JFK Assassination Forum

So, please tell the forum how the "wealth of evidence" you have presented demonstrates that the sound of the shots was loud enough to cause a startle reaction at Zapruder's location. Do you even understand the difference between someone reacting to something and a startle reaction? Do you even understand that witnesses in different locations heard things differently?

What I think about this issue is informed by the only witness evidence relevant to this subject - Sitzman's statements. This evidence demonstrates that Jiggle Analysis is a non-starter as far as the Z-film is concerned.

A silly approach given how unreliable eye and ear witness testimony is. I'm amazed by how many people on this forum think witness accounts are the end all, be all when it comes to evidence. No matter what someone wants to believe about the JFKA, they can probably find and a witness to support it. If we are to believe witnesses, the JFKA happened dozens of different ways.

Your sad attempt to counter this evidence is now on the record for all to see.

Do yourself a favour and have a read through "The First Shot" thread.

Just what I need. A recommendation from a guy who doesn't think Oswald fired the shots that killed JFK.

PS: This is my favourite part of the post:

That's not a delusion.
I know I am right because I know what the evidence is...

You know you're right?
Hmmmm....

I'm not surprised that the concept of drawing conclusions from evidence is foreign to you. You prefer to pull your conclusions out of your ass.

Jiggle analysis is an established concept. It is far more compelling than your analysis of Sitzman's statement. Can you name one other witness in DP who said the shots sounded like they were from a distance?
There is a complete lack of evidence to support Sitzman.
Other than the fact Zapruder's camera jiggled 7-8 frames after the second shot and 7-8 frames after the third shot. Just a coincidence I suppose.
That's not a delusion.
I know I am right because I know what the evidence is and I am capable of applying common sense. Anyone who does not reach the same conclusion is missing at least one of those qualities.
I do not lie and on the rare occasion in which I have made a mistake, I own up to it.
It created a startle response in JBC and Rosemary Willis. It caused Bennett to turn away from the crowd he was observing and immediately turn to look at JFK. It caused two of the agents on the Queen Mary running board to turn around and look to the rear. It caused the Newmans to push their kids onto the ground and shield them with their bodies. But you're willing to dismiss all those reactions because Sitzman said the shots seemed to be from a distance. Damn, CTs are so bad at weighing evidence.

 
I knew this was going to be funny but I never had any idea..
So, I've asked Mr Corbett to offer up his "wealth of evidence" that the sound of the shots at Zapruder's location were loud enough to cause a startle reaction, thus creating the 'jiggle' effect. .
It was a bit sneaky on my behalf because I knew there wasn't any evidence supporting such a thing and that the only real evidence - Sitzman's witness statements - completely contradicted this notion.
But I also know that Mr Corbett is a deluded Tinfoil Nutter who, like all of his ilk, believes that if he says it, then it is right.
So here is his litany of evidence that demonstrates the sound of the shots was loud enough to startle in his location in DP according to Mr Corbett:

1] I've heard my neighbor taking target practice a quarter mile away. I know how loud that is.  [ ]
2] It created a startle response in JBC and Rosemary Willis
3] It caused Bennett to turn away from the crowd he was observing and immediately turn to look at JFK
4] It caused two of the agents on the Queen Mary running board to turn around and look to the rear
5] It caused the Newmans to push their kids onto the ground and shield them with their bodies

He then finishes off with this beauty of a statement - " Damn, CTs are so bad at weighing evidence." 
Let's see how good Mr Corbett is at "weighing evidence". Let's see how strong this "wealth of evidence" is.
None of these points demonstrates (or even hints) that the sounds were loud enough to cause a startle reaction in Zapruder at his location west of the building. Remember, Sitzman states on more than one occasion that the sound of the shots was distant - "far away".
We can dispense with point 1]. That's just so funny.
Point 2] Rosemary Willis??  There is no evidence of a startle reaction by either JBC or Willis 
Point 3] This a reaction. Not a startle reaction.
Point 4] This is a reaction. Not a startle reaction
Point 5] The Newman's hit the deck after seeing JFK's head explode.

In this wealth of evidence there is nothing to suggest a startle reaction. I think Mr Corbett doesn't understand the difference between reacting to something and being startled by it.
Jackie Kennedy, sat very close to JBC, says she wasn't even aware something was wrong until Connally "screamed like a stuck pig". So much for startled.
What a piss-poor attempt to cobble together some evidence by Mr Corbett.
Why not just accept the witness testimony of Sitzman? Why not do that?

PS: This is my favourite part of the post:

That's not a delusion.
I know I am right because I know what the evidence is...

You know you're right?
Hmmmm....