The "In" Thing For CTers -- Hating Hanks
David Von Pein
The persistent rantings and ravings of conspiracy theorists couldn't
possibly matter less when it comes to the grand scheme of history. And
that includes the huffing and puffing of Mr. Charles E. Ochelli.
The physical evidence in the JFK murder can only lead in one
(reasonable) direction -- and it's not toward the type of multi-gun
"triangulation of crossfire" conspiracy plot that people like Oliver
Stone and Jim Garrison imagine took place.
I always invite people to watch (and listen to) the original "as it is
happening" TV and radio coverage from 11/22/63. And after performing
that kind of exercise, the first question I would then ask any
conspiracy believer is this one:
Where within that first-day television and/or radio coverage from
November 22, 1963, is there even a HINT of the kind of THREE-GUN, SIX-
SHOTS-FIRED shooting scenario that was endorsed and thrown up on the
movie screen by fantasist filmmaker Oliver Stone?
Answer: It doesn't exist. Nowhere within any of the TV and radio
footage (50+ hours of which are provided at the links below) are you
going to find any bulletins that come even close to this kind of
crackpottery:
THREE GUNMEN FIRED SIX SHOTS AT PRESIDENT KENNEDY'S MOTORCADE TODAY IN
DALLAS! THE PRESIDENT WAS HIT IN THE HEAD BY A BULLET FIRED FROM THE
GRASSY KNOLL TO THE FRONT OF KENNEDY'S LIMOUSINE!
Instead, what you'll find in the footage below is report after report
indicating the following:
ONE GUNMAN FIRED THREE SHOTS AT PRESIDENT KENNEDY'S MOTORCADE ON ELM
STREET IN DALLAS, TEXAS. AND THAT ONE GUNMAN LATER SHOT AND KILLED
POLICE OFFICER J.D. TIPPIT IN OAK CLIFF. AND THAT SAME ONE GUNMAN,
JUST 35 MINUTES AFTER KILLING TIPPIT, WAS THEN APPREHENDED IN A MOVIE
THEATER AS HE TRIED TO KILL MORE POLICEMEN WITH THE SAME GUN HE USED
ON OFFICER TIPPIT.
In 47 years, nobody has produced a single solitary piece of physical
evidence to support their make-believe multi-gun conspiracies in the
JFK assassination. And they never will produce any physical evidence
to support their theories, because no such evidence exists--nor did it
ever exist in the first place except in the imaginations of
conspiracists who have a kooky desire to change history and accuse
dozens and dozens of innocent people of being liars, frauds, and
"cover-up" agents for the United States Government.
As another student of the JFK assassination case once said (and it's
oh so true):
It was either Lee Harvey Oswald alone, or many, many people attempting
to make it LOOK like Lee Harvey Oswald alone.
I ask -- which of the two above choices is the most reasonable?
THE JFK ASSASSINATION--AS IT HAPPENED:
Bud
> http://Amazon.com/Expanded-Reclaiming-History-Book-Review/forum/Fx2TV...
>
> http://Amazon.com/Expanded-Reclaiming-History-Book-Review/forum/Fx2TV...
I think there is a great fear in the CTer community about losing the
battle for the hearts and minds of the public. Since they can`t
produce any conspirators (because they don`t exist) they can only get
solace from poll results and the HSCA finding of probable conspiracy.
Robert Harris
It was not possible for this assassination to have been carried out by
Oswald alone. There is no doubt that shots were fired at the end of the
attack that were too closely spaced to have all come from Oswald's rifle.
And both the statements of the witnesses and the lack of startle reactions
to the shots prior to frame 285, prove that those early shots did not come
from a high powered, unsuppressed rifle.
Science has known for nearly a century that sound levels above 90 decibels
will provoke involuntary startle reactions in human beings. To the limo
passengers, the sound of his rifle during those early frames would have
been 16 times louder than that.
We see exactly those reactions however, following frames 285 and 312.
The fact that most witnesses that day reported only a single, audible,
early shot and then closely bunched shots at the very end of the attack,
provided further corroboration of what was made obvious by the sound
levels and reactions.
ALL RELEVANT EVIDENCE supports the fact that all of those shots could not
have come from Oswald or anyone else, using the alleged murder weapon.
If you really want to understand the attack in Dealey Plaza, look at this
video.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cvqCtaBkyyE
Robert Harris
In article
<7e7fcc87-707e-4fe9...@m35g2000vbn.googlegroups.com>,
David Von Pein <davev...@aol.com> wrote:
> http://Amazon.com/Expanded-Reclaiming-History-Book-Review/forum/Fx2TVHW5I0UEY9
> A/Tx6D680Z49Q7UO/2/ref=cm_cd_et_md_pl?_encoding=UTF8&cdMsgNo=39&asin=039304525
> 0&cdSort=oldest&cdMsgID=Mx1UYENH8X6LSEE#Mx1UYENH8X6LSEE
>
>
> http://Amazon.com/Expanded-Reclaiming-History-Book-Review/forum/Fx2TVHW5I0UEY9
> A/Tx6D680Z49Q7UO/2/ref=cm_cd_et_md_pl?_encoding=UTF8&cdMsgNo=40&asin=039304525
Chuck Schuyler
> It was not possible for this assassination to have been carried out by
> Oswald alone.
It's the only possible conclusion.
There is no doubt that shots were fired at the end of the
> attack that were too closely spaced to have all come from Oswald's rifle.
Then they all missed--except for the 313 shot proven to have been fired
from Oswald's Carcano.
>
> And both the statements of the witnesses and the lack of startle reactions
> to the shots prior to frame 285, prove that those early shots did not come
> from a high powered, unsuppressed rifle.
Baloney. There is no "science" to the subjective conclusions of
"startle reactions" interpreted from a grainy home movie film.
>
> Science has known for nearly a century that sound levels above 90 decibels
> will provoke involuntary startle reactions in human beings.
Too general of a statement.
> To the limo
> passengers, the sound of his rifle during those early frames would have
> been 16 times louder than that.
Where do you come up with this?
>
> We see exactly those reactions however, following frames 285 and 312.
Who is "we?" You and your YouTube channel viewers?
>
> The fact that most witnesses that day reported only a single, audible,
> early shot and then closely bunched shots at the very end of the attack,
> provided further corroboration of what was made obvious by the sound
> levels and reactions.
Silly. You're the antithesis of what research is about. You have a silly
theory about a guy in the sewer firing a bullet, and although you are
mighty coy about what else you believe (you do offer more specifics than
most CTs, and I've commended you for that in the past), I've pieced
together that you think one shot passed through JFK's gaping skull wound
right when it blows open at Z313. Talk about a magic bullet.
>
> ALL RELEVANT EVIDENCE supports the fact that all of those shots could not
> have come from Oswald or anyone else, using the alleged murder weapon.
Bob capitalizes to show he's really, really, really serious. What's your
explanation for the fact that almost all earwitnesses only reported three
shots--regardless of spacing? If you think some of the additional shots (I
believe you think a minimum of five shots were fired at JFK if I recall)
were suppressed by silencers, why the so- called startle reactions?
David Von Pein
@Bob H.:
~yawn~
~stretch~
~snooze~
Robert Harris
<a4b0fa81-5957-4c98...@l17g2000yqe.googlegroups.com>,
David Von Pein <davev...@aol.com> wrote:
> @Bob H.:
>
> ~yawn~
> ~stretch~
> ~snooze~
@Dave P.:
~run~
~dodge~
~evade~
Robert Harris
<58a2eeb0-c4ef-4006...@t35g2000yqj.googlegroups.com>,
Chuck Schuyler <chu...@am-mtg.com> wrote:
> On Jan 3, 9:15�pm, Robert Harris <bobharri...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > It was not possible for this assassination to have been carried out by
> > Oswald alone.
>
> It's the only possible conclusion.
Before we continue Chuck, why don't you explain how you came to that
conclusion? Please be specific.
Robert Harris
bigdog
You're absolutely right. The only thing they have going for them is that a
woefully uninformed public is of the belief that there was a conspiracy to
assassinate JFK. I think even they figured out that not enough would care
enough about the assassination to read a 1600+ page book about it but
there might be quite a few that would sit through a mini-series and make
actually learn something other than what Oliver Stone spoon fed them.
bigdog
> In article
> <58a2eeb0-c4ef-4006-858c-d89db2ae3...@t35g2000yqj.googlegroups.com>,
Bob, why don't you retitle your theory The shot at
ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ285, because that is
pretty much everyone's reaction to it. I really don't think I could
stay awake through one more of your videos.
Anthony Marsh
> It was not possible for this assassination to have been carried out by
> Oswald alone. There is no doubt that shots were fired at the end of the
> attack that were too closely spaced to have all come from Oswald's rifle.
>
> And both the statements of the witnesses and the lack of startle reactions
> to the shots prior to frame 285, prove that those early shots did not come
> from a high powered, unsuppressed rifle.
>
Lack of startle reactions? Look at the damn Altgens photo. What do you
think those SS agents on the right running board were doing? Let's see you
wiggle your way out of this one. Maybe you think they are specially
trained to hear shots from silencers. Yeah, that's it.
> Science has known for nearly a century that sound levels above 90 decibels
> will provoke involuntary startle reactions in human beings. To the limo
> passengers, the sound of his rifle during those early frames would have
> been 16 times louder than that.
>
OK, fine, Mr. Non-expert. Now prove that the silencers used kept the sound
levels below 90 decibels. Exactly what were the decibel levels for those
silenced shots?
> We see exactly those reactions however, following frames 285 and 312.
>
> The fact that most witnesses that day reported only a single, audible,
> early shot and then closely bunched shots at the very end of the attack,
> provided further corroboration of what was made obvious by the sound
> levels and reactions.
>
But you just got finished saying that there were no high powered,
unsuppressed shots before 285. Can't you keep your wacky theories
straight? Maybe you should write them down on a big piece of paper before
you start to post.
Anthony Marsh
We already have the hearts and minds of the public. We don't care about
the hearts and minds of the CIA. We are after another body part there.
Anthony Marsh
>
>
> http://Amazon.com/Expanded-Reclaiming-History-Book-Review/forum/Fx2TVHW5I0UEY9A/Tx6D680Z49Q7UO/2/ref=cm_cd_et_md_pl?_encoding=UTF8&cdMsgNo=39&asin=0393045250&cdSort=oldest&cdMsgID=Mx1UYENH8X6LSEE#Mx1UYENH8X6LSEE
>
>
> http://Amazon.com/Expanded-Reclaiming-History-Book-Review/forum/Fx2TVHW5I0UEY9A/Tx6D680Z49Q7UO/2/ref=cm_cd_et_md_pl?_encoding=UTF8&cdMsgNo=40&asin=0393045250&cdSort=oldest&cdMsgID=Mx2XLCTZMX208CY#Mx2XLCTZMX208CY
>
>
>
> The persistent rantings and ravings of conspiracy theorists couldn't
> possibly matter less when it comes to the grand scheme of history. And
> that includes the huffing and puffing of Mr. Charles E. Ochelli.
>
> The physical evidence in the JFK murder can only lead in one
> (reasonable) direction -- and it's not toward the type of multi-gun
> "triangulation of crossfire" conspiracy plot that people like Oliver
> Stone and Jim Garrison imagine took place.
>
> I always invite people to watch (and listen to) the original "as it is
> happening" TV and radio coverage from 11/22/63. And after performing
> that kind of exercise, the first question I would then ask any
> conspiracy believer is this one:
>
> Where within that first-day television and/or radio coverage from
> November 22, 1963, is there even a HINT of the kind of THREE-GUN, SIX-
> SHOTS-FIRED shooting scenario that was endorsed and thrown up on the
> movie screen by fantasist filmmaker Oliver Stone?
>
> Answer: It doesn't exist. Nowhere within any of the TV and radio
> footage (50+ hours of which are provided at the links below) are you
> going to find any bulletins that come even close to this kind of
> crackpottery:
>
How about in the newspaper article written by Mary Woodward where she said
that the shots came from the grassy knoll? Oh, I forgot, the newspaper
censored that article and took out the reference to the grassy knoll.
Maybe that's why no one heard about multiple shots from different
directions. Except for the hundreds of spectators who ran up the grassy
knoll.
> THREE GUNMEN FIRED SIX SHOTS AT PRESIDENT KENNEDY'S MOTORCADE TODAY IN
> DALLAS! THE PRESIDENT WAS HIT IN THE HEAD BY A BULLET FIRED FROM THE
> GRASSY KNOLL TO THE FRONT OF KENNEDY'S LIMOUSINE!
>
> Instead, what you'll find in the footage below is report after report
> indicating the following:
>
> ONE GUNMAN FIRED THREE SHOTS AT PRESIDENT KENNEDY'S MOTORCADE ON ELM
> STREET IN DALLAS, TEXAS. AND THAT ONE GUNMAN LATER SHOT AND KILLED
> POLICE OFFICER J.D. TIPPIT IN OAK CLIFF. AND THAT SAME ONE GUNMAN,
> JUST 35 MINUTES AFTER KILLING TIPPIT, WAS THEN APPREHENDED IN A MOVIE
> THEATER AS HE TRIED TO KILL MORE POLICEMEN WITH THE SAME GUN HE USED
> ON OFFICER TIPPIT.
>
> In 47 years, nobody has produced a single solitary piece of physical
> evidence to support their make-believe multi-gun conspiracies in the
> JFK assassination. And they never will produce any physical evidence
> to support their theories, because no such evidence exists--nor did it
> ever exist in the first place except in the imaginations of
> conspiracists who have a kooky desire to change history and accuse
> dozens and dozens of innocent people of being liars, frauds, and
> "cover-up" agents for the United States Government.
>
Try actually watching and listening to the As it Happened TV coverage from
that day. Several commentators said that it was obvious a conspiracy, even
before they knew that Tippit was killed.
> As another student of the JFK assassination case once said (and it's
> oh so true):
>
> It was either Lee Harvey Oswald alone, or many, many people attempting
> to make it LOOK like Lee Harvey Oswald alone.
>
How many people does it take to frame an innocent man? How many people
did it take to frame Dreyfus? Hundreds? Millions? Billions?
> I ask -- which of the two above choices is the most reasonable?
>
Not you.
Coondog
>
Good luck with that, Marsh. The CIA will still be here long after
you’ve gone to the wrong side of the grass. No doubt they will still
be doing the dirty work of presidents and no doubt they will still be
blamed for the dirty policy of the president. Kennedy certainly does
not have clean hands per this subject.
Bill Clarke
David Von Pein
>>> "Try actually watching and listening to the As it Happened TV coverage from that day. Several commentators said that it was obvious[ly] a conspiracy, even before they knew that Tippit was killed." <<<
Some commentators gave their OPINION about it being a conspiracy, yes.
But, so what? Those people were merely expressing a wholly unproven
opinion about the events in Dallas.
And in some cases, it was a completely irresponsible opinion that was
being put forth on live TV and radio on 11/22 -- for example: when ABC
executive James Hagerty went on live television within hours of JFK's
death and announced to the world that the assassination simply "had to
be a well-planned conspiracy" [paraphrasing].
Hogwash. Hagerty knew NOTHING of a concrete or firm nature that would
have justified him making such a silly and unwarranted announcement to
the world on live television on the afternoon of November 22nd.
And then there was Mayor Earle Cabell's ridiculous statement on live
TV, in which he said that practically the whole country should share
in the shame and disgrace of the President's murder.
Cabell wasn't talking about a "conspiracy", but his statement was
still unwarranted and irresponsible (IMO). He was suggesting that
somehow EVERY citizen in the USA should take part of the blame for
driving the assassin to the evil act that was committed in Dallas.
That's just plain silly, and Cabell should have been scorned because
of such an outlandish statement. (Was he scorned? I don't know.)
In any event, my main point brought up in my thread-starting post is
still as valid and 100% correct as ever -- i.e., when watching or
listening to the original 11/22/63 TV and radio coverage, you will not
find even a hint of the kind of massive multiple-shooter assassination
plot that many conspiracy theorists advocate.
And you're certainly not going to find a single original news report
that comes even close to the number of gunshots that many CTers also
believe in -- such as Oliver Stone's six shots, Bob Groden's 8 to 12
shots, or Don Adams' 11 shots.
And the reason you won't hear any such "6-to-12 shot" reports is
because there simply weren't nearly that many shots fired in Dealey
Plaza. It's as simple as that.
http://JFK-Assassination-As-It-Happened.blogspot.com
Gerry Simone
DUBIOUS.
Unfortunately, this will be debated ad nauseum.
I still subscribe to your You Tube site though :)
Happy New Year!
"David Von Pein" <davev...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:7e7fcc87-707e-4fe9...@m35g2000vbn.googlegroups.com...
Anthony Marsh
>
>>>> "Try actually watching and listening to the As it Happened TV coverage from that day. Several commentators said that it was obvious[ly] a conspiracy, even before they knew that Tippit was killed."<<<
>
>
> Some commentators gave their OPINION about it being a conspiracy, yes.
> But, so what? Those people were merely expressing a wholly unproven
> opinion about the events in Dallas.
>
It just disproves some uninformed opinion that someone had expressed.
> And in some cases, it was a completely irresponsible opinion that was
> being put forth on live TV and radio on 11/22 -- for example: when ABC
> executive James Hagerty went on live television within hours of JFK's
> death and announced to the world that the assassination simply "had to
> be a well-planned conspiracy" [paraphrasing].
>
Wow, you mean like reporters instantly speculating that Osama bin
Laden's al Qaeda was responsible for the attacks on 9/11? You think they
should have waited until AFTER the trial?
> Hogwash. Hagerty knew NOTHING of a concrete or firm nature that would
> have justified him making such a silly and unwarranted announcement to
> the world on live television on the afternoon of November 22nd.
>
Maybe he knew something that you didn't, that shots from two different
directions means conspiracy.
> And then there was Mayor Earle Cabell's ridiculous statement on live
> TV, in which he said that practically the whole country should share
> in the shame and disgrace of the President's murder.
>
He was only trying to take the shame off Dallas.
> Cabell wasn't talking about a "conspiracy", but his statement was
> still unwarranted and irresponsible (IMO). He was suggesting that
> somehow EVERY citizen in the USA should take part of the blame for
> driving the assassin to the evil act that was committed in Dallas.
> That's just plain silly, and Cabell should have been scorned because
> of such an outlandish statement. (Was he scorned? I don't know.)
>
Yes, he was.
> In any event, my main point brought up in my thread-starting post is
> still as valid and 100% correct as ever -- i.e., when watching or
> listening to the original 11/22/63 TV and radio coverage, you will not
> find even a hint of the kind of massive multiple-shooter assassination
> plot that many conspiracy theorists advocate.
>
Your "point" is a straw man argument. When 9/11 happened no one went on
the air and said that billions of people were involved in the plot.
> And you're certainly not going to find a single original news report
> that comes even close to the number of gunshots that many CTers also
> believe in -- such as Oliver Stone's six shots, Bob Groden's 8 to 12
> shots, or Don Adams' 11 shots.
>
It depends on what you mean by news report. Certainly you can point to
the Jean Hill interview.
> And the reason you won't hear any such "6-to-12 shot" reports is
> because there simply weren't nearly that many shots fired in Dealey
> Plaza. It's as simple as that.
>
Ok, I'll grant you that 12 shots were not fired in Dealey Plaza that
day. The acoustical evidence shows 5 max.
> http://JFK-Assassination-As-It-Happened.blogspot.com
>
>
davidemerling
> Bob, why don't you retitle your theory The shot at
> ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ285, because that is
> pretty much everyone's reaction to it. I really don't think I could
> stay awake through one more of your videos.
Bob WANTS people to watch his videos (I have), but if you critically
comment - you're banned (I am) ... which I think is hilarious.
David Emerling
Memphis, TN
Robert Harris
<36691e87-e913-4a1d...@p8g2000vbs.googlegroups.com>,
davidemerling <davide...@gmail.com> wrote:
Sorry David. Anyone who posts childish trash talk in my video forums
gets the boot.
Why don't you post your arguments right here?
Robert Harris
Robert Harris
<bobharris77-5C48...@70-3-168-216.pools.spcsdns.net>,
Robert Harris <bobha...@yahoo.com> wrote:
Chuck??
Robert Harris
Chuck Schuyler
> In article
> <bobharris77-5C4855.03484704012...@70-3-168-216.pools.spcsdns.net>,> > <58a2eeb0-c4ef-4006-858c-d89db2ae3...@t35g2000yqj.googlegroups.com>,
> > Chuck Schuyler <chu...@am-mtg.com> wrote:
>
> > > On Jan 3, 9:15 pm, Robert Harris <bobharri...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > > > It was not possible for this assassination to have been carried out by
> > > > Oswald alone.
>
> > > It's the only possible conclusion.
>
> > Before we continue Chuck, why don't you explain how you came to that
> > conclusion? Please be specific.
>
> > Robert Harris
>
> Chuck??
>
>
I'm waiting for the answers to the questions I asked you. I'll settle for
a response to whether you believe a shot fired from the storm drain passed
through JFK's wound that opened after/about Z 313.
Robert Harris
Anthony Marsh <anthon...@comcast.net> wrote:
> On 1/3/2011 10:15 PM, Robert Harris wrote:
> > It was not possible for this assassination to have been carried out by
> > Oswald alone. There is no doubt that shots were fired at the end of the
> > attack that were too closely spaced to have all come from Oswald's rifle.
> >
> > And both the statements of the witnesses and the lack of startle reactions
> > to the shots prior to frame 285, prove that those early shots did not come
> > from a high powered, unsuppressed rifle.
> >
>
> Lack of startle reactions? Look at the damn Altgens photo. What do you
> think those SS agents on the right running board were doing?
They were doing what they said they were doing - looking around to find
the source of the noise they just heard. But they were obviously, not
startled.
> Let's see you
> wiggle your way out of this one.
Tony, I don't think you are really comprehending any of this. I recently
posted a video in Youtube which explains the events in Dealey Plaza from
beginning to end. And it is no longer broken into separate parts. You can
see it here:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cvqCtaBkyyE
Robert Harris
Anthony Marsh
> In article<4d23baea$1...@mcadams.posc.mu.edu>,
> Anthony Marsh<anthon...@comcast.net> wrote:
>
>> On 1/3/2011 10:15 PM, Robert Harris wrote:
>>> It was not possible for this assassination to have been carried out by
>>> Oswald alone. There is no doubt that shots were fired at the end of the
>>> attack that were too closely spaced to have all come from Oswald's rifle.
>>>
>>> And both the statements of the witnesses and the lack of startle reactions
>>> to the shots prior to frame 285, prove that those early shots did not come
>>> from a high powered, unsuppressed rifle.
>>>
>>
>> Lack of startle reactions? Look at the damn Altgens photo. What do you
>> think those SS agents on the right running board were doing?
>
> They were doing what they said they were doing - looking around to find
> the source of the noise they just heard. But they were obviously, not
> startled.
>
You playing coy. Obvously they were startled by the very loud noise and
turned their head just as you claim the limo occupants were startled by
the very loud noise.
Robert Harris
Anthony Marsh <anthon...@comcast.net> wrote:
> On 1/7/2011 11:38 PM, Robert Harris wrote:
> > In article<4d23baea$1...@mcadams.posc.mu.edu>,
> > Anthony Marsh<anthon...@comcast.net> wrote:
> >
> >> On 1/3/2011 10:15 PM, Robert Harris wrote:
> >>> It was not possible for this assassination to have been carried out by
> >>> Oswald alone. There is no doubt that shots were fired at the end of the
> >>> attack that were too closely spaced to have all come from Oswald's rifle.
> >>>
> >>> And both the statements of the witnesses and the lack of startle reactions
> >>> to the shots prior to frame 285, prove that those early shots did not come
> >>> from a high powered, unsuppressed rifle.
> >>>
> >>
> >> Lack of startle reactions? Look at the damn Altgens photo. What do you
> >> think those SS agents on the right running board were doing?
> >
> > They were doing what they said they were doing - looking around to find
> > the source of the noise they just heard. But they were obviously, not
> > startled.
> >
>
> You playing coy. Obvously they were startled by the very loud noise and
> turned their head just as you claim the limo occupants were startled by
> the very loud noise.
There is nothing "coy" about the nature of startle reactions and although
they vary somewhat, the general nature of them is well known and includes
evasive, ducking movements and rapid turns - exactly as we see following
285 and 312.
We have absolutely no reason to believe that those agents or anyone else
was startled earlier than frame 285 because we see nothing even faintly
resembling startle reactions then. And their testimonies and reports
confirm the fact that they didn't even believe they were hearing a
gunshot.
I have a hard time believing that you don't know the difference between a
simple reaction to an ambiguous noise and startle reactions to extreme
sound levels. But then, I guess my most common error in this forum has
been to overestimate the people I talk to.
Robert Harris
Anthony Marsh
> In article<4d280a3f$1...@mcadams.posc.mu.edu>,
> Anthony Marsh<anthon...@comcast.net> wrote:
>
>> On 1/7/2011 11:38 PM, Robert Harris wrote:
>>> In article<4d23baea$1...@mcadams.posc.mu.edu>,
>>> Anthony Marsh<anthon...@comcast.net> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On 1/3/2011 10:15 PM, Robert Harris wrote:
>>>>> It was not possible for this assassination to have been carried out by
>>>>> Oswald alone. There is no doubt that shots were fired at the end of the
>>>>> attack that were too closely spaced to have all come from Oswald's rifle.
>>>>>
>>>>> And both the statements of the witnesses and the lack of startle reactions
>>>>> to the shots prior to frame 285, prove that those early shots did not come
>>>>> from a high powered, unsuppressed rifle.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Lack of startle reactions? Look at the damn Altgens photo. What do you
>>>> think those SS agents on the right running board were doing?
>>>
>>> They were doing what they said they were doing - looking around to find
>>> the source of the noise they just heard. But they were obviously, not
>>> startled.
>>>
>>
>> You playing coy. Obvously they were startled by the very loud noise and
>> turned their head just as you claim the limo occupants were startled by
>> the very loud noise.
>
> There is nothing "coy" about the nature of startle reactions and although
> they vary somewhat, the general nature of them is well known and includes
> evasive, ducking movements and rapid turns - exactly as we see following
> 285 and 312.
>
There is nothing coy about the SS agents in the Queen Mary reacting very
quickly to the very loud sound of a rifle shot before Z-285, when you
claim all the shots were silenced. There is something coy about YOU
pretending that you look at the Altgens photo, taken at about Z-255, and
can't see the SS agents reacting to hearing a very loud rifle shot.
> We have absolutely no reason to believe that those agents or anyone else
> was startled earlier than frame 285 because we see nothing even faintly
> resembling startle reactions then. And their testimonies and reports
> confirm the fact that they didn't even believe they were hearing a
> gunshot.
>
Again playing coy. You think they all turned their heads quickly to check
out the architecture of the TSBD? They weren't there to protect the
President, but on a historic survey of old buildings? And again you go out
of your way to misrepresent the testimonies and statements. Only to
promote your private wacky theory.
Robert Harris
Anthony Marsh <anthon...@comcast.net> wrote:
Tony, I've been writing for 15 years about the reactions in the Altgens
photo, by Secret Service agents, to that first ambiguous noise. And you
have replied to some of those messages.
So, why are you now pretending to believe that I don't acknowledge those
reactions?
But they were not startle reactions, Tony. I find it difficult to believe
that you really don't get that. If you actually don't, I doubt that you
will comprehend what I am saying.
If you do, and are just feigning ignorance, then there is no point in
talking to you about anything.
That doesn't leave many alternatives, does it?
Robert Harris
Robert Harris
<9d2c6840-4c2b-4819...@l22g2000vbp.googlegroups.com>,
Chuck Schuyler <chu...@am-mtg.com> wrote:
> On Jan 7, 2:51�pm, Robert Harris <bobharri...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > In article
> > <bobharris77-5C4855.03484704012...@70-3-168-216.pools.spcsdns.net>,
> > �Robert Harris <bobharri...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > > In article
> > > <58a2eeb0-c4ef-4006-858c-d89db2ae3...@t35g2000yqj.googlegroups.com>,
> > > �Chuck Schuyler <chu...@am-mtg.com> wrote:
> >
> > > > On Jan 3, 9:15 pm, Robert Harris <bobharri...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> >
> > > > > It was not possible for this assassination to have been carried out by
> > > > > Oswald alone.
> >
> > > > It's the only possible conclusion.
> >
> > > Before we continue Chuck, why don't you explain how you came to that
> > > conclusion? Please be specific.
> >
> > > Robert Harris
> >
> > Chuck??
> >
> > Robert Harris- Hide quoted text -
> >
>
> I'm waiting for the answers to the questions I asked you. I'll settle for
> a response to whether you believe a shot fired from the storm drain passed
> through JFK's wound that opened after/about Z 313.
I don't know if it did or not. I have stated that on numerous occasions
as well as in my video presentations.
Now it's your turn. Tell us why you claimed that it was not possible for
others to have been involved in the attack on JFK.
Robert Harris
Anthony Marsh
Of course they are statle reactions. Just because it was a still photo
you can't time how long it took them to react as you try to do with the
Zapruder film. But when you compare photos you see that they reacted
very quickly to a very loud noise coming from behind them. That can't be
a reaction to your silencer shots.
> If you do, and are just feigning ignorance, then there is no point in
> talking to you about anything.
>
> That doesn't leave many alternatives, does it?
>
>
Every time you lose an argument you killfile me.
>
>
> Robert Harris
>
jas
> Tony, I've been writing for 15 years about the reactions in the Altgens
> photo, by Secret Service agents, to that first ambiguous noise. And you
> have replied to some of those messages.
>
> So, why are you now pretending to believe that I don't acknowledge those
> reactions?
>
> But they were not startle reactions, Tony. I find it difficult to believe
> that you really don't get that. If you actually don't, I doubt that you
> will comprehend what I am saying.
>
> If you do, and are just feigning ignorance, then there is no point in
> talking to you about anything.
>
> That doesn't leave many alternatives, does it?
>
> Robert Harris
So, I suppose you think since you've been writing about your ideas for
15 years, that longevity eventually and magically turns it into the
"pumpkin of truth" after a certain time?
Hmmmm. So, I suppose since Mark Lane's 1966 conspiracy book has been
out there some 47 years, it's REALLY become the truth?
Please.
chuck ochelli the blind jfk researcher
yes dave we've all seen your youtube ch.
but the first broadcast reports can be used a thousand different ways
they got plenty right and wrong from any point of view
and I make no claim to any theory sir
I examine the joke the WC/and its dgmatic defenders spew in mantra
form and see LIES
just like Vinny who doesn't do his own work and dirrectly misrepresents
witness accounts , omits critical points of honest researchers and over 20
years insists on reliance on junk science that has been discredited
I don't want a conspiracy either
But I am sure dave didn't read the entire doorstop as i did
did you enjoy any of his other work ?
in addition to the obvious , I wish to inform vinnys fans that there is a
serious difference between a dallas courtroom and a london TV set no
matter how much stock you want to put in his defeat of the obviously
uninvolved jerry spense
Fraggle rock had a better grasp on reality
but those who learn by assumption instead of reading and only contact
authors staff instead of speaking with witness and players in any given
event will love Vin and Forrests work i guess
I seek the truth and it is obscured
there may even be only one lone assasin .....
problem is looking into the evidence ...
It was not Oswald
No valid balistics ,
No valid forensics ,
No valid witness ,
just manipulation obvious to a blind guy , and I don't mean the WC star
witness that without his high index prescription glasses knew how tall the
shooter was from the ground when the shooter was 6 floors up ....... and
by the z-film was not even looking that way when shots are claimed to be
fired .
but i just read books and documents , and photos , films , and
reports , , and all that tin foil hat type stuff .
I hope Bugliousi pays you for your campaign efforts
supporting propeganda like that has to be taxing
unless the world is in fact flat
bigdog
<blindjfkresearc...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> I seek the truth and it is obscured
> there may even be only one lone assasin .....
> problem is looking into the evidence ...
> It was not Oswald
> No valid balistics ,
> No valid forensics ,
> No valid witness ,
>
What a crock. If you can't accept that Oswald was the one and only
assassin, there is zero chance you will ever find the truth you claim to
be seeking. You can't find the truth when you are running away from it.
David Von Pein
I see that Mr. Charles "Chuck" Ochelli is in a "Let's Attack DVP For A
Few Days At Various Forums" mode.
Maybe this isn't the same Charles Ochelli I confronted at the forums
at Amazon.com, however, because the person who wrote the mess above
under Charles' name is sure lousy at writing, whereas that hasn't been
the case at Amazon. ~shrug~
In any event, I'm enjoying Chuck's Feb. 2011 round of pro-conspiracy
and anti-Bugliosi crappola. Stupid junk like Chuck's always makes me
smile, esp. the part where he insinuates that I didn't even read all
of Mr. Bugliosi's outstanding book. [LOL.]
And the part about Bugliosi not doing his own work/research is a howl
too. Naturally, Mr. Ochelli will instantly believe the accusations of
David "It Was Ghostwritten" Lifton as if they were the Gospel.
Maybe he should read the post below before accepting the unfounded and
ridiculous claims made by Lifton in May 2007:
http://JFK-Archives.blogspot.com/2010/07/ghostwriting.html
In the final (reasonable) analysis, Vincent Bugliosi's "Reclaiming
History" has not been torn to shreds by people like James DiEugenio or
David Lifton or anyone else. And that's because there is rock-solid
evidence within the 2,800+ pages of "Reclaiming History" to illustrate
that every conspiracy theorist's favorite patsy was, instead, a double-
murderer.
And no long-time CTer wants to ever admit to that (double) fact.
Certainly not David Lifton or Jim DiEugenio, who have spent years and
years trying to convince people that a massive conspiracy took place
in Dallas on November 22, 1963.
I'm going to once again borrow a phrase from Bud (one of my favorite
fellow LNers), because I think this is a very good analogy to
illustrate my point regarding what the conspiracists have attempted to
do with Vince Bugliosi's book:
Conspiracy theorists who think Lee Harvey Oswald was totally innocent
of shooting both JFK and Officer Tippit are attempting to prop up an
elephant with toothpicks.
And that's just exactly what the CTers have done with Vincent Bugliosi
and his book "Reclaiming History". They are trying to make the massive
amount of evidence against Lee Oswald DISAPPEAR via this "toothpick"
method.
But the weak-sister toothpicks that the conspiracy theorists are using
don't stand a chance against the sheer weight of the elephant (i.e.,
the evidence).
People like Lifton and DiEugenio need something stronger than the
brittle toothpicks they've been using for years. And the constant
refrain that we always hear (year after year) about ALL of the
evidence against Oswald being faked or manipulated or planted is just
not going to cut it. And it never did cut it.
Anthony Marsh
So it doesn't bother you when Bugliosi lies about the evidence?
I've never seen you criticize Bugliosi.
Would you at least have the common decency to tell him if the SBT happens
at 210 or 224, since he seems perpetually confused about that? Why I have
never seen you criticize his drawing of HIS SBT or text about it? Could
that be because you know who really drew it and wrote it?
jas
>
> People like Lifton and DiEugenio need something stronger than the
> brittle toothpicks they've been using for years. And the constant
> refrain that we always hear (year after year) about ALL of the
> evidence against Oswald being faked or manipulated or planted is just
> not going to cut it. And it never did cut it.
>
> http://ReclaimingHistory.blogspot.com
Actually the fact that Bugliosi has put together such a comprehensive
study in both sides of the assassination with as little typos or
factoid-faux pas as are in all those pages, is amazing. But of course,
there will always be buffers who will say, "Ah ha! Bugliosi wrote "1950"
instead of "1960" which proves beyond all doubt that his book is bogus" --
that is, the buffers who actually take the time to read the book, and not
just skip through it will.
After all, since he came out with "The Prosecution of George W. Bush for
Murder" they are barred from intelligently calling him a right- wing,
pro-U.S. government, mainstream America, Mom-and-Apple Pie, Warren
Commission defender.
Bud
He seems to be using the standard CTer formula... if the evidence
indicates Oswald`s guilt then the evidence is invalid.
Anthony Marsh
> On Feb 5, 12:07 pm, David Von Pein<davevonp...@aol.com> wrote:
>
>>
>> People like Lifton and DiEugenio need something stronger than the
>> brittle toothpicks they've been using for years. And the constant
>> refrain that we always hear (year after year) about ALL of the
>> evidence against Oswald being faked or manipulated or planted is just
>> not going to cut it. And it never did cut it.
>>
>> http://ReclaimingHistory.blogspot.com
>
> Actually the fact that Bugliosi has put together such a comprehensive
> study in both sides of the assassination with as little typos or
> factoid-faux pas as are in all those pages, is amazing. But of course,
> there will always be buffers who will say, "Ah ha! Bugliosi wrote "1950"
> instead of "1960" which proves beyond all doubt that his book is bogus" --
> that is, the buffers who actually take the time to read the book, and not
> just skip through it will.
>
So it doesn't matter to you how many lies he tells as long as his book
is well proofread?
jfk...@gmail.com
> On 2/5/2011 3:27 PM, jas wrote:
>
>
>
> > On Feb 5, 12:07 pm, David Von Pein<davevonp...@aol.com> wrote:
>
> >> People like Lifton and DiEugenio need something stronger than the
> >> brittle toothpicks they've been using for years. And the constant
> >> refrain that we always hear (year after year) about ALL of the
> >> evidence against Oswald being faked or manipulated or planted is just
> >> not going to cut it. And it never did cut it.
>
> >>http://ReclaimingHistory.blogspot.com
>
> > Actually the fact that Bugliosi has put together such a comprehensive
> > study in both sides of the assassination with as little typos or
> > factoid-faux pas as are in all those pages, is amazing. But of course,
> > there will always be buffers who will say, "Ah ha! Bugliosi wrote "1950"
> > instead of "1960" which proves beyond all doubt that his book is bogus" --
> > that is, the buffers who actually take the time to read the book, and not
> > just skip through it will.
>
> So it doesn't matter to you how many lies he tells as long as his book
> is well proofread?
That sounds eerily akin to Gary Mack's refusal to put CAR CRASH CULTURE,
with the excellent essay "SS0100-X:" in the 6th Floor Museum bookstore.
A bit shabby.
David Von Pein
>>> "I've never seen you criticize Bugliosi." <<<
Then you haven't been paying close enough attention. See my comments
about Chapters 3 and 4 here:
http://ReclaimingHistory.blogspot.com
And scroll about 60% of the way down the following webpage, and look
for the paragraph that begins with these words:
"One mistake made by Bugliosi that DiEugenio could definitely
have raked Vince over the hot coals for is..."
http://JFK-Archives.blogspot.com/2010/06/dvp-vs-dieugenio-part-12.html
chuck ochelli the blind jfk researcher
> On Feb 5, 12:07 pm, David Von Pein <davevonp...@aol.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> > People like Lifton and DiEugenio need something stronger than the
> > brittle toothpicks they've been using for years. And the constant
> > refrain that we always hear (year after year) about ALL of the
> > evidence against Oswald being faked or manipulated or planted is just
> > not going to cut it. And it never did cut it.
>
> >http://ReclaimingHistory.blogspot.com
>
> Actually the fact that Bugliosi has put together such a comprehensive
> study in both sides of the assassination with as little typos or
> factoid-faux pas as are in all those pages, is amazing. But of course,
> there will always be buffers who will say, "Ah ha! Bugliosi wrote "1950"
> instead of "1960" which proves beyond all doubt that his book is bogus" --
> that is, the buffers who actually take the time to read the book, and not
> just skip through it will.
>
LOL
If his book was typed on a computer ,
And the guy absolutely claimed to write it long hand ,
how is vinnie remotely remotely connected to the lack of typographical
errors in the book?
Good , bad , or otherwise????
perhaps I underestimate his devine influence .
I forgot
LOL