >between the bullet and the wave is given by the arcsine of (vs/vb) >where vs is the speed of sound (typically around 1140 feet per second, >or fps) and vb is the speed of the bullet. For convenience, I denote >this angle by A. > >For an observer standing in front and somewhat to the side of a bullet's >path, the first and strongest part of the shock wave that will reach him >is generated at the point when the direction of wave propagation (which is >A+90 degrees) is pointing directly at the observer. No other part of the >shock wave can arrive sooner, or with greater intensity, since the wave >generated at that point has to traverse the shortest distance. (This is >also due in part to the fact that the bullet is super-sonic, i.e., moves >faster than the shock wave.) > >The following diagram illustrates the situation corresponding to frame >Z313, courtesy of Joe Knapp. > > Zapruder > |\ > |. \ > | . \ 263.8' > 73.9' | . . \ > | . . \ > | .S \ > | . \ > |__________________________________________\ > JFK 260.4' SN > > The dots indicate the shock wave coming off the bullet, and the > perpendicular distance from the shock wave to Zapruder. The shape of the > shock wave is a cone at an angle of arcsin(Vs/Vb) from the flight > path. > >It's easy to show that (depending slightly on what one takes for the >bullet's drag coefficient), the spot at which the maximum shock wave is >generated is about 220' from the SN on the line towards the limousine. >If the bullet strikes something *before* this time, the most intense >portion of the wave (from Zapruder's perspective) is never generated. >Considering that the limousine was moving at about 0.9 feet per frame, >and that the distance required is 220' from the SN, we can work backwards >and find that for *any frame after Z269, the maximum shock wave is >generated and can propagate to Zapruder's position with no interference*. >Thus, we expect that a 284/5 shot would produce a significant shock wave >arriving at Zapruder in frames 285/6. Since we are working backwards from responses at Z-290, what difference does it make when the shot occurred? If Harris is off by a frame or two, what difference does that make regarding the overall theory? > >Note, too, that the bullet that killed President Kennedy (striking near >or just before frame Z313) was of lower velocity -- about 2000 fps -- >than the bullet Mr. Harris claims passed by the limousine around Z284/5. >Mr. Harris claims this bullet had a velocity of about 3000 fps. It >would therefore impart more energy to its accompanying shock wave than >the 2000 fps bullet. And since it seems quite clear that the latter >produced a measurable blur in frame 313, one would certainly expect >at least as strong a blur from Harris' alleged bullet. There is, in short, >every reason to expect a blurring in the Z film from a shock wave >if indeed a bullet passed near the limousine at 284/5. The blur does occur, at frame 291, not 285 as you incorrectly claim it should. The Z-291 appearance of the streaking is about where we should expect it, according to your own comparison to Z-313, and in all likelihood is correctly explained by Stroscio. The faster bullet speed, combined with the changing angle of the trajectory, are more than enough to explain the slightly longer delay of the film streaking following the bullet passing over the limo, compared to what we see in Z-313. > > >6. CONCLUSIONS > >The idea that a phantom gunman took a shot at the President and missed >everything -- the passengers, the limousine, the other cars in the motorcade, >and the bystanders -- is not a new one. Indeed, in its broadest outline, >Harris' theory is similar to that advanced by the HSCA, which posited >a grassy knoll gunman who missed everything. This scenario was rooted >in the "acoustic analysis" of a Dictabelt which, allegedly, recorded >the sounds in Dealey Plaza as the motorcade passed through. Unfortunately >for the HSCA and its pro-conspiracy supporters, this analysis had a >fatal flaw: the open microphone captured on the Dictabelt was nowhere >near Dealey Plaza. When incontrovertible proof emerged which showed >that in fact the microphone had been at the Trade Mart, the conclusion >of a fourth shot, and "proof" of conspiracy, crumbled to dust. Instead of a true conclusion you offer another, also invalid, argument. This is an inappropriate comparison. Here you attempt to dismiss the vast array of evidence compiled by Harris for the Z285 shot by comparing it to the much weaker dictaphone-based conspiracy theory, which is only based on a single piece of shaky evidence. > >In somewhat analogous fashion, Harris has tied his speculation tightly >to his understanding of the jiggle analysis of the Zapruder film. While the >jiggle analysis is on far more solid ground than the Dictabelt analysis, >it nonetheless suffers from a considerable incidence of false positives >(the HSCA identified 6 blur episodes; Dr. Stroscio, 7; and Dr. Alvarez, >at least 4 in the frames after Z170). Thus, one cannot make a one-to-one >correspondence between jiggles and gunshots. More biased argument. Now you are claiming the jiggle analysis is weak insofar as it supports Harris' claims. Let's see: the jiggle effect works if there is a siren at Z-190, but it's totally unsubstantiated if the sound at Z-290 is a gunshot. I see, this is a "heads I win, tails you lose," type of argument. In addition, it should be >remembered that the HSCA Photographic Panel explicitly examined this portion >of the film, searching for indications that the limousine occupants were >reacting to a gunshot; their conclusion was that there were "no visual >indications" to support the hypothesis. So how *did* they explain all the activity at Z-290? We are fortunate in that we all can look at the Z-film for ourselves on our personal computers, and realize that the HSCA opinion on the issue is pure bullshit. Harris' theory should be argued on its own merits, not this HSCA nonsense. The HSCA was clearly wrong. Anyone in this forum can readily see that by looking at the film and reading Harris arguments. > >A singularly damning piece of evidence against a 284/5 shot comes from the >lack of a shock-wave-induced jiggle of Zapruder's camera around frame 285/6. Yet more repetition, and more selective, biased use of the Alvarez/Stroscio theories. First you claim that Harris is refuted by an application of Alvarez' theories, then later you undermine your own argument by claiming Alvarez' theories are unreliable, insofar as Harris cites them to support his argument, and yet later, here you once again claim Alvarez theories refute Harris. Once again, your argument is based on the incorrect assumption that Harris' theory implies streaking at Z-285 instead of Z-290. In addition it presumes, incorrectly, that streaking and jiggles are central to Harris theory. In fact they are not. The movements of the limo occupants and the corroborating testimony are far more important evidence than unsubstantiated theories. You are not only focussing on the least critical evidence for Harris' theory, but are ignoring the more crucial evidence. >In Harris' scenario, one expects to see just such a jiggle, yet none is >evident: No published jiggle analysis shows anything other than smooth >tracking at that point in the film. Mr. Harris does not deny that such >a shock wave would exist; indeed, it is his claim that the reactions >among limousine occupants as early as Z290 are *in response to* this >very same shock wave. But in another section of this same article you disclaim the probative value of the "jiggle effect." This is another clear example of the biased use of evidence. You agree with it only if it supports your assumptions. It strength is proportional to its ability to prove your point. Harris knows that he cannot claim that people >were responding to the muzzle blast associated with the shot, because >not enough time would have elapsed for the sound to travel to the >limousine and for reactions (which take at least 1/3 second to start) >to have begun. Harris' extraordinary claim that the limousine occupants >reacted to the shock wave of a missed shot flies in the face of the fact >that not a single one of these persons (Mrs. Connally, Mrs. Kennedy, >Agents Kellerman and Greer) reported having experienced any such thing. >Among their combined testimony, there is not a single reference to hearing >a shot whizzing by overhead; and yet Harris claims that this was exactly >the stimulus to which they reacted (and, in his scenario, were later able >to recall with great precision, albeit leaving out a tremendously important >piece of information). Harris theory does not imply bullets "whizzing" overhead, even though I think he mistakenly claims this at one point. In fact, supersonic bullets cannot "whiz" by, because they are traveling faster than sound. This means that the only sound they emit is a single, sharp bang. This is a physical fact not subject to dispute. Harris analysis, read with this in mind, shows that the witness testimony is entirely consistent with the Z-film evidence. > >Still more evidence arguing against a Z284/5 shot comes from the >eye- and earwitness testimony. The vast majority of earwitnesses recalled >hearing three shots. Though it's obviously true that witness testimony is >fallible, in this instance it can be given some weight, since it is >perfectly consistent with the finding of three shells in the sniper's nest >in the TSBD. Similarly, because no physical evidence of a second shooter >was found, we can give some weight to the fact that the witnesses almost >universally had the impression that shots were coming from just one >location. For witnesses located in the vicinity of the intersection of >Houston and Elm, the sounds of shots coming from both the TSBD and the >Dal-Tex building would likely have been easily distinguished. Consider, >for instance, a person standing on the southwest corner of the intersection, >facing approximately north. The TSBD sniper's nest would have been directly >to the front and well above (about 65' up); the alleged DalTex shooter >would have been well to the right and much lower, perhaps only 20'-25' up. >It is difficult to imagine anyone confusing these two locations; it is >equally difficult to imagine that not even a single witness would have >noticed that there were two separate sources of shots. As far as I am concerned this is the only argument you have made that carries any weight. There is a simple possible explanation for the lack of a muzzle blast: the rifle was silenced. Silenced rifles were available and in use by the CIA during this period. The only sound that would be heard is the shockwave, and this has a distinct conical propagation pattern that you have described earlier in this article. It would be practically inaudible to persons outside of the cone of propagation, including most people in the immediate vicinity of the Dal-Tex shooter. > >It is worth noting as well that there were no eyewitness observations >of anyone shooting from the Dal-Tex building. In fact, there were no >contemporaneous eyewitness reports of anyone shooting except from the >sniper's nest in the TSBD. The silencer explains this as well. Moreover, photographs show there is only one person who is in a position to make positive identification of a shot from the window, and that person has never been identified. I wonder why? > >Last, but far from least, there is the physical evidence: the wounds to >President Kennedy and Governor Connally, the bullets and the bullet >fragments. The story these tell is one of a single shooter, firing >Oswald's rifle from above and behind the limousine. This is all entirely irrelevant to Harris arguments, since he claims the Z285 shot missed. Among the medical, >forensics, and ballistics experts who have studied the materials, there >is near unanimity about these conclusions. There is simply no hard >evidence of a second, or third (as Harris would have us believe) shooter. Once again you are forgetting 1) The Z-film. 2) The curb lead smear. 3) The Tague facial wound. 3) The trajectory analysis based on photographic evidence and physics. > > >7. SUMMARY > >The case against a shot passing near the President's limousine at >frames 284/285 of the Zapruder film can be summarized in the following >points. > > 1. No witnesses saw anybody shooting from the DalTex building, > Mr. Harris' stated location for the origin of the 284/5 shot. Inconclusive. The shooter could have been recessed. > 2. Not a single witness reported hearing shots from both the > DalTex and TSBD. Inconclusive, for reasons stated above. > 3. No bullet or fragments were ever recovered except for > those which were ballistically matched to Oswald's rifle > to the exclusion of all others. If it cause the curb lead smear the bullet probably disintegrated. > 4. All wounds can be explained by three shots from the SN. Irrelevant to the Z285 argument. > 5. Witness reports strongly indicate the there were three shots, > all of which came from a single location. Three shells were > found in the TSBD. Weak argument, given your previous statements about eyewitnesses testimony and the possibility of a silenced rifle. There is some evidence that one of the shells may have been planted. In addition, one shell was dented, indicating it had been rechambered. > 6. There's no shock-wave-induced jiggle in the Zfilm near Z285, > which ought to be there. Explained above. > 7. Nobody in the President's limousine reported the whizzing of > a bullet over their head. Invalid argument. Supersonic bullets don't make such sounds. Mr. Harris contends that these persons > responded to a shock wave after 284/5, and he also contends that > their recollections were "near perfect." Yet not one of them > made mention of hearing a missed shot pass by. Also based on your previous misconception. > 8. The intentional miss by the shooter can only be explained by > absurd and implausible actions on both the part of the shooter > and the other planners of the conspiracy. Speculation about the reason for the miss is irrelevant in this context. The hard evidence and witness testimony is what counts. > >Speaking in the most general terms, it is logically impossible to >absolutely disprove certain kinds of speculation -- not because the >speculation is true, but because it offers no testable predictions. >The HSCA and Harris both advance ideas that fit this description. >In science, such speculations are considered worthless; they cannot >be falsified. Having based nearly your entire argument on speculation, now you again reverse yourself on the value of such arguments. This represents real progress except for one minor detail. Harris theory is entirely falsifiable, since it is based on very little speculation. Any of the assertions can be checked, from the eyewitness testimony, to the reflexive movements of the limo occupants, to the trajectory of the missed shot, to the significance of the lead smear. It's nearly *all* testable to some degree. The only elements that are untestable (or nearly so) are the speculative Alvarez theories upon which you pin so much of your argument. But there is a more important issue at stake here: You are reversing yourself again. Previously you have claimed that Alvarez theories falsifies Harris' theory. Then you reverse that position after citing Harris usage of the theory. It's just an unproven theory after all. But then later you once again claim that Alvarez theory destroys Harris argument. Now once again you are reaffirming the fact that unsubstantiated theories don't refute hard evidence. Good again. In your article Alvarez' theories are valid if they support your position, but weak and inconclusive when they do not. Specifically, the shockwave theory is conclusive because (according to a flawed argument) it fails to support Harris' position, whereas the jiggle theory is weak because it does support Harris' position. Objectively speaking, however, the opposite is true, i.e. there appears to be more independent substantiation for the jiggle theory, while the shock wave theory is unproven, and this tends to work in Harris' favor. This selective use of Alvarez' theories is the keystone of your critique of Harris, which means your entire argument is based on a logical mistakes combined with unsubstantiated theories. And so, unlike Harris, I do not claim to have an unshakeable >grip on Absolute Truth; I do not claim 100% certainty in this matter. >(More like 99%.) You seem to put a lot of faith in the WC and HSCA version of events, for unknown reasons. Harris supplies hard evidence for a second shooter, and all you can produce to refute it is speculation and convoluted reasoning. Instead, I have attempted to show that, on careful >consideration, a great preponderance of the evidence weighs against >Harris' alleged Z284/5 shot. Well, I mean, you didn't do it. I can imagine that the only people swayed by this kind of argument are the True Believers in the Lone Nut theory, but why should anyone else be swayed by such an inconsistent, superficial critique? My advice to the Lone Nut theorists is to give it up. We have hard evidence of a second shooter now, to correspond to the Lone Nut rifle ballistics results. The main difference between the two sets of evidence is that our evidence could not have been planted. > >****************************************************************************** > "Don't conspiracy theorists just take >Cary Zeitlin your breath away? Whether they're on >E-Mail to ZEITLIN@LBL.GOV about OJ or Clinton or JFK, today's >Standard Disclaimers Apply gassy knotheads are in full cry!" > G.B. Trudeau, Doonesbury, 9/11/94 Marty