RH1>Robert Harris Wrote: RH1> Microanalyzing Bennett RH1> RH1>SA Glen Bennett used to be one of those rare witnesses who apparently, RH1>could be quoted in defense of Posner's theory that shots were fired at RH1>Z160, 224, and 312. He was in fact, cited in Case Closed. But a little RH1>common sense and a look at a key photograph dispels that notion entirely. RH1>As it turns out, Bennett was really just one more in a long line of Z285 RH1>witnesses. This is from Bennett's original Treasury Dept. report, RH1> RH1>"..the motorcade continued down this grade enroute to the Trade Mart. At RH1>this point I heard what_sounded like a fire-cracker. I immediately looked RH1>from the right/crowd/physical area/and looked towards the President who RH1>was seated in the right rear seat of his limousine open convertible. At RH1>the moment I looked at the back of the President I heard another RH1>fire-cracker noise and saw the shot hit the President about four inches RH1>down from the right shoulder. A second shot followed immediately and hit RH1>the right rear high of the President's head." RH1> RH1>At first glance, Glenn seems to be suggesting that the first shot missed, RH1>as Posner theorized. The shot then, that hit "four inches down" was the RH1>Z224 shot, and of course, the head shot came at Z312. RH1> RH1>But, Bennett's claim that "a second shot followed immediately", after the RH1>one that hit the President's back, has always suggested a somewhat RH1>different scenario to me. Humor me for a moment and let's suppose that RH1>there were three audible shots fired at say, Z177, Z285 and Z312. RH1> RH1>What if Bennett, who said he was looking off to the right at RH1>the time of the first shot, did what most of the other SA's did after RH1>hearing that noise, and first glanced about, to see if he could spot itıs RH1>source? RH1> RH1>Then, as he turned to inspect Kennedy, the Z285 shot was fired. Naturally, RH1>hearing the shot, Bennett would check to see if the President was hit. He RH1>was of course, but by an earlier bullet. But Bennett, didn't know that, RH1>and having just heard the Z285 report, assigned that shot to the RH1>President's back wound. MJR1> MJR1>But Bennet also said he immediately looked at the president after the MJR1>first shot. You grab on to immediately after the second shot, and ignore MJR1>immediately after the first shot. Why? Just because it fits your theory. MJR1>As a matter of fact, some would say it is more likely he would look back MJR1>after seeing the wound in the presidents back, because then he would be MJR1>sure the shot came from the rear. RH1> RH1>The next shot came 1.5 seconds later, which is why he recalled that the RH1>head shot, "followed immediately". RH1> RH1>While that all sounds good on paper, it certainly doesn't eliminate the RH1>possibility that Pos' was right all along. Perhaps, Bennett was a little RH1>screwed up in his recollections, and that third shot didn't really come RH1>"immediately" after the second, after all. RH1> RH1>Well, fortunately, we don't have to guess about that. While witnesses do RH1>occasionally get confused and forgetful, the photos do not. RH1> RH1>Remember, Bennett said he was looking at the "right/crowd/physical" area RH1>when he heard the first shot. We can confirm that part of his statement, RH1>through earlier photos taken by Willis and Betzner. Then he said he RH1>turned to the front and heard the next two shots, as well as seeing RH1>Kennedy's back and head wounds. Remember Bennett's recollection - "At RH1>the moment I looked at the back of the President I heard another RH1>fire-cracker noise..". If Posner was right, then we know that he would RH1>have had to have turned toward the President, no later than Z224. RH1> RH1>But in the extremely clear photo taken by James Altgens at Z255, we can RH1>look back through the windshield of the Secret Service followup car, and RH1>see Glen Bennett. There is no doubt about it at all, folks - he is still RH1>looking to his right! I have posted an image at my FTP site, entitled, RH1>"bennett.gif" which should make this fairly easy to see. Although his face RH1>is a bit ambiguous, we can see Bennett's dark tie on his white shirt very RH1>clearly. He is still turned to his right! RH1> MJR1>How does a still picture "prove" he was "still" doing anything. He could MJR1>be looking back after the second shot. MJR1> RH2>There is just no justification for that idea at all, either in Bennett's RH2>report, or in the photos. MJR2> MJR2>And there is no justification for your claim that he glanced around after MJR2>the first shot. MJR2> RH1>At Z255, Bennett has yet to turn toward the President, and is yet to hear RH1>the second and third audible shots! RH1> RH1>In every single instance when we can timestamp these shots through the RH1>Altgens photo, as well as the Zapruder film, we see indisputable proof RH1>that at least two shots came well after Z255, and that only one was heard RH1>before that frame. MJR2> RH2>Bennett described no turns or movements of any kind between the 2nd and RH2>3rd shots. MJR2> MJR2>And he never describes glancing around after the first shot. You just put MJR2>that in to support your theory. He says he immediately looked at the MJR2>president. RH3> RH3>Michael, your argument here is a bit silly, since you just claimed that RH3>the reason Bennett was turned to the right at Z255 was that he turned to RH3>look around after Z224. Why is it OK for him to do that in your theory, RH3>* but not in mine?? MJR3> MJR3>It isn't OK for him to do it in either theory. If you are going to take MJR3>his testimony at complete face value and tie it to the photos it does MJR3>not prove anything. RH4> RH4>OK, so are you saying we can't trust the witness or that we can't trust RH4>the photo? Or are you rejecting both?? RH4> MJR4>I am saying his report is probably incomplete. RH5> RH5>But you have no grounds whatsoever for that speculation, Michael. You just RH5>seem to want it to be that way, very badly. RH5> RH5>And I thought you gave up on your theory that Bennett made two unreported RH5>turns, a couple of posts ago. Have you changed your mind again? RH5> MJR5>Bennett also said he saw the president hit in the back. You claim he MJR5>must have heard your Z285 and saw the wound that had already been MJR5>there for several seconds. Isn't this speculation? MJR5> MJR5>I never gave up on these unreported turns, I simply reworded them into MJR5>a glance back. Since a glance back would involve two turns it is MJR5>consistent. I just like glance back better because it sounds less awkward. MJR4> RH4>You realize of course, that if we continue this discussion you are going RH4>to have to be condemning the statements of countless witnesses including RH4>cops, Sheriff's deputies, Hwy Patrolmen, and most of the Secret Service RH4>agents, as well as photographic evidence that corroborates and time-stamps RH4>many of their recollections. MJR4> MJR4>And so are you. RH5> RH5>That's nonsense, Michael. RH5> MJR5>You are condemning this very witness on two important points. MJR5>One: you believe he did not immediately look at the president after MJR5>the first shot. MJR5>Two: You believe he didn't actually see the second shot hit JFK, he MJR5>mistakenly confused the wound and the shot. RH4> RH4>Exactly how many are you intending to debunk for their confused RH4>recollections, which just coincidentally, all point to the conclusion that RH4>the final shots were bunched? RH4> RH4>Will you cut it off at 30, 40, 50 - where? MJR4> MJR4>How many are you going to have to say were confused about hearing or MJR4>seeing shots from the depository only? RH5> RH5>Well, I don't think I'm in any danger of getting writer's cramp, since RH5>you've only managed to dig up one witness out of nearly 400 who said such RH5>a thing:-) RH5> MJR5>Where did you get one from? MJR5> MJR5>Unfortunately I don't have any of my witness testimony with me now, but MJR5>off the top of my head; Norman, Willis, Eunice, Brennan, Couch, - I will MJR5>add more later. MJR4> MJR3>That is my point, both theories have to assume a MJR3>motion that is not in evidence. RH4> RH4>My analysis of Bennett assumes no such hypothetical motions. I have no RH4>idea what you are referring to here. MJR4> MJR4>Let me quote you from this thread. MJR4> MJR4>"What if Bennett, who said he was looking off to the right at the time at MJR4>the time of the first shot, did what most of the other SA's did after MJR4>hearing that noise, and first glanced about, to see if he could spot itıs MJR4>source?" RH5> RH5>Well, I'm not at all sure that "glancing" requires any kind of body RH5>motion, Michael. But this speculation is not a all a requirement in my RH5>theory. As I also stated, and as you know very well, Bennett might have RH5>just taken a few seconds to absorb what was going on, before going into RH5>action. At Z255, Bennett was only one of several other SA's who had not RH5>yet begun to react. RH5> RH5>Another possibility is your own suggestion that Bennett only described his RH5>turn to the front as "immediate" because he wanted to promote the image of RH5>himself and the Secret Service, as being on the ball. RH5> RH5>But your claim that Bennett made two unreported turns, to the right and RH5>then back to his left are absolute requirements, if you want to claim that RH5>he was supporting Posner. Therefore, you *have* to come up with these RH5>movements for which you can't produce a shred of evidence, either in the RH5>testimonies or the visual record. RH5> RH5>What you have to understand, Michael, is the difference in a speculation RH5>which is only one of several, and is presented only in order to establish RH5>plausability, and an absolute requirement or dependancy. RH5> MJR4>Why do you say "What if" if you are not making an assumption? RH5> RH5>Because "what if" is a *speculation* and certainly not an assumption. MJR5> MJR5>If you claim a speculation is a truth, wouldn't that make it an MJR5>assumption? RH5> MJR4>Once again MJR4>- YOUR IGNORE THE FACT THAT BENNETT STATED THAT MJR4>HE IMMEDIATELY LOOKED AT THE PRESIDENT!!!! RH5> RH5>Michael, you're repeating yourself. RH5> RH5>We've been through all this before. MJR4> MJR4>I am sorry, I am a little slow on the uptake when someone makes an MJR4>incredible assertion. I assumed that a glance about would involve turning MJR4>your head. What you mean is that Bennett sat motionless for three MJR4>seconds, and rolled his eyes around in his head. RH5> RH5>Why don't you read the rest of my post? MJR5> MJR5>In the rest of your post you claim he just sat there. In your original MJR5>post you claim he glanced around, no wonder I'm confused. RH5> RH5>And yes, of course, he could very easily have sat there for three seconds. RH5>That's barely enough time to draw a breath and exhale. RH5> MJR5>I can draw a breath and wait 30 seconds to exhale, so what MJR5>does that prove. MJR5> MJR5>Oh, by the way, you claim the first shot was at Z177 and he still hasn't MJR5>looked at the president by Z250. That is a minimum of four seconds. MJR3> RH3>Please look at Bennett's tie position in the blow up from the Altgens RH3>picture I posted. Notice that he is not turned a full 90 degrees to his RH3>right, but is in exactly the same position at Z255 that he was at Z202. I RH3>suppose we can't call it beyond all doubt, but it seems unlikely that he RH3>would return to exactly the same orientation after seeing Kennedy hit. MJR3> MJR3>Are you claiming he was completely still for 53 frames? RH4> RH4>You tell me, Michael. RH4> RH4>Do you think Bennett might have sat still for the 2.9 seconds of those 53 RH4>frames?? MJR4> MJR4>No. And I don't know how you can prove he was in the exact position. RH5> RH5>Somehow, I seem to sense a "na--na-na-na--na" at the end of your last RH5>sentence. RH5> RH5>Yes, Michael, I can't prove it. But, I think anyone who looks at the image RH5>at my FTP site and compares Bennett's orientation in the two photos will RH5>get the message. RH5> RH3>But the biggest problem with your theory is that you are assigning two RH3>turns to Bennett that he never claimed to have made, and for which you RH3>have no visible evidence at all. RH3> MJR3>And you are claiming he glanced around for several seconds, when he MJR3>claims he looked immediately at the president. RH4> RH4>Hell, Michael, I don't know if he looked around, or just sat there for a RH4>few seconds before absorbing what was going on. Look at the Altgens photo. RH4>Hill, Kinney and Roberts haven't turned or responded to anything. Hickey, RH4>McIntyre, Ready, and Landis have. Look at the Z202, Willis photo. Hickey RH4>is the only one who is responding at that early point. RH4> RH4>The moral - the SA's reacted at different speeds and times, to the first RH4>audible shot. At Z255, some of them have not moved yet. Bennett just RH4>happened to be one of them. RH5> RH5>I notice you didn't respond to the above paragraphs, Michael. MJR5> MJR5>In general I agree with you about reaction times, but MJR5>Hill testified that he only heard two shots, so it is not MJR5>surprising he did MJR5>not respond to a shot he didn't here. Kinney reported looking at the MJR5>President after the first shot, not turning to the rear. I don't have MJR5>a copy of Roberts testimony with me, so I will defer on that. MJR5> RH5>May I assume that you agree with me, then? MJR3> RH3>If you insist on basing your theories on guesswork and your imaginings, RH3>you can prove pretty much anything you like. But look at the man's words RH3>again, and tell me where you see even the vaguest hint in support of your RH3>theory that he turned to the right after seeing JFK's wound, and then RH3>turned back to the left, RH3> RH3>"I heard another fire-cracker noise and saw the shot hit the President RH3>about four inches down from the right shoulder. A second shot followed RH3>immediately and hit the right rear high of the President's head." RH3> RH3>So where do you see these two additional turns? RH3> MJR3>I think I have already conceded this. I am going to speculate on something MJR3>here, which doesn't necessarily support one of us over the other, but it MJR3>might explain why both of us have to take Bennett's theory with a grain of MJR3>salt. This might be what you might call a cover your ass report. If MJR3>you read the whole report he continuously uses the term immediately. This MJR3>might be in anticipation of the question: Why didn't you do something? It MJR3>is reasonable therefore to try to fill in the gaps in his testimony. RH4> RH4>Yes, that might well explain why he described *his* movements that way, RH4>but that wouldn't explain why he said the 3rd shot came "immediately" RH4>after the 2nd. RH4> RH4>How would that make him or the Secret Service look good? RH4> MJR4> MJR4>He was stating that he knew the president was shot after the second shot. MJR4>If all he did after that was just glance around, and not take any action, MJR4>it would make him look bad. If he says the next shot was immediate, he MJR4>absolves himself for a lack of significant reaction. RH5> RH5>I guess I could go along with the possibility that Bennett might fudge a RH5>bit to make himself appear quick, but Michael, you are crossing over the RH5>line to the point where you're turning this guy is turning into one RH5>full-fledged liar. RH5> RH5>It seems to me that if he had never turned toward Kennedy as he claimed, RH5>he could have still looked good, by saying he was vigilantely seeking out RH5>the assassin. RH5> RH5>I think you need to come up with some kind of evidence if you intend to RH5>label the man as a liar. MJR5> MJR5>I never said the man was a liar. I just think his report is incomplete. MJR5> RH4>And his recollection that he was turned to the front when he heard the RH4>second and third shots, is hardly self-serving. RH4> RH2>Under your scenario, he heard a shot, turned left, turned right, and then RH2>turned left and heard another shot. MJR2> MJR2>No. He heard the first shot, turned to look at the president, RH3> RH3>Yes, that's the turn to the left I just mentioned. RH3> MJR2>heard the second shot and saw it hit the president. MJR2>Then he glanced around and the MJR2>third shot hit the President in the head. RH3> RH3>Why did you leave out the part you described in your earlier statement RH3>that after seeing the President get hit, Bennett turned back to his right? RH3>Since under your theory, he has returned to his original orientation RH3>within 1.7 seconds, I guess he wasn't too interested in seeing what MJR3>* happened to Kennedy next. MJR4> MJR4>I said he glanced around, that could include the turn to the right you see MJR4>in the photo. Please explain the 1.7 seconds, I don't know what you mean. RH5> RH5>(sigh) RH5> RH5>Michael, you were arguing that Bennett, who was previously turned to his RH5>right, turned to the front and saw Kennedy hit at Z224. You then had him RH5>snapping to his right again in order to be back in his original RH5>orientation, in time for the Z255 shot. MJR5> MJR5>What is his "original orientation" If it is when he is turned to the right, then that MJR5>would be much earlier than Z224, and longer than 1.7 seconds. If MJR5>It is at Z224 then he is not back in that orientation, he is in a new orientation. MJR5> MJR5>The 1.7 seconds to turn from the front to the rear would not be a snap. You MJR5>are letting you own beliefs cloud your judgement. MJR5> RH5>The time between Z224 and Z255 was 1.7 seconds. I realize you threw in the RH5>towel on that argument some time ago, but you seem to keep drifting back RH5>to it, so I really don't know what your position is right now (Do you?). RH5> MJR3>In this interval he is sure the president has been hit, and that it came MJR3>from the rear. God only knows where is the best place to look in that MJR3>situation. You could try to get to the President, as Hill did, or try MJR3>to return fire. I don't know what Bennett did, and two still pictures MJR3>can't prove anything. RH4> RH4>Yes they do, Michael. The photos prove to at least a very high degree of RH4>probability that Bennett has yet to turn toward the President and hear RH4>those second and third shots. RH4> MJR4>Still photo's taken 2.9 seconds apart can "prove" no such thing. RH5> RH5>Can to, can to, can to! RH4> RH3>And then, he just coincidentally turns back to his left again, just in RH3>time to see the head shot. RH3> MJR2>I know, that I am ignoring the MJR2>fact that he said the third shot was immediately after second shot, RH3> RH3>You sure are, and you're ignoring the equally important fact that Bennett RH3>very clearly stated that he heard one shot right after the other, with no RH3>intermediate turns on his part. RH3> RH3>There's a reason for that, Michael. He didn't have time to make any RH3>turns then. RH3> MJR2>but MJR2>you are ignoring the fact that he immediately looked at the president, so MJR2>we are even on that one. As a matter of fact, Bennet uses the term MJR2>immediately four times in his very brief report. It is likely that he is MJR2>using a more general description of immediately. We are both just placing MJR2>this glancing around motion, that he never describes, in the location that MJR2>fits our theory. RH3> RH3>Michael, have you considered that there may be a really good reason why he RH3>never describes such a turn? RH3> RH2>There is just nothing in his testimony that even hints at such a contorted RH2>series of movements. Bennett was very specific in describing his movements RH2>during the attack. He said he turned toward Kennedy and then heard RH2>the 2nd and 3rd shots, with no events between them. MJR2> MJR2>I don't think Bennett is very specific about his movements at all MJR2>He only specifies one motion during the entire shooting sequence. RH3> RH3>Yes! RH3>That's because he only made one motion during the 7-8 seconds that the MJR3>* attack was in progress. MJR3> MJR3>Are you claiming that a Secret Service agent whose sole purpose is to MJR3>react quickly to protect The president, made only one motion in a 7-8 MJR3>second period? RH4> RH4>Uh.. yes. RH4> MJR4>God help Clinton if this is the standard of the secret service. RH5> RH5>Where do you come up with these screwy arguments?? Would you give a medal RH5>to a Secret Service agent who turned 12 times in 7 seconds?? The number of RH5>turns has nothing to do with anything in this particular universe. RH5> RH5>Look, the guy heard a shot and then turned to look at Kennedy. He heard RH5>two shots at that point, one right after the other. If you read the rest RH5>of his testimony, you will learn that he then reacted by shouting out, RH5>"We're hit!", which provoked Ready to jump belatedly off the right running RH5>board. RH5> RH5>One good test of your theory vs. mine is to ask yourself why Bennett RH5>didn't shout out during those 5 seconds between your Z224 and Z312. You RH5>would have him aware that JFK was hit during all that time, while RH5>remaining silent and motionless. RH5> RH5>It makes a lot more sense if you realize that he only had a scant, 1.5 RH5>seconds, which just didn't give him time to get the words out before the RH5>fatal head wound. MJR5> MJR5>See your own post about reaction times, and my post about covering your ass. MJR4> RH4>Perhaps more importantly, that's what the Secret Service agent said. RH4> MJR4>What we are talking about is a one page report. It certainly is possible MJR4>he left out information. RH5> RH5>Sure, and maybe he also forgot to mention seeing a platoon of Cuban exiles RH5>behind the picket fence and a silvery, oval object hovering above the RH5>overpass. RH5> RH5>Michael, we can just come up with unlimited possibilities, once we RH5>eliminate the responsibility to produce evidence for our theories. MJR5> MJR5>And where is your evidence that he didn't actually see the second shot MJR5>hitting the president? You make what you think are reasonable MJR5>assumptions, that is all I am doing. RH5> RH3>Look - "immediate" is a subjective term, especially in reference to the RH3>first shot, which most caught everyone off guard. It's not surprising that RH3>it took a few seconds to sink in. The physical movements OTOH, are RH3>objective, and carry much more weight. RH3> MJR3>I can't believe you admitted "immediate" is subjective. It is your precise MJR3>definitions of statements like immediately, and no time between, and MJR3>right after one another, and the ever important bunched, that allow you to MJR3>claim witnesses support your theory. RH4> RH4>Terms like "immediate" are relative to the context of the sentence and to RH4>the situation in which they are used. RH4> RH4>For example, almost all the witnesses I cite, *compare* the timing between RH4>1-2 and 2-3, making it extremely clear that the latter spacing was much RH4>smaller than the former. If you look through my recent "the Witnesses" RH4>post, I think you will realize that. RH4> RH4>OTOH, the term "immediate" as Bennett used it, was limited to his own RH4>ability to absorb what was going on and to react. Look - at the very RH4>least, we *know* he didn't react "immediately" to a hypothetical, pre-Z160 RH4>shot. He was still turned to his right at Z183 in the Betzner pic and at RH4>Z202 in Willis's. Therefore, we know he has remained motionless for at RH4>least, 2.3 seconds. MJR4> MJR4>Yes, but you tacking on 2.9 second more means that immediately to Bennett MJR4>is at least 5.2 seconds. That is just about the amount of time between MJR4>Z224 and Z313. RH5> RH5>But there's a mountain sized difference in our two theories, Michael, in RH5>fact there are two. RH5> RH5>First, my "theory" matches what the guy said. He said he only turned once, RH5>toward the President after hearing the first noise. You have him making RH5>*two* turns that he doesn't remember. MJR5>He did not say he only turned once, he just did not describe any other MJR5>turn. There is a big difference. RH5> RH5>And second, I have him sitting for several seconds, after he heard a noise RH5>that most witnesses didn't even realize was a gunshot. Under your theory, RH5>Bennett thought he *SAW KENNEDY HIT* and *then* sat motionless and silent RH5>for almost 5 seconds! MJR5> MJR5>But in both instances he said he did something that we disagree with immediately. RH5> RH5>Which makes more sense, Michael? RH5> RH5>Do you really think this professional bodyguard would just sit there for 5 RH5>seconds after observing Kennedy's back wound and after hearing *TWO* RH5>gunshots??? MJR5> MJR5>No. That is why I believe it is likely that he made a turn there that he MJR5>forgot to report. MJR5> RH5>I don't either. RH5> RH5>Perhaps you are correct, that he was lobbying a bit in defense against RH5>accusations that the SA's were sluggish that day. But, we know for sure RH5>that Bennett did not really react instantly under either scenario. MJR3> RH3>And while Bennett did indeed say he turned immediately, he never described RH3>the 2nd shot as coming immediately after the first, as he did the last RH3>two. Under your theory, you would have the first two considerably closer RH3>together than the last two. Obviously, Bennett, like just about every RH3>other witness that day, thoroughly refutes that notion. MJR3> MJR3>He said, he immediately looked at the president, later he said that at the MJR3>moment he looked at the back of the president he heard the second shot. MJR3>If you do act "A" at the moment that you do act "B", and if you claim that MJR3>act "B" was immediately after act "C", isn't it reasonable to assume that MJR3>act "A" was also immediately after "C"? MJR3> MJR3>It is amazing how things that are thoroughly in dispute, are always so MJR3>obvious to you. RH4> RH4>I think you "amaze" rather easily Mr. Russ:-) MJR4> MJR4>Nice dodge. RH5> RH5>Read on, Michael:-) MJR5> MJR5>I read on, and you still didn't refute the fact that Bennett's statement MJR5>places the second shot immediately after the first. MJR5> RH4>But the only reason you believe any of this is "thoroughly in dispute" is RH4>that you have conjured up two additional turns for Bennett that he was not RH4>aware of - one to the right and one to the left. RH4> RH4>Do you really think the guy spaced all that out? RH4> RH3>Bennett simply heard the same shooting sequence that everyone else did. MJR3> MJR3>Come on, you know better than this. "Everyone else" heard ,and saw many MJR3>different things. It is unlikely you can find five witnesses who's MJR3>testimony is in complete harmony. RH4> RH4>Not when it comes to the flurry of shots at the end. Even the WC admitted RH4>that most witnesses said the final shots were bunched closely together. RH4> MJR4>You use two different descriptions in this one sentence, and you claim MJR4>that the testimony is consistent on this point. RH5> RH5>That's because the English language employs a great many synonyms and RH5>near-synonyms, Michael.