So far, its 3 Runners and Zero Heroes!
Robert Harris
Ok, so far, there have been three runners who responded to my
challenge and zero who will defend the LN cause.
Is there even one of you left, who will defend his position?
Here are the reactions:
http://jfkhistory.com/reactions18fps.mov
If those people were startled by a gunshot, then Oswald couldnt have
fired all the shots. It's just that simple folks.
Here is the story, in detail:
http://two.fsphost.com/reharris/jfk.mov
Robert Harris
There is NO question that an honest man will evade.
The JFK History Page
http://jfkhistory.com/
Bud
Robert Harris wrote:
> Ok, so far, there have been three runners who responded to my
> challenge and zero who will defend the LN cause.
Stop waving that ca-ca under people`s noses, Harris. It`s rude.
Robert Harris
"Bud" <sirs...@fast.net> wrote:
> Robert Harris wrote:
> > Ok, so far, there have been three runners who responded to my
> > challenge and zero who will defend the LN cause.
>
> Stop waving that ca-ca under people`s noses, Harris. It`s rude.
Ok, that's FOUR runners and NO fighters!!
Anybody out there who is up to defending the LN theory?
Anybody???
Here are the reactions:
http://jfkhistory.com/reactions18fps.mov
And here are the facts:
http://two.fsphost.com/reharris/jfk.mov
Robert Harris
Grizzlie Antagonist
Robert Harris wrote:
>
> If those people were startled by a gunshot, then Oswald couldnt have
> fired all the shots.
If.
Martijn Meijering
> Ok, so far, there have been three runners who responded to my
> challenge and zero who will defend the LN cause.
I hadn't realised it was a challenge. I simply offered my explanation.
And you did ask :-)
>
> Is there even one of you left, who will defend his position?
I would, but I can't be bothered. Have a nice day!
Martijn
Robert Harris
<lloydso...@yahoo.com> wrote:
Still running, eh Griz:-)
Robert Harris
wrote:
ROFLMAO!!
But why is it that these runners always manage to snip those
unpleasant links?
http://jfkhistory.com/reactions18fps.mov
Here is the story, in detail:
http://two.fsphost.com/reharris/jfk.mov
Robert Harris
>
>Martijn
Bud
Robert Harris wrote:
> On 27 May 2006 11:00:05 -0400, "Grizzlie Antagonist"
> <lloydso...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> >
> >Robert Harris wrote:
> >>
> >> If those people were startled by a gunshot, then Oswald couldnt have
> >> fired all the shots.
> >
> >
> >If.
>
> Still running, eh Griz:-)
<snicker> He isn`t running, he pointed out the weakness in your
thesis using one small word. That the foundation for what you are
asserting isn`t established, as you admit by the use of the word "if".
Grizzlie Antagonist
> On 27 May 2006 11:00:05 -0400, "Grizzlie Antagonist"
> <lloydso...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> >
> >Robert Harris wrote:
> >>
> >> If those people were startled by a gunshot, then Oswald couldnt have
> >> fired all the shots.
> >
> >
> >If.
>
Running from what? What part of "if" don't you understand? Even
standing on its own, the word "if" is pretty clear in context, isn't
it?
You make the same three arguments over and over and I can address them
succinctly and I have.
So again, briefly:
1) the notion that people are "ducking" to avoid gunfire in frames
285-312 is simply your impression. I don't see it. Others don't see
it.
2) I'm not impressed with the earwitness testimony, even assuming that
you've accurately described it. Earwitness testimony is unreliable
under the circumstances and goes against the weight of the other
evidence. It's also highly selective, inasmuch as your earwitnesses
don't hear all that you say happened; and
3) I see no BOH damage in any of the Zapruder frames. To the contrary,
my impression that there was no damage to the BOH is strenghtened. I
don't know what people who see damage to the BOH in Z335 and Z337 are
looking at.
I've already told you the story of the dependency client that I once
briefly had who dramatically showed me a picture of his son - a smiling
young boy with an unbruised face - as "proof" that his son had been
physically abused by his mother. It's still a great example of what's
happening here.
My client wanted his son back, and so he needed to believe that his son
had been abused, and belief trumped knowledge. People who see BOH
damage in the Zapruder film must be in the same position.
So I've taken four paragraphs and a few hundred words and they are
sufficient to the respond to the many thousands of posts that you've
generated in support of the same three points. I've said all of these
things before, and so have others.
You just didn't like the answers that you received, so you're
pretending that the answers were never made and flattering yourself
with the notion that people are "running" from you when they are really
just too tired to repeat themselves.
No one is running from you. No one has reason to fear you.
Robert Harris
"Bud" <sirs...@fast.net> wrote:
> Robert Harris wrote:
> > On 27 May 2006 11:00:05 -0400, "Grizzlie Antagonist"
> > <lloydso...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> >
> > >
> > >Robert Harris wrote:
> > >>
> > >> If those people were startled by a gunshot, then Oswald couldnt have
> > >> fired all the shots.
> > >
> > >
> > >If.
> >
> > Still running, eh Griz:-)
>
> <snicker> He isn`t running, he pointed out the weakness in your
> thesis using one small word. That the foundation for what you are
> asserting isn`t established, as you admit by the use of the word "if".
Then do what Grizzlie and all the rest of you havve failed to even
attempt.
Explain to us what *really* startled those people:
http://jfkhistory.com/reactions18fps.mov
http://two.fsphost.com/reharris/jfk.mov
Of course, you know *exactly* what startled them, Bud.
So why do you continue to fight about this???????
Robert Harris
SammyG
"Robert Harris" <reha...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:4478f38d...@news20.forteinc.com...
> On 27 May 2006 18:50:27 -0400, Martijn Meijering <mar...@mevs.nl>
> wrote:
>
>>Robert Harris wrote:
>>> Ok, so far, there have been three runners who responded to my
>>> challenge and zero who will defend the LN cause.
>>
>>I hadn't realised it was a challenge. I simply offered my explanation.
>>And you did ask :-)
>>
>>>
>>> Is there even one of you left, who will defend his position?
>>
>>I would, but I can't be bothered. Have a nice day!
>
>
> ROFLMAO!!
>
> But why is it that these runners always manage to snip those
> unpleasant links?
>
> http://jfkhistory.com/reactions18fps.mov
>
> Here is the story, in detail:
>
> http://two.fsphost.com/reharris/jfk.mov
Robert, I'm not sure what your trying to achieve here? You, me, and
practically everyone else here knows of your contention. While this would
absolutely prove conspiracy, you must realize that facts aside, because of
this, many will not even consider it. With all the painstakingly slow and
methodical progress being revealed, in favor of conspiracy(documentary
record establishing the Mexico City tapes and photos, the medical
revelations established by the ARRB, etc, etc...), you must realize that
the deteriorating LN position will be clung to more jelously than before!
I have viewed the "reactions" of which you speak. I have kept an open
mind, but I am curious. Have you exhausted all the possible alternatives?
Have you ruled out something as mundane as the occupants all reacting to
an ill timed application of the brakes? I myself have noticed how fast the
Connally's seem to "react", and BAM their on the floor! It almost looks
unnatural!
FWIW
Sammy, G.
Robert Harris
"Grizzlie Antagonist" <lloydso...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> Robert Harris wrote:
> > On 27 May 2006 11:00:05 -0400, "Grizzlie Antagonist"
> > <lloydso...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> >
> > >
> > >Robert Harris wrote:
> > >>
> > >> If those people were startled by a gunshot, then Oswald couldnt have
> > >> fired all the shots.
> > >
> > >
> > >If.
> >
> > Still running, eh Griz?
>
>
> Running from what? What part of "if" don't you understand? Even
> standing on its own, the word "if" is pretty clear in context, isn't
> it?
Woohoo!!
At last, we are going to learn the real cause of these reactions:
http://jfkhistory.com/reactions18fps.mov
Or are we?
>
> You make the same three arguments over and over and I can address them
> succinctly and I have.
You have NEVER posted a substantive argument, Grizzle. As we will soon
see, you won't post one here either.
>
> So again, briefly:
>
> 1) the notion that people are "ducking" to avoid gunfire in frames
> 285-312 is simply your impression. I don't see it.
Ok then, since that word seems to really annoy you, let's just say that
three of the limo occupants simultaneously dropped their heads by 25 or
more degrees, within 1/6th of a second of Greer spinning around and
hitting the brakes, and Zapruder's reaction, as defined by Alvarez.
Is that better, Grizzlie?
So, if they weren't startled by a gunshot, then why did they do that?
> Others don't see
> it.
Of course they do. But this has nothing to do with what anyone sees,
Grizzlie. Your "argument" is about how you spin the description of their
reactions - all the while, totally evading the *cause* of those
reactions.
>
> 2) I'm not impressed with the earwitness testimony,
Of course you are.
You already stated that you based your theory that Hickey shot JFK, on
witness statements.
Other than the fact that we can actually see these people react when
they said they heard the shot, what is the difference?
> even assuming that
> you've accurately described it.
Described what?
Exactly which claims do you have doubts about?
Or did you just say that, to generate a little doubt?
> Earwitness testimony is unreliable
> under the circumstances and goes against the weight of the other
> evidence.
Exactly which other evidence are you referring to?
Why is it that you are never specific about these things, Grizzlie?
>It's also highly selective, inasmuch as your earwitnesses
> don't hear all that you say happened;
You mean they didn't hear the shots that they never reacted to, or
claimed to have heard?
Yep, you're right on that one, Grizzlie. No-one heard those shots, but
for a very good reason.
>and
>
> 3) I see no BOH damage in any of the Zapruder frames. To the contrary,
> my impression that there was no damage to the BOH is strenghtened. I
> don't know what people who see damage to the BOH in Z335 and Z337 are
> looking at.
This has nothing whatsoever, to do with the issue at hand, since the BOH
was blown out by the last shot, not the one at Z285.
But I will be delighted to grant you unlimited permission to post links
to those images at my website, so you can prove to everyone, that JFK's
BOH was visibly undamaged then:-)
I remain baffled however, as to why you and your buds always snip those
links, in your replies. Surely, you are eager to make such supportive
images available to everyone - aren't you Grizzlie:-)
>
> I've already told you the story of the dependency client that I once
> briefly had who dramatically showed me a picture of his son - a smiling
> young boy with an unbruised face - as "proof" that his son had been
> physically abused by his mother. It's still a great example of what's
> happening here.
Ok, then. Let's review your "arguments".
1. You don't like the word, "ducking".
2. You don't believe witnesses (unless they agree with you, of course).
3. You cannot see the BOH damage which other LNers admit to, and which
has absolutely nothing to do with the reactions to Z285.
Is that really it?? This is your *rebuttal* and the justification for
all the ridicule you post???
Don't you have anything to say about these reactions, Grizzlie?
http://jfkhistory.com/reactions18fps.mov
Don't you have anything to say about Dr. Alvarez's analysis?
Can't you tell us the *real* reason these five people all reacted within
a sixth of a second of one another?
Grizzlie, until you address at least one or two issues of substance, I'm
afraid you will remain in the "runners" column. In fact, in this last
posting, you seem to have quickened the pace a bit:-)
Robert Harris
Bud
Robert Harris wrote:
> In article <1148814807.3...@u72g2000cwu.googlegroups.com>,
> "Bud" <sirs...@fast.net> wrote:
>
> > Robert Harris wrote:
> > > On 27 May 2006 11:00:05 -0400, "Grizzlie Antagonist"
> > > <lloydso...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > >
> > > >
> > > >Robert Harris wrote:
> > > >>
> > > >> If those people were startled by a gunshot, then Oswald couldnt have
> > > >> fired all the shots.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >If.
> > >
> > > Still running, eh Griz:-)
> >
> > <snicker> He isn`t running, he pointed out the weakness in your
> > thesis using one small word. That the foundation for what you are
> > asserting isn`t established, as you admit by the use of the word "if".
>
> Then do what Grizzlie and all the rest of you havve failed to even
> attempt.
>
> Explain to us what *really* startled those people:
<snicker> How come you always start at step two, Harris? Like when you
claimed I was defending Griz about those posts he made in another
newsgroup, when you hadn`t even established he did anything that needed
defending. Now, you ask me to explain movement you claim is the result of
startle, when you haven`t established these movements to be the result of
those people being startled. You`ve proven it to your own satisfaction,
just as you showed GA`s transgressions to your own satisfaction.
If I was determined to claim there were multiple shooter in this
event, and there not being any prevented me from producing physical
evidence of such, I would have no choice but to try to establish my claim
using weak ass shit like jiggle analysis and my interpretations of startle
reactions. You boldly stride the only path left to you, lacking real
evidence, you create your own.
> http://jfkhistory.com/reactions18fps.mov
>
> http://two.fsphost.com/reharris/jfk.mov
>
> Of course, you know *exactly* what startled them, Bud.
Gunfire nobody heard?
> So why do you continue to fight about this???????
Heck, I`m not fighting, I`m running. I don`t see it as requirement
of mine that I piss on your sand castle.
>
> Robert Harris
Robert Harris
>
>"Robert Harris" <reha...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>news:4478f38d...@news20.forteinc.com...
>> On 27 May 2006 18:50:27 -0400, Martijn Meijering <mar...@mevs.nl>
>> wrote:
>>
>>>Robert Harris wrote:
>>>> Ok, so far, there have been three runners who responded to my
>>>> challenge and zero who will defend the LN cause.
>>>
>>>I hadn't realised it was a challenge. I simply offered my explanation.
>>>And you did ask :-)
>>>
>>>>
>>>> Is there even one of you left, who will defend his position?
>>>
>>>I would, but I can't be bothered. Have a nice day!
>>
>>
>> ROFLMAO!!
>>
>> But why is it that these runners always manage to snip those
>> unpleasant links?
>>
>> http://jfkhistory.com/reactions18fps.mov
>>
>> Here is the story, in detail:
>>
>> http://two.fsphost.com/reharris/jfk.mov
>
>Robert, I'm not sure what your trying to achieve here? You, me, and
>practically everyone else here knows of your contention.
Yes, but it's one thing to contend, and quite another, to prove. I
believe this presentation demonstrates the existence of a shot then,
beyond all reasonable doubt.
>While this would
>absolutely prove conspiracy, you must realize that facts aside, because of
>this, many will not even consider it. With all the painstakingly slow and
>methodical progress being revealed, in favor of conspiracy(documentary
>record establishing the Mexico City tapes and photos, the medical
>revelations established by the ARRB, etc, etc...), you must realize that
>the deteriorating LN position will be clung to more jelously than before!
You would be surprised how many minds this has changed.
From the beginning, I expected very few to publicly admit they were
wrong. But look closely at the dissenters. Do you notice the total
absence of any attempts to substantively challenge my argument??
As for other attempts to make the world aware of the conspiracy, I see
no reason why anything I say, should impede that effort.
What I am offering, is a very simple method to demonstrate to any
rational, fair-minded person, that there were others involved in the
crime. My hope is, that the facts I have presented, will eventually,
work their way to the people who write our history books and
encyclopedias.
>
>I have viewed the "reactions" of which you speak. I have kept an open
>mind, but I am curious. Have you exhausted all the possible alternatives?
>Have you ruled out something as mundane as the occupants all reacting to
>an ill timed application of the brakes?
That's a very good question, but yes, I have.
The slowdown did not begin until just before Z300. As is pointed out
in the presentation, it is easy to see when Greer was startled, and
slowed the limo. All of that happened *after* 285, and in direct
response to the shot.
Notice Greer's recollection that he was "turned around" when the
second shot was fired, and felt the "concussion" from the bullet.
Kellerman, btw, also stated that he was turned to the rear when the
second shot was fired.
Look at the two men in the Zapruder film. When did they turn to the
rear?
BTW, look closely at Kellerman. Notice how he twists his head while
simultaneously, raising his left hand to shield his ear. Does he look
to you, like someone who was only thrown forward by inertia?
http://jfkhistory.com/royducks.gif
Also, notice that both of the wives turn toward their husbands, just
before, or at the same time, they drop their heads. If they were only
thrown forward by inertia, they would have retained their
orientations, which in both cases, was facing away from their spouses.
And then we have some very specific statements by the same people we
see reacting, regarding *when* they heard this shot. The statements by
the wives, are IMO, conclusive and match perfectly, with the sequence
of events we see in the film.
>I myself have noticed how fast the
>Connally's seem to "react", and BAM their on the floor! It almost looks
>unnatural!
But that happened after 312.
BTW, another reason why I think it is important to understand in
detail, what happened that day, is that the first shots *really* were
fired from silenced and probably, low caliber weapons.
That's why the Secret Service seemed so sluggish that day. They heard
absolutely *nothing* that sounded like anything more than a child's
firecracker, prior to Z285, when the first of two high powered rifle
shots were fired.
I think those guys and Hill in particular, need to understand why they
appeared to react slowly and that it was not at all, their fault.
In fact, I have practically begged Palamara to help me get in contact
with Hill or at least point him to this presentation, but he refuses.
Robert Harris
>
>FWIW
>
>Sammy, G.
Grizzlie Antagonist
> In article <1148785486.0...@i39g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>,
> "Grizzlie Antagonist" <lloydso...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > Robert Harris wrote:
> > > On 27 May 2006 11:00:05 -0400, "Grizzlie Antagonist"
> > > <lloydso...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > >
> > > >
> > > >Robert Harris wrote:
> > > >>
> > > >> If those people were startled by a gunshot, then Oswald couldnt have
> > > >> fired all the shots.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >If.
> > >
> > > Still running, eh Griz?
> >
> >
> > Running from what? What part of "if" don't you understand? Even
> > standing on its own, the word "if" is pretty clear in context, isn't
> > it?
>
> Woohoo!!
>
> At last, we are going to learn the real cause of these reactions:
>
> http://jfkhistory.com/reactions18fps.mov
>
> Or are we?
>
>
> >
> > You make the same three arguments over and over and I can address them
> > succinctly and I have.
>
> You have NEVER posted a substantive argument, Grizzle.
Yes I have. You don't respect these arguments. I'm not going to
respect yours.
> > So again, briefly:
> >
> > 1) the notion that people are "ducking" to avoid gunfire in frames
> > 285-312 is simply your impression. I don't see it.
>
> Ok then, since that word seems to really annoy you, let's just say that
> three of the limo occupants simultaneously dropped their heads by 25 or
> more degrees, within 1/6th of a second of Greer spinning around and
> hitting the brakes, and Zapruder's reaction, as defined by Alvarez.
> Is that better, Grizzlie?
>
> So, if they weren't startled by a gunshot, then why did they do that?
Asked and answered.
> > Others don't see
> > it.
>
> Of course they do
No they don't.
> > 2) I'm not impressed with the earwitness testimony,
>
> Of course you are.
>
> You already stated that you based your theory
Howard Donahue's theory.
> that Hickey shot JFK, on
> witness statements.
You're only partially correct in that regard. It's only partially
based on witness statements. But even those witness statements don't
always refer to what they heard. A number of witnesses in the area of
the motorcade smelled gunpowder and said so. A number of others said
that they saw Hickey holding the AR-15 at the operative time.
So since I have witness statements that satisfy me, just as you have
witness statements that satisfy you, why am I not entitled to do the
same thing that you do? Why don't I get to publish the same witness
statements over and over ad nauseum and DEMAND that people accept my
point of view? Why doesn't everyone get to do that?
I was doing something like that earlier. Then I looked at my conduct
through the eyes of others and decided that it was rude and that it was
also not an effective way to build a consensus.
> Why is it that you are never specific about these things, Grizzlie?
Oh, I'm specific, all right. Maybe you're the one that's running.
> > 3) I see no BOH damage in any of the Zapruder frames. To the contrary,
> > my impression that there was no damage to the BOH is strenghtened. I
> > don't know what people who see damage to the BOH in Z335 and Z337 are
> > looking at.
>
> This has nothing whatsoever, to do with the issue at hand, since the BOH
> was blown out by the last shot, not the one at Z285.
And as I just said, the Z frames at 335 and 337 DISPROVE this.
> But I will be delighted to grant you unlimited permission to post links
> to those images at my website, so you can prove to everyone, that JFK's
> BOH was visibly undamaged then:-)
>
> I remain baffled however, as to why you and your buds always snip those
> links, in your replies. Surely, you are eager to make such supportive
> images available to everyone - aren't you Grizzlie:-)
When and if those links are snipped, it is for the purpose of brevity.
I have said on several occasions that you have posted links that
disprove your point.
> Grizzlie, until you address at least one or two issues of substance, I'm
> afraid you will remain in the "runners" column.
As long as that's not punishable by death, I'll try and bear up under
the grief.
Robert Harris
Whew!!
Lucky for me, eh:-)
So, what caused those reactions, Bud?
http://jfkhistory.com/reactions18fps.mov
Robert Harris
Robert Harris
<lloydso...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>Robert Harris wrote:
>> In article <1148785486.0...@i39g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>,
>> "Grizzlie Antagonist" <lloydso...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>
>> > Robert Harris wrote:
>> > > On 27 May 2006 11:00:05 -0400, "Grizzlie Antagonist"
>> > > <lloydso...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>> > >
>> > > >
>> > > >Robert Harris wrote:
>> > > >>
>> > > >> If those people were startled by a gunshot, then Oswald couldnt have
>> > > >> fired all the shots.
>> > > >
>> > > >
>> > > >If.
>> > >
>> > > Still running, eh Griz?
>> >
>> >
>> > Running from what? What part of "if" don't you understand? Even
>> > standing on its own, the word "if" is pretty clear in context, isn't
>> > it?
>>
>> Woohoo!!
>>
>> At last, we are going to learn the real cause of these reactions:
>>
>> http://jfkhistory.com/reactions18fps.mov
>>
>> Or are we?
>>
>>
>> >
>> > You make the same three arguments over and over and I can address them
>> > succinctly and I have.
>>
>> You have NEVER posted a substantive argument, Grizzle.
>
>
>
>Yes I have.
No sir, you have not.
Your dislike of this or that word, and your personal opinion about
witnesses is hardly a substantive argument, Grizzlie:-)
>You don't respect these arguments.
What arguments??
I haven't seen any yet.
> I'm not going to
>respect yours.
It won't be easy but I will try to get over it!
>
>
>
>> > So again, briefly:
>> >
>> > 1) the notion that people are "ducking" to avoid gunfire in frames
>> > 285-312 is simply your impression. I don't see it.
>>
>> Ok then, since that word seems to really annoy you, let's just say that
>> three of the limo occupants simultaneously dropped their heads by 25 or
>> more degrees, within 1/6th of a second of Greer spinning around and
>> hitting the brakes, and Zapruder's reaction, as defined by Alvarez.
>
>
>
>> Is that better, Grizzlie?
>>
>> So, if they weren't startled by a gunshot, then why did they do that?
>
>
>
>Asked and answered.
No sir, you did not.
You have NEVER posted an alternative explanation for those reactions.
Eventually, and with enough provocation, I am sure you will eventually
make up something, and we will have a great discussion about that. But
until such time, you will remain a runner, Grizzlie.
>
>
>> > Others don't see
>> > it.
>>
>> Of course they do
>
>
>No they don't.
You have no way of knowing such a thing, Grizzlie.
>
>
>> > 2) I'm not impressed with the earwitness testimony,
>>
>> Of course you are.
>>
>> You already stated that you based your theory
>
>
>
>Howard Donahue's theory.
>
>
>
>> that Hickey shot JFK, on
>> witness statements.
>
>
>
>You're only partially correct in that regard. It's only partially
>based on witness statements.
Then why did you claim that you have no faith in witnesses?
>But even those witness statements don't
>always refer to what they heard. A number of witnesses in the area of
>the motorcade smelled gunpowder and said so. A number of others said
>that they saw Hickey holding the AR-15 at the operative time.
>
>So since I have witness statements that satisfy me, just as you have
>witness statements that satisfy you, why am I not entitled to do the
>same thing that you do?
Because YOU were the one who stated that you didn't trust witnesses.
I have all the faith in the world in them, but only after I have been
able to verify their claims in the films and photos - a process that
you have to evade, since you know very well, that many of the most
critical witness statements are corroborated that way.
>Why don't I get to publish the same witness
>statements over and over ad nauseum and DEMAND that people accept my
>point of view? Why doesn't everyone get to do that?
I don't know anyone who does that Grizzlie.
I also don't know who is preventing you from posting whatever you feel
is appropriate.
>
>I was doing something like that earlier. Then I looked at my conduct
>through the eyes of others and decided that it was rude and that it was
>also not an effective way to build a consensus.
You are one helluva guy, Grizzlie!
>
>
>
>> Why is it that you are never specific about these things, Grizzlie?
>
>
>
>Oh, I'm specific, all right. Maybe you're the one that's running.
If I was, then I would have been the one who had to snip the preceding
text in order to avoid my request for specificity - instead of you:-)
In fact, you not only snipped my statement, but your own as well.
It is exactly such tactics that earn you the title of "runner",
Grizzlie.
>
>
>
>> > 3) I see no BOH damage in any of the Zapruder frames. To the contrary,
>> > my impression that there was no damage to the BOH is strenghtened. I
>> > don't know what people who see damage to the BOH in Z335 and Z337 are
>> > looking at.
>>
>> This has nothing whatsoever, to do with the issue at hand, since the BOH
>> was blown out by the last shot, not the one at Z285.
>
>
>
>And as I just said, the Z frames at 335 and 337 DISPROVE this.
Terrific!
I suggest that you repost those links frequently (not frequently
enough to annoy anyone of course) so that all these silly buffs will
realize what a clean BOH JFK had then!
But why did you evade the fact that this had nothing whatsoever to do
with the shot at Z285?
Or the fact that you still have not posted a substantive rebuttal to
my case for a shot at Z285?
>
>
>> But I will be delighted to grant you unlimited permission to post links
>> to those images at my website, so you can prove to everyone, that JFK's
>> BOH was visibly undamaged then:-)
>>
>> I remain baffled however, as to why you and your buds always snip those
>> links, in your replies. Surely, you are eager to make such supportive
>> images available to everyone - aren't you Grizzlie:-)
>
>
>
>When and if those links are snipped, it is for the purpose of brevity.
Sure they are, Grizzly.
Your concern for saving bandwidth is quite touching, but why is it
that the arguments you can't handle are the ones that always wind up
on the cutting room floor?
>I have said on several occasions that you have posted links that
>disprove your point.
That's nice.
>
>> Grizzlie, until you address at least one or two issues of substance, I'm
>> afraid you will remain in the "runners" column.
>
>
>As long as that's not punishable by death, I'll try and bear up under
>the grief.
I think "grief" is indeed, the real problem that you and your buds are
having to deal with right now:-)
SammyG
Grizz,
I have heard just a tiny amount of the "Hickey did it" scenario. Just out
of curiosity, and not to argue, honestly, I was hoping you would give a
brief "accounting" of your beliefs in this.
Hope to hear from you.
Sammy, G.
"Grizzlie Antagonist" <lloydso...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1148924777.0...@i40g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
Grizzlie Antagonist
> Top Post
>
> Grizz,
>
> I have heard just a tiny amount of the "Hickey did it" scenario. Just out
> of curiosity, and not to argue, honestly, I was hoping you would give a
> brief "accounting" of your beliefs in this.
>
> Hope to hear from you.
SammyG, naturally my first suggestion would be to get it from the
horse's mouth, which is why (not for the first time), I've again posted
the link to the Amazon page for Mortal Error.
Hickey is still alive and his lawsuit had the effect of stopping the
book from being printed, but used copies are still out there and
inexpensively obtainable.
Since you seem to be expressing genuine interest, I'll summarize for
you what I found convincing about the "Hickey did it" scenario.
Probably the number one thing for me is the several witnesses AROUND
THE MOTORCADE who smelled gunpowder. I've not heard a satisfactory
explanation from any CT or LN as to why a number of witnesses around
the motorcade should smell gunpowder.
Howard Donahue, who is the individual who first arrived at the
conclusion that Hickey accidentally fired the fatal headshot, did his
own analysis of the trajectory (I guess everyone has one) and initially
concluded that it did come from above and behind (no grassy knoll
trajectory and no shot from the front) but from Kennedy's LEFT, not
his right. He concluded that it came from the County Records Building
-- until he saw film showing Hickey sitting in the middle of the
trajectory from that building to JFK.
This led Donahue to tenatively conclude that it was Hickey who had
fired the fatal shot. And when he considered the behavior of the
bullet, that led him, Donahue, to feel that he was on the right track.
Donahue SUPPORTS the so-called "single bullet theory". He is confident
that Kennedy and Connally were in position to receive a shot from the
same bullet sufficient to cause the wounds that they received, though
he places it in the vicinity of Z237-238, as opposed to most LN's who
place it as Z223-224.
It made perfect sense to him that a copper-shelled bullet - CE 399 -
could cause as much damage as it caused and remain relatively intact.
But because of that, he did not agree that a similar bullet should have
sustained as much damage as did the bullet that caused the head wounds.
Donahue would have expected a Mannlicher-Caricano round, upon striking
Kennedy's head, to splinter into three or four pieces, but not to
disintegrate entirely upon striking the head. He felt that the fatal
bullet - by disintegrating - DID behave as he would have expected a
round from the AR-15 to behave.
There were also witnesses, including a number of Secret Service agents,
who saw the AR-15 in Hickey's hands at the time of the fatal head shot
and including S.M. Holland, who actually saw Hickey stumble with the
AR-15 in his hands at the time of the fatal shot. One SSA, Winston
Lawson, actually did say that his first impression was that Hickey had
fired the AR-15. Hickey himself says that he did not pick up the AR-15
until after his car went underneath the Stemmons Freeway.
Given the factor of Hickey having apparently stumbled and the utter
unlikelihood that Hickey would have been behaving deliberately,
especially in a crowded plaza, Donahue always assumed and believed that
Hickey's actions were accidental.
There's much more in "Mortal Error", but I have summarized some of the
more salient points.
And I've observed something that Donahue and author Bonar Menninger did
not come up with and that is not in "Mortal Error": Jean Hill's
impression that the Secret Service agents were "shooting back" at the
putatitive assassins. She said that to the Warren Commission and she
has since said it in public appearances. No one ever asked her what
gave her the impression that the Secret Service agents were "shooting
back". It would have been nice to hear the source of her impression to
that effect based upon recent memory.
I've essentially heard three countervailing arguments:
1) Hickey sued Donahue and the publisher and won.
False; it was an out of court settlement with no retraction or apology,
which in itself is intriguing - the fact that Hickey chose NOT to have
the Mortal Error scenario subjected to a jury trial and instead
accepted a settlement that did NOT clear his name.
2) Hickey could not have fired over the windshield in the follow-up car
Unconvincing. This sounds wrong to me if he was standing on the back
seat when he did fire;
and 3) Charles Bronson's film (the bystander, not the actor) shows that
this didn't happen.
But the Bronson film is of poor quality and shows the shooting for just
a few seconds and from a tremendously lengthy distance with many
bystanders blocking the view of the follow-up car.
I don't get anything from the Bronson film. Gary Mack tells me that he
has a better quality copy of the Bronson film than the one available on
the Internet and invited me to view it the next time that I visit
Dallas. Trouble is that I don't live near Dallas and I have no
business that takes me there. I will undoubtedly take him up on his
invitation when and if I have occasion to go to Dallas.
So with the caveat that I haven't seen what Gary Mack says that he has,
I am extremely confident that Hickey shot JFK. To my mind, the
scenario holds together so well that I would actually be amazed if
there really is any photographic evidence to countervail it.
Howard Donahue passed away a number of years ago. A couple of years
ago or so, I had a telephone conversation with Bonar Menninger who
told me that the copy of the Bronson film that Gary Mack showed to him
and Donahue and to the publisher at St. Martin's Press - before
publication - was not convincing - there was not enough detail in it to
prove or disprove anything about Hickey's actions.