ROBERT HARRIS SAID:
>>> "Either those people were reacting to the gunshot, that they claimed they heard, or they weren't. If you are a moral individual, then you have NO business promoting a belief that shields the other killers/terrorists, until you are able to prove that they weren't." <<<
DAVID VON PEIN SAID:
Robert, you are in your own little dream world, entitled --- "I BELIEVE THAT A GUNSHOT OCCURRED AT Z285 AND I'M GOING TO STICK BY THAT THEORY FOREVER, DESPITE THE ONLY EVIDENCE BEING THE LIMO OCCUPANTS' MOVEMENTS ON A SILENT PIECE OF MOVIE FILM THAT MANY OTHER PEOPLE EVALUATE IN COMPLETELY DIFFERENT WAYS WITH RESPECT TO WHEN THE GUNSHOTS WERE OCCURRING IN DEALEY PLAZA."
In short -- There is NOTHING concrete or definitive or absolute about any of the movements of the people in that limousine that could possibly make any reasonable person want to declare--with finality--that a gunshot positively occurred at exactly frame #285 of Abraham Zapruder's home movie.
But Robert wants to believe that his subjective analyses of the peoples' reactions (i.e., movements) within the car are PROOF of a gunshot at exactly Z285.
Quite obviously, however, Robert Harris is only fooling himself -- for there are certainly no definitive signs of a PROOF-POSITIVE gunshot occurring at Z285 within that silent motion picture.
Bob will probably next claim that I am talking out of both sides of my mouth when I claim that Oswald's first shot occurred at approx. Z160 on the same silent home movie (which is, indeed, what I think occurred).
But there is one significant difference there -- and that is the fact that we can KNOW beyond all reasonable doubt that Governor Connally was not struck by a bullet until a few seconds AFTER the first shot was fired.
John Connally's own testimony after the shooting tells us this fact, and it's something that isn't merely subjective on a researcher's part. It's evidence being based on a VICTIM'S first-hand account of WHEN he was hit (i.e., per Connally: "The first shot did not hit me; I had time to think; I had time to react [to the first gunshot]; then I was hit").
Connally is really sort of two witnesses in one (in a way), due to the fact that he had the unique ability to time the first shot in his own mind by way of comparing the sound of it to when he, himself, felt the impact of the bullet that hit him in the upper back.
And since the overwhelming evidence (including all of the non-Zapruder Film evidence, of course) indicates that only three shots were fired and that ALL three shots came from the Book Depository's 6th-Floor Sniper's Nest (and from Oswald's own rifle), it's then fairly easy to piece together a reasonable timeline of the three shots when looking just at the Zapruder Film.
And via the above type of evidence-based starting point before ever even looking at the Zapruder Film (utilizing the entire SUM TOTAL of the physical and circumstantial evidence that exists in this case, plus throwing in some common sense for good measure), there simply is no room for a gunshot at Z-Film frame #285.
Based on the sum total of evidence, a shot at Z285 could not and did not occur (Robert Harris' subjective analysis of the film notwithstanding).
Quoting Vincent Bugliosi:
"To be cruel to the [conspiracy] buffs, THEY SIMPLY RAN OUT OF BULLETS FOR THEIR SECOND-GUN THEORY. There was no other bullet flying through the air that could have ONLY hit Connally. To accept the position of the conspiracy theorists, one would have to reject the physical evidence (only three cartridge casings), but accept the hearing acuity of 3.5 percent of the people in Dealey Plaza over that of around 75 percent of the witnesses. Actually, the percentage of people the theorists would have to thumb their noses at would be 85 percent, since 10 percent of the witnesses in the HSCA study only heard two shots." [Emphasis Bugliosi's.] -- Page 464 of "Reclaiming History" (c.2007)
Of course, Vince goes into even greater detail in other parts of the book (plus on page 464 too) to support the fact that THREE and only THREE gunshots were fired in Dealey Plaza on 11/22/63.
And such fact-based "Only Three Shots Were Fired" analysis only helps to support and reinforce the logical and common-sense nature of Mr. Bugliosi's "THEY RAN OUT OF BULLETS" quote all the more.
>>> "I always try to give people the benefit of the doubt, David. I WANT to believe that folks like you are, at the very least, sincere in your belief that the crime was carried out by a single attacker." <<<
Gee, that's mighty kind of you.
I'm now trying to think of a single thing that matters less to me than whether or not a conspiracy-happy individual is willing to give me the "benefit of the doubt" regarding the sincerity of my lone-assassin beliefs.
As I ponder that quandary, only one other thing comes close to mattering less with respect to the overall topic of John F. Kennedy's tragic assassination --- and that would be a CTer's subjective and unsupportable opinions that guide that particular CTer to the notion that a conspiracy existed in Dealey Plaza on November 22, 1963, and/or that Lee Harvey Oswald was merely an innocent "patsy" that day in Dallas.
1.) Would you like to now dance another time 'round the mulberry bush with respect to this wholly-subjective "Z285" crap that you've locked yourself into?
2.) Or would you rather admit that your analysis regarding this subject is, as mentioned, WHOLLY SUBJECTIVE and is YOUR THEORY ALONE...without any HARD PROOF to support it (other than your own hardheadedness)?
(Which will Bob choose -- #1 or #2? I think everyone knows already.)
David Von Pein
LINK TO ORIGINAL POST (FEBRUARY 10, 2008)