Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.
Dismiss
Questions for Jason Burke re: the 285 shot
43 views
Skip to first unread message
Robert Harris
May 11, 2013, 8:34:05 AM5/11/13
to
Jason, these are the reactions to a loud and startling noise that
occurred no earlier than Zapruder frame 285.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7GH5pGQy6yI
You called my analysis, suggesting that these were reactions to a
gunshot, a "fantasy". What do you believe is a better explanation?
When I pointed out that nutters who rejected the gunshot explanation
must believe that they were caused by something else, you said,
"Or, Option B that you are a fool."
How exactly, does my being an fool have anything to do with nutters
choosing a different explanation for the reactions? Are you suggesting
that if I was a bright fellow, they would be more likely to agree?
And why didn't you address my argument that for a multitude of reasons,
including the fact that the people reacting were in the middle of a
shooting, a gunshot would be the most plausible explanation?
You also failed to address the fact that the people we see reacting were
very clear about what they heard then. Don't you think they were in a
pretty good position to know?
I find it amazing that nowhere buried in all the mcadams-approved
insults, did you even once, discuss any of the facts related to this
issue. Is that because you find it easier to post trash talk than to
talk about the evidence, Jason?
You also stated,
"your, hero Alvarez didn't think, that it was a, gunshot. Which you and,
only you choose, to disbelieve"
Are you suggesting that everyone except me, believes the reactions were
to a siren? How did you come to that conclusion Jason? I know Dr.
Stroscio didn't buy it, even before I contacted him back in '95.
And in fact, I can't think of anyone who believes the siren explanation
anymore. How did you come to believe that everyone (minus one) believes it?
But let me suggest that there are a multitude of good reasons to believe
that a gunshot was what startled those people.
Even the WC admitted that most relevant witnesses said the final shots
were closely bunched. 285 and 313 were closely bunched, Jason.
Kellerman said the final shots came in a "flurry" of at least two shots.
Greer said the last two he heard were almost simultaneous. He also said
that he was turned to the rear when he heard it. He was looking forward
at 160 and 223. He was turned to the rear at 285.
Nellie said she heard a gunshot after she looked back at JFK and before
the fatal headshot. She looked back at JFK at about 257, Jason.
Jackie said she heard that shot after John Connally began to scream and
before the fatal head shot. Connally began to scream at around 240, as
was confirmed by professional lip readers.
Charles Brehm said he was "15-20 feet" from JFK when that shot was
fired. At frame 285, Brehm was umm.. 15-20 feet from JFK.
I have many more Jason, but perhaps you have better evidence than I do
but are just too shy to talk about it.
Well don't be bashful, Jason. Explain to us in detail, exactly what you
have found that proves me wrong or better explains those reactions
following 285.
I know that as a mature, full grown adult, you are capable of more than
childish trash talk. Show us that you have the intelligence and class to
rationally discuss a crime of this importance.
Robert Harris
occurred no earlier than Zapruder frame 285.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7GH5pGQy6yI
You called my analysis, suggesting that these were reactions to a
gunshot, a "fantasy". What do you believe is a better explanation?
When I pointed out that nutters who rejected the gunshot explanation
must believe that they were caused by something else, you said,
"Or, Option B that you are a fool."
How exactly, does my being an fool have anything to do with nutters
choosing a different explanation for the reactions? Are you suggesting
that if I was a bright fellow, they would be more likely to agree?
And why didn't you address my argument that for a multitude of reasons,
including the fact that the people reacting were in the middle of a
shooting, a gunshot would be the most plausible explanation?
You also failed to address the fact that the people we see reacting were
very clear about what they heard then. Don't you think they were in a
pretty good position to know?
I find it amazing that nowhere buried in all the mcadams-approved
insults, did you even once, discuss any of the facts related to this
issue. Is that because you find it easier to post trash talk than to
talk about the evidence, Jason?
You also stated,
"your, hero Alvarez didn't think, that it was a, gunshot. Which you and,
only you choose, to disbelieve"
Are you suggesting that everyone except me, believes the reactions were
to a siren? How did you come to that conclusion Jason? I know Dr.
Stroscio didn't buy it, even before I contacted him back in '95.
And in fact, I can't think of anyone who believes the siren explanation
anymore. How did you come to believe that everyone (minus one) believes it?
But let me suggest that there are a multitude of good reasons to believe
that a gunshot was what startled those people.
Even the WC admitted that most relevant witnesses said the final shots
were closely bunched. 285 and 313 were closely bunched, Jason.
Kellerman said the final shots came in a "flurry" of at least two shots.
Greer said the last two he heard were almost simultaneous. He also said
that he was turned to the rear when he heard it. He was looking forward
at 160 and 223. He was turned to the rear at 285.
Nellie said she heard a gunshot after she looked back at JFK and before
the fatal headshot. She looked back at JFK at about 257, Jason.
Jackie said she heard that shot after John Connally began to scream and
before the fatal head shot. Connally began to scream at around 240, as
was confirmed by professional lip readers.
Charles Brehm said he was "15-20 feet" from JFK when that shot was
fired. At frame 285, Brehm was umm.. 15-20 feet from JFK.
I have many more Jason, but perhaps you have better evidence than I do
but are just too shy to talk about it.
Well don't be bashful, Jason. Explain to us in detail, exactly what you
have found that proves me wrong or better explains those reactions
following 285.
I know that as a mature, full grown adult, you are capable of more than
childish trash talk. Show us that you have the intelligence and class to
rationally discuss a crime of this importance.
Robert Harris
mainframetech
May 11, 2013, 10:27:01 AM5/11/13
to
You still have an answer to give in the thread "Connecting
witnesses to the Zapruder film".
Chris
Jason Burke
May 11, 2013, 2:15:07 PM5/11/13
to
When will you realize that no one wants to play your little game
anymore?
Robert Harris
May 11, 2013, 2:16:27 PM5/11/13
to
good faith. (Of course, I except nutters from that policy:-)
When you claimed that after looking at those 7 frames, you could see this
guy's legs snap from closed to open in a single frame, I lost interest in
the discussion, because no one can tell what the orientation of his legs
were prior to that one clear frame in which they were open. The others
were hopelessly blurred, which is usually a signature for these
alterationist claims.
We simply have no idea when his legs came together or how long it took,
and that includes you. I am disappointed that you would not admit that.
Robert Harris
Anthony Marsh
May 11, 2013, 2:21:32 PM5/11/13
to
On 5/11/2013 8:34 AM, Robert Harris wrote:
> Jason, these are the reactions to a loud and startling noise that
> occurred no earlier than Zapruder frame 285.
>
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7GH5pGQy6yI
>
> You called my analysis, suggesting that these were reactions to a
> gunshot, a "fantasy". What do you believe is a better explanation?
>
The limo suddenly slowing down. Which Alvarez said started at about Z-300.
> Jason, these are the reactions to a loud and startling noise that
> occurred no earlier than Zapruder frame 285.
>
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7GH5pGQy6yI
>
> You called my analysis, suggesting that these were reactions to a
> gunshot, a "fantasy". What do you believe is a better explanation?
>
> When I pointed out that nutters who rejected the gunshot explanation
> must believe that they were caused by something else, you said,
>
> "Or, Option B that you are a fool."
>
> How exactly, does my being an fool have anything to do with nutters
> choosing a different explanation for the reactions? Are you suggesting
> that if I was a bright fellow, they would be more likely to agree?
>
would agree with you.
> And why didn't you address my argument that for a multitude of reasons,
> including the fact that the people reacting were in the middle of a
> shooting, a gunshot would be the most plausible explanation?
>
> You also failed to address the fact that the people we see reacting were
> very clear about what they heard then. Don't you think they were in a
> pretty good position to know?
>
> I find it amazing that nowhere buried in all the mcadams-approved
> insults, did you even once, discuss any of the facts related to this
> issue. Is that because you find it easier to post trash talk than to
> talk about the evidence, Jason?
>
> You also stated,
>
> "your, hero Alvarez didn't think, that it was a, gunshot. Which you and,
> only you choose, to disbelieve"
>
> Are you suggesting that everyone except me, believes the reactions were
> to a siren? How did you come to that conclusion Jason? I know Dr.
> Stroscio didn't buy it, even before I contacted him back in '95.
>
> And in fact, I can't think of anyone who believes the siren explanation
> anymore. How did you come to believe that everyone (minus one) believes it?
>
> But let me suggest that there are a multitude of good reasons to believe
> that a gunshot was what startled those people.
>
> Even the WC admitted that most relevant witnesses said the final shots
> were closely bunched. 285 and 313 were closely bunched, Jason.
>
Robert Harris
May 11, 2013, 10:49:17 PM5/11/13
to
Why can't you discuss this one?
I wish I could tell you to get some assistance but there is no one who
will help you. Mcadams and his friends all do the same thing you do - they
completely evade these issues.
It doesn't matter whether you like me or my analyses. What matters are
those reactions and the evidence which tells us what caused them. You
should be eager to resolve this Jason. How could you NOT want to find an
honest answer?
You should be posting about this even when I'm not here, because it's a
game changer. If this was a gun shot then the conspiracy debate is over.
It really is just that simple.
Your favorite theory requires that you at least demonstrate that it was
possible for Oswald to have fired all the shots. To do that, you need to
demonstrate to some degree of certainty, that those people were reacting
to something else.
If you can't do that, you have no business promoting the single assassin
theory. Nor does mcadams or any of the other nutters.
Robert Harris
Robert Harris
May 11, 2013, 10:49:50 PM5/11/13
to
Anthony Marsh wrote:
> On 5/11/2013 8:34 AM, Robert Harris wrote:
>> Jason, these are the reactions to a loud and startling noise that
>> occurred no earlier than Zapruder frame 285.
>>
>> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7GH5pGQy6yI
>>
>> You called my analysis, suggesting that these were reactions to a
>> gunshot, a "fantasy". What do you believe is a better explanation?
>>
>
> The limo suddenly slowing down. Which Alvarez said started at about Z-300.
The reactions began at frame 290, Tony. You can see that in this extreme
> On 5/11/2013 8:34 AM, Robert Harris wrote:
>> Jason, these are the reactions to a loud and startling noise that
>> occurred no earlier than Zapruder frame 285.
>>
>> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7GH5pGQy6yI
>>
>> You called my analysis, suggesting that these were reactions to a
>> gunshot, a "fantasy". What do you believe is a better explanation?
>>
>
> The limo suddenly slowing down. Which Alvarez said started at about Z-300.
slow motion animation.
http://jfkhistory.com/annotated.gif
BTW, Alvarez never claimed that the slowdown began at frame 300. He said
it "centered" at that frame. He stated that Alvarez lifted his foot from
the gas at 294. But it doesn't matter, since the reactions all began prior
to either of those frames.
I'm pretty sure I explained all this to you in another forum. Why are you
repeating this false information?
Robert Harris
Research
May 12, 2013, 3:14:26 PM5/12/13
to
"Robert Harris" <bobha...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:U96dnXxW7p-XQBDM...@earthlink.com...
> Jason, these are the reactions to a loud and startling noise that occurred
> no earlier than Zapruder frame 285.
>
So. You got my intrest up. I really don't know what you are talking about.
> no earlier than Zapruder frame 285.
>
Is Z285 the moment you say the shot was fired? Or do you see some reaction
to a fired shot at Z285? Isn't Z285 the frame the collates to the Altgens
photo?
>
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7GH5pGQy6yI
>
> You called my analysis, suggesting that these were reactions to a gunshot,
> a "fantasy". What do you believe is a better explanation?
>
> When I pointed out that nutters who rejected the gunshot explanation must
> believe that they were caused by something else, you said,
>
> "Or, Option B that you are a fool."
>
really THEIR defensive option B plan. When talk doesn't work they belittle
or humilate the messenger. That's their tactic.
mainframetech
May 12, 2013, 3:15:31 PM5/12/13
to
I'm surprised that you were unable to see the closing of the legs and
the open position before that. Once you see it in all the other Z- films,
you then see it in the Quicktime video more easily. I'm sorry you've
decided to take the attitude that I'm "not posting in good faith". I
believe that is over-reactive to my being more perceptive, and using other
videos first. I went to all the trouble to look at the video in the form
you wanted, and had to track you down when you refused to respond to my
comment about the video, but remember that you already heard from me that
the legs closed instantly in other videos. So if yours doesn't show what
the others do, the problem is NOT with me, but with your video.
I feel that it's unfortunate that you've taken this direction, I have
some respect for your ability to research vs. some others here. Of course,
the path from here is completely up to you.
Chris
Jason Burke
May 12, 2013, 6:22:03 PM5/12/13
to
that doesn't want to discuss it (again.) As I said last time, no one
wants to play your little game. There's nothing there, Bob.
>
> I wish I could tell you to get some assistance but there is no one who
> will help you. Mcadams and his friends all do the same thing you do -
only me - that the earth is flat. Oh, and demand that I - and only I -
disprove it to only you.
> they completely evade these issues.
>
> It doesn't matter whether you like me or my analyses.
is certainly faulty, though, as *everyone* who has looked at it has shown.
> What matters are
> those reactions and the evidence which tells us what caused them. You
> should be eager to resolve this Jason. How could you NOT want to find an
> honest answer?
>
has ever looked at it - who will help you.
But there's nothing there, so I can't.
Oh well.
> You should be posting about this even when I'm not here, because it's a
> game changer. If this was a gun shot then the conspiracy debate is over.
> It really is just that simple.
Nobel-prize winning physicist,) said it wasn't.
>
> Your favorite theory requires that you at least demonstrate that it was
> possible for Oswald to have fired all the shots. To do that, you need to
> demonstrate to some degree of certainty, that those people were reacting
> to something else.
See the difference?
>
> If you can't do that, you have no business promoting the single assassin
> theory. Nor does mcadams or any of the other nutters.
>
in Kansas City Wednesday after next at this great BBQ joint, though I do
have to check my calendar,) we'll all discuss it. It'll be good for a
laugh. Perhaps everyone will buy me a beer for being singled out by you!
> Robert Harris
Jason Burke
May 12, 2013, 8:19:24 PM5/12/13
to
as to what this discussion is all about.
Now you claim that no one has batted Bob's theory out of the air. Guess
you haven't seen the literally hundreds of responses doing so. (There
are literally hundreds of responses because Bob KEEPS REPEATING THE SAME
THING OVER AND OVER AND OVER AND OVER.)
Geez.
Anthony Marsh
May 12, 2013, 9:08:37 PM5/12/13
to
On 5/11/2013 10:49 PM, Robert Harris wrote:
> Anthony Marsh wrote:
>> On 5/11/2013 8:34 AM, Robert Harris wrote:
>>> Jason, these are the reactions to a loud and startling noise that
>>> occurred no earlier than Zapruder frame 285.
>>>
>>> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7GH5pGQy6yI
>>>
>>> You called my analysis, suggesting that these were reactions to a
>>> gunshot, a "fantasy". What do you believe is a better explanation?
>>>
>>
>> The limo suddenly slowing down. Which Alvarez said started at about
>> Z-300.
>
> The reactions began at frame 290, Tony. You can see that in this extreme
> slow motion animation.
>
> http://jfkhistory.com/annotated.gif
>
> BTW, Alvarez never claimed that the slowdown began at frame 300. He said
Learn English. I did not say "at frame 300." I said at ABOUT Z-300.
> Anthony Marsh wrote:
>> On 5/11/2013 8:34 AM, Robert Harris wrote:
>>> Jason, these are the reactions to a loud and startling noise that
>>> occurred no earlier than Zapruder frame 285.
>>>
>>> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7GH5pGQy6yI
>>>
>>> You called my analysis, suggesting that these were reactions to a
>>> gunshot, a "fantasy". What do you believe is a better explanation?
>>>
>>
>> The limo suddenly slowing down. Which Alvarez said started at about
>> Z-300.
>
> The reactions began at frame 290, Tony. You can see that in this extreme
> slow motion animation.
>
> http://jfkhistory.com/annotated.gif
>
> BTW, Alvarez never claimed that the slowdown began at frame 300. He said
> it "centered" at that frame. He stated that Alvarez lifted his foot from
> the gas at 294. But it doesn't matter, since the reactions all began
> prior to either of those frames.
>
Anthony Marsh
May 12, 2013, 9:51:58 PM5/12/13
to
On 5/11/2013 10:49 PM, Robert Harris wrote:
your storm drain shot to proved conspiracy. The grassy knoll shot proves
conspiracy even if you think it missed.
> Your favorite theory requires that you at least demonstrate that it was
> possible for Oswald to have fired all the shots. To do that, you need to
> demonstrate to some degree of certainty, that those people were reacting
> to something else.
>
Have you ever seen crash test dummies being thrown forward when they
crash the car into a wall? Are they "reacting"?
> If you can't do that, you have no business promoting the single assassin
> theory. Nor does mcadams or any of the other nutters.
>
people of promoting the single assassin theory. How does a shot from the
grassy knoll equal a single assassin?
I was lobbying for the HSCA back in 1976. What were you doing? Nothing.
> Robert Harris
Robert Harris
May 13, 2013, 2:43:57 PM5/13/13
to
Research wrote:
> "Robert Harris" <bobha...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:U96dnXxW7p-XQBDM...@earthlink.com...
>> Jason, these are the reactions to a loud and startling noise that occurred
>> no earlier than Zapruder frame 285.
>>
>
> So. You got my intrest up. I really don't know what you are talking about.
> Is Z285 the moment you say the shot was fired? Or do you see some reaction
> to a fired shot at Z285? Isn't Z285 the frame the collates to the Altgens
> photo?
The shot was fired no earlier than 285 and no later than 288. The
> "Robert Harris" <bobha...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:U96dnXxW7p-XQBDM...@earthlink.com...
>> Jason, these are the reactions to a loud and startling noise that occurred
>> no earlier than Zapruder frame 285.
>>
>
> So. You got my intrest up. I really don't know what you are talking about.
> Is Z285 the moment you say the shot was fired? Or do you see some reaction
> to a fired shot at Z285? Isn't Z285 the frame the collates to the Altgens
> photo?
reactions all began in the range, 290 to 292. So that shot and the one
at 313 were much too close together for Oswald to have fired them both.
Tests conducted by the FBI and the HSCA have confirmed that the alleged
murder weapon could not be fired that rapidly.
The Altgens photo you are thinking of was taken at the equivalent of
Zapruder frame 255.
These short videos go into more detail:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ql6VqZDiC6s
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-IyH99PpIc0
Robert Harris
Robert Harris
May 13, 2013, 2:44:38 PM5/13/13
to
I don't need you to link a hundred of them, just show us the one that
you found most convincing.
> (There
> are literally hundreds of responses because Bob KEEPS REPEATING THE SAME
> THING OVER AND OVER AND OVER AND OVER.)
soon as the facts and evidence change. Until then, I'm afraid I will
sound like a stuck record.
Robert Harris
>
> Geez.
>
Robert Harris
May 13, 2013, 2:45:56 PM5/13/13
to
rebuttal. Those reactions combined with the Alvarez's analysis and the
statements of the people who reacted, settle this issue beyond any
reasonable doubt.
The fact that you and your buds choose to evade all of this is just
incredible. It tells us that you are not interested in getting the
truth. You only want to pitch the LN theory, regardless of the facts and
evidence.
> As I said last time, no one
> wants to play your little game. There's nothing there, Bob.
call this a "game" - other than your rather pathetic hope that you can
demean the importance of this issue?
Five people in the limousine reacted in the same 1/6th of a second,
exhibiting clear startle reactions. Three of them dropped their heads
simultaneously, and their statements made it very clear that they were
reacting to a gunshot.
And you call that a "game"????
>
>>
>> I wish I could tell you to get some assistance but there is no one who
>> will help you. Mcadams and his friends all do the same thing you do -
>
> 'Help me'!? Help me do what?
facts, testimony, analysis and science which all prove that a gunshot
was fired then.
That kind of help.
> You might as well try to convince me - and
> only me - that the earth is flat.
I can prove to you in a dozen different ways that the Earth is not flat.
Why can't you post even a single plausible argument regarding the shot
at 285??
> Oh, and demand that I - and only I -
> disprove it to only you.
Jason, you only have to address the facts and evidence - something you
consistently refuse to do.
You sound exactly like a young Earth religious fanatic, posting all
kinds of insults about evolution, but never once addressing the evidence.
Don't you get tired of making up all these phony excuses?
>
>> they completely evade these issues.
>>
>
> You're confusing 'evade' with 'have moved on to plausible ideas'.
to argue that these people reacted to a siren or the limo decelerating
but they have all failed.
Once that was resolved, there has been absolutely nothing - nada, zip.
You prove that yourself, when you constantly evade all of this and
substitute insults or bogus claims that no one agrees with me.
This issue is waaaay too important to ignore or evade.
>
>> It doesn't matter whether you like me or my analyses.
>
> Haven't given much thought to whether or not I like you. Your 'analysis'
> is certainly faulty, though, as *everyone* who has looked at it has shown.
scivvies that you will actually address the facts and evidence.
Please tell us about my analytical errors. Please be specific.
Robert Harris
Anthony Marsh
May 13, 2013, 2:59:28 PM5/13/13
to
would automatically switch to and from Daylight Savings Time. But a few
years ago the oppressive minions of the One World government changed the
date to change over and the old alarm clock would change on the wrong
day and I'd forget what the new day was. So to remind myself I would use
Harris' rants about a shot at Z-285 to remember to change the time on my
old clock.
Anthony Marsh
May 13, 2013, 3:01:11 PM5/13/13
to
On 5/12/2013 3:14 PM, Research wrote:
> "Robert Harris" <bobha...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:U96dnXxW7p-XQBDM...@earthlink.com...
>> Jason, these are the reactions to a loud and startling noise that occurred
>> no earlier than Zapruder frame 285.
>>
>
> So. You got my intrest up. I really don't know what you are talking about.
> Is Z285 the moment you say the shot was fired? Or do you see some reaction
> to a fired shot at Z285? Isn't Z285 the frame the collates to the Altgens
> photo?
>
Silly. 255 not 285.
> "Robert Harris" <bobha...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:U96dnXxW7p-XQBDM...@earthlink.com...
>> Jason, these are the reactions to a loud and startling noise that occurred
>> no earlier than Zapruder frame 285.
>>
>
> So. You got my intrest up. I really don't know what you are talking about.
> Is Z285 the moment you say the shot was fired? Or do you see some reaction
> to a fired shot at Z285? Isn't Z285 the frame the collates to the Altgens
> photo?
>
Jason Burke
May 13, 2013, 8:20:52 PM5/13/13
to
More and more, I think my theory about you continually getting beat up
as a kid is the correct one.
> I don't need you to link a hundred of them, just show us the one that
> you found most convincing.
>
>
>> (There
>> are literally hundreds of responses because Bob KEEPS REPEATING THE SAME
>> THING OVER AND OVER AND OVER AND OVER.)
>
> Jason, I absolutely promise you that I will change my analysis just as
> soon as the facts and evidence change. Until then, I'm afraid I will
> sound like a stuck record.
>
>
Bob, I know this is hard for you to accept, but your theory / fantasy
has been thoroughly debunked dozens of times. Pretending that it hasn't
just makes you look even more foolish.
But keep on keeping on! You're always good for a laugh.
>
>
> Robert Harris
>
>
>
>
>>
>> Geez.
>>
>
>
Robert Harris
May 13, 2013, 8:22:37 PM5/13/13
to
to prove conspiracy, although this shot certainly does that. It is to
learn what happened that day.
And a shot from the knoll is highly improbable. The trajectory from
there would have exited from the left side of the head and no sniper was
seen by anyone in that location.
> your pet theory shot to prove conspiracy. Nor do we need
> your storm drain shot to proved conspiracy. The grassy knoll shot proves
> conspiracy even if you think it missed.
>
>> Your favorite theory requires that you at least demonstrate that it was
>> possible for Oswald to have fired all the shots. To do that, you need to
>> demonstrate to some degree of certainty, that those people were reacting
>> to something else.
>>
>
> You first have to prove that people were reacting.
> Have you ever seen crash test dummies being thrown forward when they
> crash the car into a wall? Are they "reacting"?
you think that is why those people reacted at 290-292???
How do I deal with reasoning like that?
>
>> If you can't do that, you have no business promoting the single assassin
>> theory. Nor does mcadams or any of the other nutters.
>>
>
> This is the worst slander I have seen online so far.
seem to have forgotten that I was replying to Jason :-)
Robert Harris
Robert Harris
May 14, 2013, 7:40:43 AM5/14/13
to
matter whether I'm bickering with nutters or CT's.
There is no way anyone can tell whether his legs were open or closed in
those frames preceding 379. This is 378. If you think you have a better
copy of that frame, then post it.
jfkhistory.com/378.jpg
Robert Harris
Robert Harris
May 14, 2013, 7:40:55 AM5/14/13
to
refutations. But hey! I'm an old guy and my memory's not what it used to be.
Go ahead and humor me Jason. Post the best one you've seen.
> More and more, I think my theory about you continually getting beat up
> as a kid is the correct one.
Why can't you do that Jason?
>
>> I don't need you to link a hundred of them, just show us the one that
>> you found most convincing.
I'm sure you wouldn't just lie about something that important, would you??
Show us just one of those hundred or so rebuttals.
Just one Jason:-)
Robert Harris
Anthony Marsh
May 14, 2013, 7:44:21 AM5/14/13
to
not have to exit. James Brady was also hit in the forehead by an
explosive bullet and it did not exit. You know nothing about ballistics.
>> your pet theory shot to prove conspiracy. Nor do we need
>> your storm drain shot to proved conspiracy. The grassy knoll shot proves
>> conspiracy even if you think it missed.
>>
>>> Your favorite theory requires that you at least demonstrate that it was
>>> possible for Oswald to have fired all the shots. To do that, you need to
>>> demonstrate to some degree of certainty, that those people were reacting
>>> to something else.
>>>
>>
>> You first have to prove that people were reacting.
>> Have you ever seen crash test dummies being thrown forward when they
>> crash the car into a wall? Are they "reacting"?
>
> So, after stating that you believe the deceleration began at frame 300,
> you think that is why those people reacted at 290-292???
>
I never said anything about people reacting.
Jason Burke
May 14, 2013, 9:44:13 PM5/14/13
to
>
>> As I said last time, no one
>> wants to play your little game. There's nothing there, Bob.
>
> Is there some reason you also have to evade my question about why you
> call this a "game" - other than your rather pathetic hope that you can
> demean the importance of this issue?
>
> Five people in the limousine reacted in the same 1/6th of a second,
> exhibiting clear startle reactions. Three of them dropped their heads
> simultaneously, and their statements made it very clear that they were
> reacting to a gunshot.
>
> And you call that a "game"????
>
>>
>>>
>>> I wish I could tell you to get some assistance but there is no one who
>>> will help you. Mcadams and his friends all do the same thing you do -
>>
>> 'Help me'!? Help me do what?
>
> Help you try to refute my analysis or at the very least, address the
> facts, testimony, analysis and science which all prove that a gunshot
> was fired then.
>
> That kind of help.
>
>
>> You might as well try to convince me - and
>> only me - that the earth is flat.
>
> Pure, unadulterated BS, amigo.
>
> I can prove to you in a dozen different ways that the Earth is not flat.
>
> Why can't you post even a single plausible argument regarding the shot
> at 285??
>
>
>
>> Oh, and demand that I - and only I -
>> disprove it to only you.
>
> LOL!!
>
> Jason, you only have to address the facts and evidence - something you
> consistently refuse to do.
>
> You sound exactly like a young Earth religious fanatic, posting all
> kinds of insults about evolution, but never once addressing the evidence.
>
> Don't you get tired of making up all these phony excuses?
>
>
>>
>>> they completely evade these issues.
>>>
>>
>> You're confusing 'evade' with 'have moved on to plausible ideas'.
>
> No, they "evade" the issues. There have indeed been a few lame attempts
> to argue that these people reacted to a siren or the limo decelerating
> but they have all failed.
>
> Once that was resolved, there has been absolutely nothing - nada, zip.
>
> You prove that yourself, when you constantly evade all of this and
> substitute insults or bogus claims that no one agrees with me.
>
> This issue is waaaay too important to ignore or evade.
>
>
>>
>>> It doesn't matter whether you like me or my analyses.
>>
>> Haven't given much thought to whether or not I like you. Your 'analysis'
>> is certainly faulty, though, as *everyone* who has looked at it has
>> shown.
>
> Well, now we're getting somewhere. I will just be shocked out of my
> scivvies that you will actually address the facts and evidence.
>
> Please tell us about my analytical errors. Please be specific.
>
>
>
>
> Robert Harris
>
>
>
Bob,
I get the feeling you *enjoyed* getting beat up by the bigger kids as a
lad in an attempt to get them into trouble. (I'm beginning to think maybe
one of them hit you a bit too hard during one of these escapades.) See,
most people would stop that sort of nonsense after a couple of tries got
them nothing but all bloodied and hurt.
But you seem to relish in trying again and again.
Jason Burke
May 14, 2013, 9:44:26 PM5/14/13
to
and everyone else with this nonsense. Get some new material. And you
wonder why you 'feel like I'm at the mad hatter's tea party no matter
whether I'm bickering with nutters or CT's'.
Can't you understand that? You have nothing, Bob. Both sides know that,
which is why no one wants to play with you.
>
>> More and more, I think my theory about you continually getting beat up
>> as a kid is the correct one.
>
> I'm sorry, shouldn't you be posting a link by now?
>
> Why can't you do that Jason?
>
and everyone else with this nonsense. Get some new material. And you
wonder why you 'feel like I'm at the mad hatter's tea party no matter
whether I'm bickering with nutters or CT's'.
Can't you understand that? You have nothing, Bob. Both sides know that,
which is why no one wants to play with you.
>
>>
>>> I don't need you to link a hundred of them, just show us the one that
>>> you found most convincing.
>
> Yoohoo Jason??
>
> I'm sure you wouldn't just lie about something that important, would you??
>
> Show us just one of those hundred or so rebuttals.
>
> Just one Jason:-)
>
Nope, Bob, I'm not playing with you anymore. Frankly, you're boring me
and everyone else with this nonsense. Get some new material. And you
wonder why you 'feel like I'm at the mad hatter's tea party no matter
whether I'm bickering with nutters or CT's'.
Can't you understand that? You have nothing, Bob. Both sides know that,
which is why no one wants to play with you.
>
> Robert Harris
>
Canuck
May 15, 2013, 3:04:52 PM5/15/13
to
Anthony Marsh
May 15, 2013, 10:53:32 PM5/15/13
to
with his nonsense for 35 years. Nothing new. No evidence. Just broken
record. There can no longer be any doubt.
> Can't you understand that? You have nothing, Bob. Both sides know that,
> which is why no one wants to play with you.
>
Robert Harris
May 16, 2013, 6:03:48 PM5/16/13
to
>
> I get the feeling you *enjoyed* getting beat up by the bigger kids as
> a lad in an attempt to get them into trouble. (I'm beginning to think
> maybe one of them hit you a bit too hard during one of these escapades.)
> See, most people would stop that sort of nonsense after a couple of
> tries got them nothing but all bloodied and hurt.
And you did not tell the truth when you claimed that my analysis was
refuted.
And now, you resort to adolescent trash talk.
Think of all the typing you could have avoided, and how you could have
enhanced your credibility, by simply answering - directly and honestly.
You can post a thousand insults but you will never change the fact that
those people reacted to a gunshot, Jason.
We can all see them react and they told us exactly what they were
reacting to - as did numerous other witnesses in that vicinity and
throughout Dealey Plaza.
And one of the most brilliant physicists who ever lived, confirmed that
there was a loud and startling noise at 285. And we both know that
wasn't a siren - don't we Jason?
That doesn't leave a lot of alternatives, does it?
But you're going to evade all that and countless other facts, aren't you
Jason? Hey! Maybe you could attack my mother too!
Or maybe you can talk to .john. He knows how to evade the most important
issues even better than you do.
Isn't that right .john:-)
Robert Harris
Anthony Marsh
May 16, 2013, 11:48:19 PM5/16/13
to
On 5/16/2013 6:03 PM, Robert Harris wrote:
>
>>
>> I get the feeling you *enjoyed* getting beat up by the bigger kids as
>> a lad in an attempt to get them into trouble. (I'm beginning to think
>> maybe one of them hit you a bit too hard during one of these escapades.)
>> See, most people would stop that sort of nonsense after a couple of
>> tries got them nothing but all bloodied and hurt.
>
> Jason, you have evaded more than a dozen extremely important questions.
>
> And you did not tell the truth when you claimed that my analysis was
> refuted.
>
> And now, you resort to adolescent trash talk.
>
> Think of all the typing you could have avoided, and how you could have
> enhanced your credibility, by simply answering - directly and honestly.
>
> You can post a thousand insults but you will never change the fact that
> those people reacted to a gunshot, Jason.
>
You haven't proven any facts.
>
>>
>> I get the feeling you *enjoyed* getting beat up by the bigger kids as
>> a lad in an attempt to get them into trouble. (I'm beginning to think
>> maybe one of them hit you a bit too hard during one of these escapades.)
>> See, most people would stop that sort of nonsense after a couple of
>> tries got them nothing but all bloodied and hurt.
>
> Jason, you have evaded more than a dozen extremely important questions.
>
> And you did not tell the truth when you claimed that my analysis was
> refuted.
>
> And now, you resort to adolescent trash talk.
>
> Think of all the typing you could have avoided, and how you could have
> enhanced your credibility, by simply answering - directly and honestly.
>
> You can post a thousand insults but you will never change the fact that
> those people reacted to a gunshot, Jason.
>
> We can all see them react and they told us exactly what they were
> reacting to - as did numerous other witnesses in that vicinity and
> throughout Dealey Plaza.
>
> And one of the most brilliant physicists who ever lived, confirmed that
> there was a loud and startling noise at 285. And we both know that
> wasn't a siren - don't we Jason?
>
He had a theory. But it didn't pan out. (intentional pun)
Jason Burke
May 17, 2013, 4:12:51 PM5/17/13
to
get back up.
I'm not listening to your "theory" anymore.
And I'm certainly not going to play your childish game of trying to goad
me into do so.
Find someone else to play with.
Robert Harris
May 19, 2013, 5:51:58 PM5/19/13
to
I think your problem is that like your buds, you have no rebuttals and no
plausible explanation for the reactions, other than the obvious.
Your other problem is that you made the laughable claim that I have been
refuted hundreds of times, when to save your life you can't show us even
ONE refutation.
I cannot comprehend how any human being could resort to tactics like that,
but each time you manufacture another phony excuse you only confirm that
there are no plausible, alternative explanations.
That was a gunshot, amigo. And that shot settles the conspiracy debate,
once and for all.
Robert Harris
Jason Burke
May 19, 2013, 5:57:56 PM5/19/13
to
0 new messages