Threat from Harris

[John McAdams]

Just got this from Harris:

<quote on>

Date: Wed, 21 May 2014 18:04:59 -0400
From: Robert Harris <bobha...@yahoo.com>
To: alt-assass...@moderators.isc.org
Newsgroups: alt.assassination.jfk
Subject: do not repost

John, there is nothing in my reply to you that is as bad as you
calling me "obnoxious" or stating that I am "not worth fooling with".

If you censor my response, I will repost it in several other JFK
forums and will make a video presentation on it.

You've been running for 20 years.

You certainly don't have to agree, but you do need to answer the tough
questions and support your own assertions.

<end quote>

Harris sent one of his usual posts claiming I've failed to ever engage
his arguments (calling me a liar, in effect) and including a bunch of
other insults.

He is welcome to post the message that was rejected anywhere he wants.

People will be astonished at what he thinks he can get away with --
except for people here who are familiar with Harris.

.John
-----------------------
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/home.htm

[Kleep Klopp]

It's quite ironic Harris and Cinque always cry foul that you are
mistreating them John. Yet, in at least Cinque's case, he is always
bashing you and other members posting here on his blog.

Ralph also will not allow anyone to comment an opposing opinion on his
blog or various Facebook pages even if they are using civilised decorum.
You will find the other OIC members like Lee Cahalan accuse me of
receiving a monthly stipend from McAdams to be an OP.

You've been a lot fairer in allowing Ralph to post on this "Kennedy
Killers" forum along with the others who poke fun at him.

[Robert Harris]

A "threat"!? I am threatening you by stating that I will post my message
elsewhere if you will not permit it here??

Maybe you should report me to the authorities, John! Since it was an
interstate communication, you should certainly let the FBI know about
it:-)

But let's talk about REAL threats,

like you threatening to censor me for stating that your claim that I was
refuted, is false.

or threatening to censor me, not because I violated a rule but because I
was not polite enough to Jean Davison.

or any of numerous other threats you made to silence me based on
nonexistent rules that you made up on the fly.

Those are not just threats John, but in most cases, actions that you
actually carried out.

I will post my messages in as many forums as I please, John. And I will
make videos based on verifiable facts, including the fact that you censor
messages which are in full compliance with the rules but challenge you to
answer important questions or justify your own claims.


Robert Harris

[Robert Harris]

John McAdams wrote:
> Just got this from Harris:
>
> <quote on>
>
> Date: Wed, 21 May 2014 18:04:59 -0400
> From: Robert Harris <bobha...@yahoo.com>
> To: alt-assass...@moderators.isc.org
> Newsgroups: alt.assassination.jfk
> Subject: do not repost
>
> John, there is nothing in my reply to you that is as bad as you
> calling me "obnoxious" or stating that I am "not worth fooling with".
>
> If you censor my response, I will repost it in several other JFK
> forums and will make a video presentation on it.
>
> You've been running for 20 years.
>
> You certainly don't have to agree, but you do need to answer the tough
> questions and support your own assertions.
>
> <end quote>
>
> Harris sent one of his usual posts claiming I've failed to ever engage
> his arguments (calling me a liar, in effect) and including a bunch of
> other insults.

John's claim is that I am not permitted to point out that he is wrong in
claiming that I have been refuted.

By his reasoning, we are not permitted to say that he is wrong about who
shot JFK, wrong about his denials related to CE399, wrong about his denial
of damage to the back of JFK's head, etc.

We cannot say that he is wrong, because that would be like calling him a
"liar".

Apparently, I am also not allowed to ask him to be specific about who
refuted me and how. I guess that's like calling him a liar, too:-)

Meanwhile, he has no problem violating his own charter, by labeling me as
unworthy to discuss things with him, and "obnoxious".

If we define "obnoxious" as being a bit of a pest, challenging him to
answer important questions related to his own theory and justifying his
assertions, then I plead guilty as hell.

This last post that he apparently, is going to censor, can be read in its
entirety in ACJ where I just reposted it under the heading, "Mcadams
censorship". Of course it violates no rules at all.

>
> He is welcome to post the message that was rejected anywhere he wants.

Whew! I am certainly glad to get your permission!

>
> People will be astonished at what he thinks he can get away with --
> except for people here who are familiar with Harris.

BTW John, why don't you tell us about some of these "rebuttals". We all
know how honest you are, so I'm sure you are fully prepared to defend
you claim.

The floor is yours:-)






Robert Harris

[John McAdams]

On 21 May 2014 21:14:44 -0400, Robert Harris <bobha...@yahoo.com>
wrote:

>A "threat"!? I am threatening you by stating that I will post my message
>elsewhere if you will not permit it here??
>
>Maybe you should report me to the authorities, John! Since it was an
>interstate communication, you should certainly let the FBI know about
>it:-)
>
>But let's talk about REAL threats,
>
>like you threatening to censor me for stating that your claim that I was
>refuted, is false.
>
>or threatening to censor me, not because I violated a rule but because I
>was not polite enough to Jean Davison.
>

Let's see: was this the time you clearly implied that she *knew* you
were right, and was denying it.

Or was it some other time you called people liars.

>or any of numerous other threats you made to silence me based on
>nonexistent rules that you made up on the fly.
>

You mean the rule that you can't call people liars?

You mean the rule that you can't spam the group by repeatedly
demanding that people respond to your posts?

All that's long been in the charter.

You just don't like it applied to you.

>Those are not just threats John, but in most cases, actions that you
>actually carried out.
>
>I will post my messages in as many forums as I please, John. And I will
>make videos based on verifiable facts, including the fact that you censor
>messages which are in full compliance with the rules but challenge you to
>answer important questions or justify your own claims.
>

Sure, make it obvious that you are obsessed with your theory, and
think you can bully and badger and berate people into accepting it.

.John
-----------------------
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/home.htm

[John McAdams]

On 21 May 2014 21:16:34 -0400, Robert Harris <bobha...@yahoo.com>
wrote:

>John McAdams wrote:
>> Just got this from Harris:
>>
>> <quote on>
>>
>> Date: Wed, 21 May 2014 18:04:59 -0400
>> From: Robert Harris <bobha...@yahoo.com>
>> To: alt-assass...@moderators.isc.org
>> Newsgroups: alt.assassination.jfk
>> Subject: do not repost
>>
>> John, there is nothing in my reply to you that is as bad as you
>> calling me "obnoxious" or stating that I am "not worth fooling with".
>>
>> If you censor my response, I will repost it in several other JFK
>> forums and will make a video presentation on it.
>>
>> You've been running for 20 years.
>>
>> You certainly don't have to agree, but you do need to answer the tough
>> questions and support your own assertions.
>>
>> <end quote>
>>
>> Harris sent one of his usual posts claiming I've failed to ever engage
>> his arguments (calling me a liar, in effect) and including a bunch of
>> other insults.
>
>John's claim is that I am not permitted to point out that he is wrong in
>claiming that I have been refuted.
>
>By his reasoning, we are not permitted to say that he is wrong about who
>shot JFK, wrong about his denials related to CE399, wrong about his denial
>of damage to the back of JFK's head, etc.
>

You can say somebody is wrong, but you can't say somebody is lying.

Which is what you repeatedly try to do.

>We cannot say that he is wrong, because that would be like calling him a
>"liar".
>
>Apparently, I am also not allowed to ask him to be specific about who
>refuted me and how. I guess that's like calling him a liar, too:-)
>

I've told you that I used to engage you a lot, in the 1990s and the
early 2000s.

But you pretend I have not.

Use Google groups.

But you don't really want to see my responses, do you?

You just want to complain you haven't been refuted.

>Meanwhile, he has no problem violating his own charter, by labeling me as
>unworthy to discuss things with him, and "obnoxious".
>
>If we define "obnoxious" as being a bit of a pest, challenging him to
>answer important questions related to his own theory and justifying his
>assertions, then I plead guilty as hell.
>
>This last post that he apparently, is going to censor, can be read in its
>entirety in ACJ where I just reposted it under the heading, "Mcadams
>censorship". Of course it violates no rules at all.
>
>>
>> He is welcome to post the message that was rejected anywhere he wants.
>
>Whew! I am certainly glad to get your permission!
>
>>
>> People will be astonished at what he thinks he can get away with --
>> except for people here who are familiar with Harris.
>
>BTW John, why don't you tell us about some of these "rebuttals". We all
>know how honest you are, so I'm sure you are fully prepared to defend
>you claim.
>
>The floor is yours:-)
>

Simple, Bob.

You loudly insist that everybody in the limo is "ducking" in response
to a shot at Z-285. But nobody else sees that.

Each and every action you see as "ducking" is something else.

Jackie and Nellie are trying to look into their wounded husbands'
faces.

Greer is rapidly turning his head (but not lowering it at all) to see
what's going on in the back seat.

Kellerman is swaying forward. I can't see what he is doing, but he
might be reaching for the microphone, or maybe swaying forward as
Greer brakes.

You just won't accept anything but agreement with you.

Even on forums dominated by people who would *love* to believe in a
conspiracy, nobody agrees with you.

.John
-----------------------
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/home.htm

[FELIX LEITER]

Have there been any strange deaths in this NG? Anyone know about Tom
Rossley's woodchipper?

[Steve Barber]

Why don't you tell us, Robert, why you are so obsessed with .John McAdams and others paying attention to you?

You have been spouting this same stuff for nearly 20 years, and many
people who have addressed you one way or another have come and gone, yet
you still persist!

Why can't you get it through that skull of yours that no one-NO ONE-owes
you the time of day. Period!

>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Robert Harris

[Steve Barber]

I know Rossley has threatened several people with the woodchipper, and
just last weekend, I was threatened with a "scalping" in an email from
Ralph Cinque to John Fiorentino.

[Robert Harris]

Duh.. I wrote your charter John. I'm pretty sure I get that:-)

But that's not what you said. You said,

"You can't keep saying that I've made 'false claims.' That's calling me
a liar."

So, what is a "false claim"? I'm pretty sure it means a statement that
is untrue. How many thousands of times have you and your friends told
conspiracy people that their claims were false or untrue??

That right is fundamental and necessary to any form of legitimate debate.

You have never refuted me John and you have never seen anyone else
refute me. If you honestly thought you had, then your failure to locate
such a refutation ought to be telling you something very important.

>
> Which is what you repeatedly try to do.

Stating that your claim is false and requesting proof is not an
accusation of being a liar, John.

Your claim that it is, is a bit silly.

>
>
>> We cannot say that he is wrong, because that would be like calling him a
>> "liar".
>>
>> Apparently, I am also not allowed to ask him to be specific about who
>> refuted me and how. I guess that's like calling him a liar, too:-)
>>
>
> I've told you that I used to engage you a lot, in the 1990s and the

Whoops!

Let's not change the subject. The sentence you replied to was,

"Apparently, I am also not allowed to ask him to be specific about who
refuted me and how. I guess that's like calling him a liar, too"

So, do I have the right to ask you to be specific about these alleged
rebuttals or do I now??

And having made that allegation, don't you think you have an obligation
to justify it?? Why won't you do that John?


> early 2000s.

I remember you trying to argue that most of the relevant witnesses
didn't say the final shots were closely bunched. I replied by posting
many dozens of citations as well as the WC's conclusion, after which you
clammed up on that issue.

And I remember you saying, "Nobody was ducking, Bob".

And when I asked if you agree with Alvarez that there was a loud noise
at 285, you replied with "Did alvarez say there was a shot at 285, Bob?".

Is that what you call engagement:-)

>
> But you pretend I have not.

I make no such pretense. There are dozens of critical questions which to
this day, you have never answered. And none which you have discussed
with anything more than a one-line, hit 'n run shot.

Would you like to review some of those questions, John?

>
> Use Google groups.
>
> But you don't really want to see my responses, do you?

I am begging you to show them to me John.

Other than a handful of silly one-liners, I can remember nothing. Oh
wait! Didn't you post 2 or 3 sentences about your theory that Kellerman
was "swaying":-)

John, engagement is a process of point, counterpoint. And honest people
*NEVER*, ever, ever evade the tough questions.

*NEVER*

>
> You just want to complain you haven't been refuted.

Why would I complain that I haven't been refuted??

>
>
>> Meanwhile, he has no problem violating his own charter, by labeling me as
>> unworthy to discuss things with him, and "obnoxious".

John, this is a rather serious issue. Why did you violate your own
charter in such a flagrant manner??

>>
>> If we define "obnoxious" as being a bit of a pest, challenging him to
>> answer important questions related to his own theory and justifying his
>> assertions, then I plead guilty as hell.
>>
>> This last post that he apparently, is going to censor, can be read in its
>> entirety in ACJ where I just reposted it under the heading, "Mcadams
>> censorship". Of course it violates no rules at all.
>>
>>>
>>> He is welcome to post the message that was rejected anywhere he wants.
>>
>> Whew! I am certainly glad to get your permission!
>>
>>>
>>> People will be astonished at what he thinks he can get away with --
>>> except for people here who are familiar with Harris.
>>
>> BTW John, why don't you tell us about some of these "rebuttals". We all
>> know how honest you are, so I'm sure you are fully prepared to defend
>> you claim.
>>
>> The floor is yours:-)
>>
>
> Simple, Bob.
>
> You loudly insist that everybody in the limo is "ducking" in response
> to a shot at Z-285.

That is untrue, as I told you several times in the past. I said three
people were ducking - Mrs. Kennedy, Mrs. Connally, and Roy Kellerman, in
the range of 27-35 degrees. I have also proven that to you by posting
relevant Zapruder frames.

> But nobody else sees that.

That is flatly untrue as well.

Even your fellow nutters, like OHLeeRedux and others have claimed that
they reacted by being thrown forward when Greer allegedly slammed on the
brakes.

>
> Each and every action you see as "ducking" is something else.

Really?

How do you justify that John? Witness statements? Zapruder frames? Some
kind of scientific study??

Or is your only justification that you desperately wish it were so??

Lets take a closer look at Kellerman and at least let the lurkers out
there, make their own call.

http://jfkhistory.com/kellerman2.gif

And how do you explain why all of those people reacted in the same 1/6th
of a single second? Watch em again john. I know it isn't easy for you
but you need to try.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7GH5pGQy6yI

In this animation, you will see both sets of reactions, following first
285, and then 313. The ladies don't drop their heads following 313,
because they were still down, from the 285 shot.

Notice also, that the reactions following 285 are less pronounced than
those following 313. That matches perfectly with Alvarez's conclusion
that Zapruder's reaction to 313 was more pronounced than to 285.
Obviously, the 313 shot was louder.

http://jfkhistory.com/285reactions.gif

>
> Jackie and Nellie are trying to look into their wounded husbands'
> faces.

John, have you ever noticed that you have a tendency to just blurt out
your subjective opinions without even a speck of factual evidence or
logical analysis??

Let's talk about the objective FACTS, shall we?

Why do you suppose that 5 people in the limo, and Abraham Zapruder, all
reacted in the same 1/6th of one second??

Would you like me to prove that to you, AGAIN, John??

>
> Greer is rapidly turning his head (but not lowering it at all) to see
> what's going on in the back seat.

That is correct. Startle reactions take many different forms. But why do
you suppose he turned at such incredible speed, as he lifted his foot
from the gas??

Do you suppose he might have been a bit startled at the time:-)

Do you suppose he might have been affected when he heard and felt the
"concussion" of the shock wave of the passing bullet on his face??

>
> Kellerman is swaying forward.

ROFLMAO!!

And Jackie shot JFK with a derringer she had hidden in her underware!

http://jfkhistory.com/kellerman2.gif

>I can't see what he is doing,

That's funny. You seem to be the only one with that problem.

In case you missed your latest appointment at the optometrist, why don't
you have some of the youngsters in your class look at the animation and
let them tell you what they see??

I would really love to hear their responses. Seriously, John. Why don't
you do it?

> but he
> might be reaching for the microphone, or maybe swaying forward as
> Greer brakes.
>
> You just won't accept anything but agreement with you.

Sorry John. You're endless unsupported, subjective opinions just don't
cut it. And they don't qualify as engagement.

Engagement is about the objective facts and verifiable evidence. Our
personal, subjective opinions are utterly and totally worthless.

The good news is, that there is a great deal of objective, measurable
evidence John. Let's throw out subjective crap and talk about what
really matters.

Are you up for that??



Robert Harris

[Anthony Marsh]

Prove that Greer brakes. What frame? How come we never see the brake
lights come on? Are you claiming they were broken? Was this in your book?

[Anthony Marsh]

What do you mean? Where is this "Kennedy Killers" forum? Do you mean here?
This is not a forum. It is a moderated Usenet newsgroup. Open to all.
Everyone can post.

McAdams has no authority to tell people they can't post here. So it is not
a matter of McAdams "Allowing" someone to post here, it is just following
the Usenet rules.

[David Von Pein]

ROBERT HARRIS SAID:

Our personal, subjective opinions are utterly and totally worthless.

DAVID VON PEIN SAYS:

Oh, sure. John McAdams' opinions are "subjective", but Robert Harris'
opinions regarding his made-up shot at Z285 are based ONLY on "objective,
measurable evidence", with NO "subjective" analysis included at all. Is
that it, Bob?

Somebody pinch me! Is it truly possible that Bob really believes his Z285
analysis isn't the slightest bit "subjective"? That's the height of
hilarity if he does.

PUTTING HARRIS IN HIS PROPER PLACE:
http://jfk-archives.blogspot.com/search?q=robert+harris+z285

[Anthony Marsh]

Charter, schmarter. .John does not follow no damn stinkin charter. He
makes it up as he goes, depending on what he had for lunch that day. Stay
away from the clams. They are off. And the hamburgers at his college were
made with the most recent batch of tainted beef.

[Kleep Klopp]

It seems physical threats are the norm among members of the "Oswald
Innocent Campaign". Here is another example from senior member Lee Cahalan
on Facebook

http://tinypic.com/r/f4ocn9/8

Ed's crime? Saying it was Lovelady in the doorway

[Robert Harris]

David Von Pein wrote:
> ROBERT HARRIS SAID:
>
> Our personal, subjective opinions are utterly and totally worthless.
>
>
> DAVID VON PEIN SAYS:
>
> Oh, sure. John McAdams' opinions are "subjective", but Robert Harris'
> opinions regarding his made-up shot at Z285 are based ONLY on "objective,
> measurable evidence", with NO "subjective" analysis included at all. Is
> that it, Bob?

Yes, that is absolutely correct.

Let's look at a few of the objective, relevant facts.

1. Both the Nobel prize winning physicist, Dr. Luis Alvarez and the
similarly qualified Dr. Michael Stroscio have confirmed that there was a
loud and startling noise at frame 285.

2. Five people (not four), plus Zapruder, reacted beginning at 290-292,
within the same 1/6th of one second.

3. Three of those people simultaneously dropped their heads by 27-35
degrees.

4. Greer lifted his foot from the gas and spun around at near inhuman
speed, in perfect unison with the other reactions. Watch him David, and
check out Kellerman too:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7GH5pGQy6yI

5. Kellerman exhibited a series of easily identified, measurable,
textbook startle reactions, beginning in the same 1/6th of a second as
the others. This one is important John. Watch it and learn:

http://jfkhistory.com/kellerman2.gif

6. In spite of all the nutter nitpicking, the Warren Commission?s
conclusion, based on the testimonies of numerous witnesses, settles the
question of what the witnesses actually heard that day. They concluded:

?.a substantial majority of the witnesses stated that the shots were not
evenly spaced. Most witnesses recalled that the second and third shots
were bunched together.?

At one point during the hearings, Warren Commissioner Allen Dulles noted
the overwhelming consistency of these witnesses, when he described the
ratio of those confirming that shooting scenario in comparison with others,

?There has been a certain amount of testimony indicating there was a
longer pause between the report of the first shot? and the second and
third shots, that is not absolutely unanimous but I would say it is
something like 5 to 1 or something of that kind.?

ALL the relevant evidence supports a shot at 285 David. Oswald might
have fired one shot at the end, but he couldn't have fired both and he
certainly didn't fire any of the pre-285 shots, one of which went
unheard by everyone, including John Connally, who was hit by it.

>
> Somebody pinch me!

If it's all the same to you David, I would rather encourage you to address
the objective, verifiable facts rather than pretend that my analysis is
based on subjective opinion, something I abhor and always have.

> Is it truly possible that Bob really believes his Z285
> analysis isn't the slightest bit "subjective"? That's the height of
> hilarity if he does.

No it isn't David. It's just another very typical personal insult, which
is all you have left to defend the LN theory.

>
> PUTTING HARRIS IN HIS PROPER PLACE:
> http://jfk-archives.blogspot.com/search?q=robert+harris+z285

I love how you only post this nonsense in your own blog, where no
dissent is permitted. Why don't you post it in a forum, where your
errors and ridiculous misstatements can be corrected?

Your arguments TOTALLY misrepresent me and evade 95% of my analysis. Do
you really think you are convincing anyone with that crap?




Robert Harris

[FELIX LEITER]

Marsh, you know nothing about the Magna Carta or Runnymede.

[Lanny]

On Thursday, May 22, 2014 9:39:39 PM UTC-4, Robert Harris wrote:

>
>
> ALL the relevant evidence supports a shot at 285 David.
>

The relevant testimony of Governor and Mrs. Connally and that of William
Greer are all mutually corroborative and effectively discredit the
allegation of a shot at frame 285.

Each of these witnesses heard three shots and three shots only. Each
witness accurately and unarguably placed the first two shots well in
advance of frame 285. In the case of Governor Connally, the ambiguity of a
second shot he admittedly did NOT hear is persuasively offset by the fact
that the shot actually struck him and inflicted severe wounds.

Each of the witnesses heard a third shot. Governor and Mrs. Connally
affirmatively associated the third shot with striking the President's
skull and being showered with blood and tissue.

William Greer also heard the third shot, and even though his Warren
Commission testimony does not reflect a direct association of what he
heard with what he saw, frame 313 of the Zapruder film establishes beyond
any doubt that Greer was turned and looking directly at the President at
the precise moment of the third shot's fatal impact.

Neither Governor Connally nor Mrs. Connally nor William Greer manifested
visible startle reactions to a shot their respective testimonies clearly
and irrefutably indicate they did not hear. More pointedly, nothing in
their testimonies or experience supports the conclusion that a shot at
frame 285 ever occurred.

[David Von Pein]

ROBERT HARRIS SAID:

I love how you only post this nonsense in your own blog, where no dissent
is permitted. Why don't you post it in a forum, where your errors and
ridiculous misstatements can be corrected?

Your arguments TOTALLY misrepresent me and evade 95% of my analysis. Do
you really think you are convincing anyone with that crap?

DAVID VON PEIN SAYS:

You're funny, Bob.

On my site, I put forth plenty of logical reasons for not taking anything
you say seriously. But, naturally, you can't find the logic within my
reasoning. You're too fixated on one single number -- 285.

One of the biggest reasons we can know Harris is dead wrong is the fact
that NOBODY in the car is exhibiting JERKY movements at the time when
Harris insists they are ALL exhibiting "startle" reactions. But, once
again, Bob Harris has just turned a blind eye toward that obvious
"non-jerky" fact.

http://jfk-archives.blogspot.com/search?q=robert+harris

[BT George]

Yep. And it's quite humorous too.

Bob has spent no telling how much time creating graphics and "measuring"
the apparent degree of decline in people's heads on the Z Film and
countless hours trying to convice himself and others that he possess
*objective" evidence that these are "involuntary" shot startle reactions.
Yet when you point out to him the visually *OBVIOUS* discrepancy between
his so-called Z285 "startle reactions" vs. the typically "jerky" movements
scientifically documented for such reactions (or even link to films
showing what they *REALLY DO* look like with *ACTUAL* shooting in the
background); he tries to *pretend* that the visually *OBVIOUS* is somehow
only "subjective".

But that's OK. Our viewers and lurkers have eyes too.

And even that record-shattering 15,015th Z Post he's preparing "ain't"
'gonna save him from what is patently *OBVIOUS* to the visually capable.
:-)


BT George

[Anthony Marsh]

You've made a couple of logical errors there.

First, you should not expect to see ANY reactions at frame Z-285 if that's
when he said the shot was fired. Depending on where he places the weapon
today, whether it was a rifle or a handgun, etc. the sound is not going to
be heard by his handpicked earwitnesses until after the shot and it may
take 100-200 milliseconds before there could be any reaction. The second
logical error is assuming that every person reacts at exactly the same
time in exactly the same way. Look at the Atlanta Olympic bombing. Not
everyone reacted at exactly the same time in exactly the same way.

[Anthony Marsh]

On 5/23/2014 11:18 AM, Lanny wrote:
> On Thursday, May 22, 2014 9:39:39 PM UTC-4, Robert Harris wrote:
>
>>
>>
>> ALL the relevant evidence supports a shot at 285 David.
>>
>
> The relevant testimony of Governor and Mrs. Connally and that of William
> Greer are all mutually corroborative and effectively discredit the
> allegation of a shot at frame 285.
>
> Each of these witnesses heard three shots and three shots only. Each
> witness accurately and unarguably placed the first two shots well in
> advance of frame 285. In the case of Governor Connally, the ambiguity of a
> second shot he admittedly did NOT hear is persuasively offset by the fact
> that the shot actually struck him and inflicted severe wounds.
>

Excuse me. What you just said is not rooted in fact. Connally did not hear
the shot that hit him. So if you claim that Connally said there were three
shots, the shot which hit him which he didn't hear makes 4 shots. Thanks
for proving he HSCA correct.

> Each of the witnesses heard a third shot. Governor and Mrs. Connally
> affirmatively associated the third shot with striking the President's
> skull and being showered with blood and tissue.
>

You mean the last shot.

> William Greer also heard the third shot, and even though his Warren
> Commission testimony does not reflect a direct association of what he
> heard with what he saw, frame 313 of the Zapruder film establishes beyond
> any doubt that Greer was turned and looking directly at the President at
> the precise moment of the third shot's fatal impact.
>
> Neither Governor Connally nor Mrs. Connally nor William Greer manifested
> visible startle reactions to a shot their respective testimonies clearly
> and irrefutably indicate they did not hear. More pointedly, nothing in
> their testimonies or experience supports the conclusion that a shot at
> frame 285 ever occurred.
>

SO what? Does Harris ever cite testimony? Does ANY witness ever testify
to having a startle reaction? Quotes please.

[Lanny]

On Friday, May 23, 2014 9:23:09 PM UTC-4, Anthony Marsh wrote:
> On 5/23/2014 11:18 AM, Lanny wrote:

>
> > Each of these witnesses heard three shots and three shots only. Each
>
> > witness accurately and unarguably placed the first two shots well in
>
> > advance of frame 285. In the case of Governor Connally, the ambiguity of a
>
> > second shot he admittedly did NOT hear is persuasively offset by the fact
>
> > that the shot actually struck him and inflicted severe wounds.
>
> >
>
>
>
> Excuse me. What you just said is not rooted in fact. Connally did not hear
>
> the shot that hit him. So if you claim that Connally said there were three
>
> shots, the shot which hit him which he didn't hear makes 4 shots. Thanks
>
> for proving he HSCA correct.
>
>

Is this your Bob Harris imitation? Are you actually trying to be
pointlessly contentious? You know what I meant. Two witnesses heard three
and only three shots and assigned them to a timescale that serves to deny
the existence of a shot at frame 285. A third witness, John Connally,
gave similar testimony based on two shots he heard and one shot he felt.

The point is three witnesses Harris chronically misrepresents stand
squarely in opposition to his shot at frame 285 fable.

[Robert Harris]

Lanny wrote:
> On Thursday, May 22, 2014 9:39:39 PM UTC-4, Robert Harris wrote:
>
>>
>>
>> ALL the relevant evidence supports a shot at 285 David.

Proper usenet netiquette requires that you identify the parts of an
adversary's post that you chose to snip, along with a brief explanation
for why you did it.

Since you did not do that, I will put the deleted portion back in so that
you have another chance to properly respond:

[Lanny]

On Saturday, May 24, 2014 12:11:22 AM UTC-4, Robert Harris wrote:

>
> Proper usenet netiquette requires that you identify the parts of an
>
> adversary's post that you chose to snip, along with a brief explanation
>
> for why you did it.
>
>
>
> Since you did not do that, I will put the deleted portion back in so that
>
> you have another chance to properly respond:
>

You're so vain, you probably think that post was about you.

[David Von Pein]

ROBERT HARRIS (WITH A STRAIGHT FACE EVIDENTLY) SAID:

Proper usenet netiquette requires that you identify the parts of an
adversary's post that you chose to snip, along with a brief explanation
for why you did it.

DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

Who made up that rule, Bob? Is it in the "Usenet Netiquette Manual" (Vol.
4, No. 5)? What page number please?

Look. I did it again. I snipped off Harris and didn't even provide "a
brief explanation" for my snippage. As if anyone has ever provided such
"brief explanations" in any posts that are snipped here at aaj. (LOL
time.)

As I said, Bob is very funny.

Can I expect the Usenet Police to come and cart me off to prison now? Or
will I merely receive a $5.00 fine for "No Explanation For Snippage"?

[Anthony Marsh]

On 5/24/2014 12:11 AM, Robert Harris wrote:
> Lanny wrote:
>> On Thursday, May 22, 2014 9:39:39 PM UTC-4, Robert Harris wrote:
>>
>>>
>>>
>>> ALL the relevant evidence supports a shot at 285 David.
>
> Proper usenet netiquette requires that you identify the parts of an
> adversary's post that you chose to snip, along with a brief explanation
> for why you did it.
>
> Since you did not do that, I will put the deleted portion back in so
> that you have another chance to properly respond:
>
> David Von Pein wrote:
> > ROBERT HARRIS SAID:
> >
> > Our personal, subjective opinions are utterly and totally worthless.
> >
> >
> > DAVID VON PEIN SAYS:
> >
> > Oh, sure. John McAdams' opinions are "subjective", but Robert Harris'
> > opinions regarding his made-up shot at Z285 are based ONLY on
> "objective,
> > measurable evidence", with NO "subjective" analysis included at all. Is
> > that it, Bob?
>
> Yes, that is absolutely correct.
>
> Let's look at a few of the objective, relevant facts.
>
> 1. Both the Nobel prize winning physicist, Dr. Luis Alvarez and the
> similarly qualified Dr. Michael Stroscio have confirmed that there was a
> loud and startling noise at frame 285.
>

Phony Argument by Authority. Alvavarez speculated. He did not confirm.
Strocio only said you have an interesting theory. He didn't confirm
anything.

> 2. Five people (not four), plus Zapruder, reacted beginning at 290-292,
> within the same 1/6th of one second.
>

Something like that, but you never prove your exact claims.

> 3. Three of those people simultaneously dropped their heads by 27-35
> degrees.
>

Proof?

> 4. Greer lifted his foot from the gas and spun around at near inhuman
> speed, in perfect unison with the other reactions. Watch him David, and
> check out Kellerman too:
>

Something like that. You can't prove exactly when.
There is nothing superhuman. You are just looking at poor quality frames.

> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7GH5pGQy6yI
>
> 5. Kellerman exhibited a series of easily identified, measurable,
> textbook startle reactions, beginning in the same 1/6th of a second as
> the others. This one is important John. Watch it and learn:
>
> http://jfkhistory.com/kellerman2.gif
>
> 6. In spite of all the nutter nitpicking, the Warren Commission?s
> conclusion, based on the testimonies of numerous witnesses, settles the
> question of what the witnesses actually heard that day. They concluded:
>
> ?.a substantial majority of the witnesses stated that the shots were not
> evenly spaced. Most witnesses recalled that the second and third shots
> were bunched together.?
>

So what? You are proposing an addition shot just before the head shot.

> At one point during the hearings, Warren Commissioner Allen Dulles noted
> the overwhelming consistency of these witnesses, when he described the
> ratio of those confirming that shooting scenario in comparison with others,
>
> ?There has been a certain amount of testimony indicating there was a
> longer pause between the report of the first shot? and the second and
> third shots, that is not absolutely unanimous but I would say it is
> something like 5 to 1 or something of that kind.?
>
> ALL the relevant evidence supports a shot at 285 David. Oswald might

Nonsense. You are cherry picking which evidence you like.

> have fired one shot at the end, but he couldn't have fired both and he
> certainly didn't fire any of the pre-285 shots, one of which went
> unheard by everyone, including John Connally, who was hit by it.
>

You give us no arguments as to why the same rifle could not have fired
the earlier shots.

> >
> > Somebody pinch me!
>
> If it's all the same to you David, I would rather encourage you to address
> the objective, verifiable facts rather than pretend that my analysis is
> based on subjective opinion, something I abhor and always have.
>
> > Is it truly possible that Bob really believes his Z285
> > analysis isn't the slightest bit "subjective"? That's the height of
> > hilarity if he does.
>
> No it isn't David. It's just another very typical personal insult, which
> is all you have left to defend the LN theory.
>
> >
> > PUTTING HARRIS IN HIS PROPER PLACE:
> > http://jfk-archives.blogspot.com/search?q=robert+harris+z285
>
> I love how you only post this nonsense in your own blog, where no
> dissent is permitted. Why don't you post it in a forum, where your
> errors and ridiculous misstatements can be corrected?
>

SPAM. You just keep repeating the exact same message thousands of times
as if the mere repetition proves something.

[Anthony Marsh]

On 5/23/2014 11:57 PM, Lanny wrote:
> On Friday, May 23, 2014 9:23:09 PM UTC-4, Anthony Marsh wrote:
>> On 5/23/2014 11:18 AM, Lanny wrote:
>
>>
>>> Each of these witnesses heard three shots and three shots only. Each
>>
>>> witness accurately and unarguably placed the first two shots well in
>>
>>> advance of frame 285. In the case of Governor Connally, the ambiguity of a
>>
>>> second shot he admittedly did NOT hear is persuasively offset by the fact
>>
>>> that the shot actually struck him and inflicted severe wounds.
>>
>>>
>>
>>
>>
>> Excuse me. What you just said is not rooted in fact. Connally did not hear
>>
>> the shot that hit him. So if you claim that Connally said there were three
>>
>> shots, the shot which hit him which he didn't hear makes 4 shots. Thanks
>>
>> for proving he HSCA correct.
>>
>>
>
> Is this your Bob Harris imitation? Are you actually trying to be
> pointlessly contentious? You know what I meant. Two witnesses heard three

Oh, I know exactly what you meant to say. Remember, I am the resident
mind reader.;]> I'm just here to translate for others who can't figure
out what you mean and you remind you to be careful the way you phrase
things.

> and only three shots and assigned them to a timescale that serves to deny
> the existence of a shot at frame 285. A third witness, John Connally,
> gave similar testimony based on two shots he heard and one shot he felt.
>

Yes, now that makes 3 shots, not 4. See how much better that sounds?

> The point is three witnesses Harris chronically misrepresents stand
> squarely in opposition to his shot at frame 285 fable.
>

Is this your first time on the Internet? We've been listening to Harris'
wacky theories for 30 years.

[BT George]

Hoo boy! Bob Harris is in rare form tonight boys and girls. Consider
this "pot meet kettle" declaration about not identifying or acknowledging
what you have snipped from and adversaries post:

--------------------------quote on-----------------------

Proper usenet netiquette requires that you identify the parts of an
adversary's post that you chose to snip, along with a brief explanation
for why you did it.

Since you did not do that, I will put the deleted portion back in so that
you have another chance to properly respond:

---------------------------quote off-------------------------

So I guess that means he is going to voluntarily spend the next 7.5 years
combing back over some 18,500 Assassination posts to cull out and address
the 10,500 or so to times he has snipped to answer only what he deems
expedient or interesting for him to address?

...Don't hold your breath!


BT George

[Anthony Marsh]

There wouldn't be any problem at all if all you kids obeyed the rules in
the first place.

[HERCULE POIROT]

Liberals who want freedom want too many rules that limit freedom.