Bob Harris punch line of the week

[Lanny]

Today's latest on his own forum. Eighth graph, first sentence. "The
unvarnished voice of reason."


Where are the undecideds?
« on: Today at 03:49:10 PM »

Over the years, watching Discovery channel videos, the Men Who Killed
Kennedy, and many other documentaries, I continue to hear the same kind of
language that is so often heard in forums. Things like,

"The SBT is an absolute impossibility!"

"It's not the single bullet theory, it's the single bullet fact!"

"The XRays show absolute proof of two headshots!"

"The XRays show absolute proof that JFK was only hit in the head once!"

"without any doubt", "absolutely", "positively", "no doubt whatsoever",
etc. etc. etc.

But when I hear top scientists discussing other controversial issues, I
hear a much different kind of language, full of adverbs like "probably",
"maybe", "perhaps" or "I'm not sure", "It is probable that..", and so on.

And in fact, in other forums I have been ridiculed for saying "probably"
or using similar terms. Obviously, all of these unequivocal certainties
cannot be correct. So what is it that drives so many otherwise rational
people to overstate their opinions? I suspect that writers and others who
analyze the case, presume that their theories will be lost in the din, if
they say "I think this is what happened..." or describe their analysis as
a "theory".

The JFK case is no different than a zillion other controversies. It needs
to be studied with as much objectivity as we can muster and often, a bit
more. My own opinion is that certainties really do exist but are often the
result of a lot of "maybe"s.

Or at least I think that's how it works.

[Walt]

Nope..... The ONLY theory that is allowed is LBJ's Select Blue Ribbon
Committee's theory which must be accepted as fact.

Any other theoretical counter points are merely nonsense.......That's
how it works.

[Zobicus]

On Mar 4, 2:40 pm, Lanny <lak...@insightbb.com> wrote:

Fantastic post and it's been bugging me a long time too. People are
afraid to say "I don't know" or "maybe". In all areas of life.

How can we know when your really certain if you always say you're
certain?

[Anthony Marsh]

On 3/4/2013 3:40 PM, Lanny wrote:
> Today's latest on his own forum. Eighth graph, first sentence. "The
> unvarnished voice of reason."
>
>
> Where are the undecideds?
> � on: Today at 03:49:10 PM �
>
> Over the years, watching Discovery channel videos, the Men Who Killed
> Kennedy, and many other documentaries, I continue to hear the same kind of
> language that is so often heard in forums. Things like,
>
> "The SBT is an absolute impossibility!"
>
> "It's not the single bullet theory, it's the single bullet fact!"
>
> "The XRays show absolute proof of two headshots!"
>
> "The XRays show absolute proof that JFK was only hit in the head once!"
>
> "without any doubt", "absolutely", "positively", "no doubt whatsoever",
> etc. etc. etc.
>
> But when I hear top scientists discussing other controversial issues, I
> hear a much different kind of language, full of adverbs like "probably",
> "maybe", "perhaps" or "I'm not sure", "It is probable that..", and so on.
>

Yes, welcome to real life. People on different sides of any debate are
absolutists. Scientist state things in terms of probablity because it is
science.

> And in fact, in other forums I have been ridiculed for saying "probably"
> or using similar terms. Obviously, all of these unequivocal certainties
> cannot be correct. So what is it that drives so many otherwise rational
> people to overstate their opinions? I suspect that writers and others who
> analyze the case, presume that their theories will be lost in the din, if
> they say "I think this is what happened..." or describe their analysis as
> a "theory".
>

It's called propaganda. If you want to start a phony war you don't say
something like, "There is a 23% probability that Iraq will have a
nuclear bomb in 10 years. You don't want to wait until you are 100% sure
before you take action. By then it may be too late.

> The JFK case is no different than a zillion other controversies. It needs
> to be studied with as much objectivity as we can muster and often, a bit
> more. My own opinion is that certainties really do exist but are often the
> result of a lot of "maybe"s.
>
> Or at least I think that's how it works.
>
>

Doesn't count because you are a sane human being.

[Anthony Marsh]

Just drop the SBRC jargon. We are not impressed.

[Robert Harris]

Poor Lanny. I'm sure my article made no sense at all to him, which is
why he thought it would be a great way to make me look bad:-)





Robert Harris

[Walt]

Here's the problem...... The people who support the finding of LBJ's
Select Blue Ribbon Committee believe it's the gospel..... and
they'll point out that their argument is supported by the "facts" as
oublished in the Warren Report.
Anybody who questions those "facts" is ridiculed as a Conspiracy
theorist and a "kook". If a CT is so timid as to merely "offer an
opinion" he's beaten down by the bastards because it's merely his
opinion. Therefore both factions use the hard line of ..... "I know"

[Walt]

Not trying to impress......SBRC is sneering derisive jab at LBJ and an
abreviated way for me to use LBJ's arrogant and haughty term of....
"I've appointed a "Select Blue Ribbon Committee" of honorable and
venerated men to conduct a through investigation into the death of our
beloved President"

LBJ's "Select Blue Ribbon Committee" were all men who had skeletons
in their closets by which they could be blackmailed and
controlled..... and that's why he "Selected" his hand picked "Blue
Ribbon Committee"

[John Canal]

In article <3595e413-bee9-403a...@u7g2000yqg.googlegroups.com>,
Walt says...
>
>On Mar 4, 8:49=A0pm, Zobicus <zo...@mail.com> wrote:
>> On Mar 4, 2:40=A0pm, Lanny <lak...@insightbb.com> wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> > Today's latest on his own forum. =A0Eighth graph, first sentence. "The
>> > unvarnished voice of reason."
>>
>> > =A0Where are the undecideds?
>> > =AB on: Today at 03:49:10 PM =BB

>>
>> > Over the years, watching Discovery channel videos, the Men Who Killed

>> > Kennedy, and many other documentaries, I continue to hear the same kind=

> of
>> > language that is so often heard in forums. Things like,
>>
>> > "The SBT is an absolute impossibility!"
>>
>> > "It's not the single bullet theory, it's the single bullet fact!"
>>
>> > "The XRays show absolute proof of two headshots!"
>>
>> > "The XRays show absolute proof that JFK was only hit in the head once!"
>>
>> > "without any doubt", "absolutely", "positively", "no doubt whatsoever",
>> > etc. etc. etc.
>>
>> > But when I hear top scientists discussing other controversial issues, I

>> > hear a much different kind of language, full of adverbs like "probably"=
>,
>> > "maybe", "perhaps" or "I'm not sure", "It is probable that..", and so o=
>n.
>>
>> > And in fact, in other forums I have been ridiculed for saying "probably=

>"
>> > or using similar terms. Obviously, all of these unequivocal certainties
>> > cannot be correct. So what is it that drives so many otherwise rational

>> > people to overstate their opinions? I suspect that writers and others w=
>ho
>> > analyze the case, presume that their theories will be lost in the din, =
>if
>> > they say "I think this is what happened..." or describe their analysis =
>as
>> > a "theory".
>>
>> > The JFK case is no different than a zillion other controversies. It nee=
>ds
>> > to be studied with as much objectivity as we can muster and often, a bi=
>t
>> > more. My own opinion is that certainties really do exist but are often =

>the
>> > result of a lot of "maybe"s.
>>
>> > Or at least I think that's how it works.
>>

>> Fantastic post and it's been bugging me a long time too. =A0People are
>> afraid to say "I don't know" or "maybe". =A0In all areas of life.

>>
>> How can we know when your really certain if you always say you're
>> certain?
>
>Here's the problem...... The people who support the finding of LBJ's
>Select Blue Ribbon Committee believe it's the gospel..

Not entirely true. Some of us believe the WC got the bottom line right,
but also don't believe everything they reported, esecially regarding the
medical evidence.

>... and
>they'll point out that their argument is supported by the "facts" as
>oublished in the Warren Report.
>Anybody who questions those "facts" is ridiculed as a Conspiracy
>theorist and a "kook".

You're painting with a broad brush there, IMO. There are some CTs who I
believe were respected as miticulous researchers who presented reasonable
arguments.

A couple of them who come to mind are John Hunt and Barb Junkkarinen. I
don't recall any LNers insulting them...but I do recall Marsh bad-mouthing
Barb. Funny thing is, IMO, both John and Barb forgot more about this case,
especially about the medical evidence, than Marsh will ever know.

>If a CT is so timid as to merely "offer an
>opinion" he's beaten down by the bastards

Wow....those are pretty strong terms...."beaten down"?..."bastards"?

Does that happen frequently?

You must think it happens quite often to use the term, "bastards"?

>because it's merely his
>opinion. Therefore both factions use the hard line of ..... "I know"

--
John Canal
jca...@webtv.net

[Anthony Marsh]

I detest Barb for the same reason as I detest Gary Mack. Pretending to be
a conspiracy believer while collaborating with the WC defenders. Glad to
see Groden won the appeal.

[Anthony Marsh]

Yeah, we get it. Now drop it. What he said on the phone is not an
official title.

> LBJ's "Select Blue Ribbon Committee" were all men who had skeletons
> in their closets by which they could be blackmailed and
> controlled..... and that's why he "Selected" his hand picked "Blue
> Ribbon Committee"
>

That applies to almost everyone in Washington at the time.

[Walt]

So it irritates you, eh? ...... I'll continue to use it. Calling LBJ's
"Select Blue Ribbon Committee" The Warren Commission lends respectability
to him, and he don't deserve it...... And the cold blooded ambush of
President Kennedy shouldn't be referred to as "The Assassinaton"....It
should be referred to as.... a ruthless, heartless, cold blooded murder
that was condoned and sanctioned by a power hungry, lustful, evil monster.
......who grinned and winked at one of his conspirators after he donned
the cloak of the murdered president.

[Lanny]

I can't decide which is more hilarious. Robert Harris portraying himself
as a sober, reflective examiner acknowledging the indecision that
invariably results from conflicting facts of equally probative value, or
the very facts about which you are dogmatic; shots circa frame 225 that
"no one heard" or the first high powered rifle shot not occurring until
frame 285 (despite the preponderance of earwitness testimony to the
contrary).

Upon further review, I think it must be the ironic juxtaposition of two
nearly identical piles of BS attempting to mimic the aroma of the rose
bouquet Mrs. Kennedy received at Love Field on the morning of the 22nd.

[Anthony Marsh]

You just want to try to impress the kooks.

> "Select Blue Ribbon Committee" The Warren Commission lends respectability
> to him, and he don't deserve it...... And the cold blooded ambush of
> President Kennedy shouldn't be referred to as "The Assassinaton"....It
> should be referred to as.... a ruthless, heartless, cold blooded murder
> that was condoned and sanctioned by a power hungry, lustful, evil monster.
> ......who grinned and winked at one of his conspirators after he donned
> the cloak of the murdered president.
>

Too long for a book title.

[Robert Harris]

Lanny wrote:
> On Tuesday, March 5, 2013 1:33:13 PM UTC-5, Robert Harris wrote:
>> Zobicus wrote:
>>
>>> On Mar 4, 2:40 pm, Lanny <lak...@insightbb.com> wrote:
>>
>>>> Today's latest on his own forum. Eighth graph, first sentence. "The
>>
>>>> unvarnished voice of reason."
>>
>>>>
>>
>>>> Where are the undecideds?
>>

>>>> ? on: Today at 03:49:10 PM ?

Lanny, do you speak to people like this, whom you meet in real life, face
to face? There are two kinds of people who read these threads - those who
enjoy childish trash talk and those who do not.

If you wish to speak to the latter of those groups, I will be happy to
discuss these issues with you honestly, and analytically, based on the
evidence and known facts of the case.

To do that we should address the issues one at a time, in the order you
prefer. Are you up for that, Lanny?




Robert Harris

[Walt]

That's not the title......That is the entire book.....And it contains
far more truth than can be found in the WR.

[Lanny]

Yeah, I'll go a round or two, I suppose. Here's my first issue:

In your March 3 post which I cited above and which inspired me to begin
this thread, you seemed to lament the frequency with which various
statements concerning assassination evidence were presented by their
advocates as statements of fact rather than more appropriately and
presumably accurately expressed as relative probabilities less than 100%.
I hope I am faithfully capturing the intent of your post.

You then offered as examples two pair of uncompromising statements in
direct opposition to each other concerning the same piece of evidence.
One of those statements was, "The XRays show absolute proof of two
headshots!"

It is my impression based on many statements you have made concerning
shots to President Kennedy's head that you yourself are certain beyond any
doubt that JFK, was indeed struck in the head a second time soon after the
shot at frame 313, and that the autopsy x-rays were among the body of
evidence "absolutely proving" that second shot.

In any event, you did cite the statements of Drs. Riley, Robertson and
Mantik in your YouTube presentations on this issue, and their conclusions
leave no doubt as to the FACT of two wounds to the President's head.

My question is a simple one: Have I misinterpreted your prior statements
concerning your own degree of certainty regarding a second shot to
President Kennedy's skull? If not -- if you are in unqualified agreement
with Drs. R, R & M, then why use the statement of the x-rays proving the
FACT of two head wounds as an example of the type of dogma you seemed to
be criticizing when you asked the rhetorical question "Where are the
undecideds?"

On the other hand, if you truly have some indecision regarding a second
shot to the head, why would you not have presented that evidence at those
points where the three doctors' justified mitigation?

Thanks in advance for your response.

[Walt]

On Mar 5, 8:25 pm, John Canal <John_mem...@newsguy.com> wrote:
> In article <3595e413-bee9-403a-8228-66d3645a7...@u7g2000yqg.googlegroups.com>,

John, how can the "bottom line" be correct when many of the figures in
the equation ar totally false or inaccurate.

If I gave you a list of instructions for you to follow to travel from
LA to New York City, but when you followed the instructions you found
that you were in Anchorage Alaska ....would the "bottom line" still
be correct?

[John Canal]

In article <ae30dad4-db9b-477b...@c6g2000yqh.googlegroups.com>,
Walt says...
>
>On Mar 5, 8:25=A0pm, John Canal <John_mem...@newsguy.com> wrote:
>> In article <3595e413-bee9-403a-8228-66d3645a7...@u7g2000yqg.googlegroups.=
>com>,
>> Walt says...
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> >On Mar 4, 8:49=3DA0pm, Zobicus <zo...@mail.com> wrote:
>> >> On Mar 4, 2:40=3DA0pm, Lanny <lak...@insightbb.com> wrote:
>>
>> >> > Today's latest on his own forum. =3DA0Eighth graph, first sentence. =

>"The
>> >> > unvarnished voice of reason."
>>

>> >> > =3DA0Where are the undecideds?
>> >> > =3DAB on: Today at 03:49:10 PM =3DBB
>>
>> >> > Over the years, watching Discovery channel videos, the Men Who Kille=
>d
>> >> > Kennedy, and many other documentaries, I continue to hear the same k=
>ind=3D

>> > of
>> >> > language that is so often heard in forums. Things like,
>>
>> >> > "The SBT is an absolute impossibility!"
>>
>> >> > "It's not the single bullet theory, it's the single bullet fact!"
>>
>> >> > "The XRays show absolute proof of two headshots!"
>>

>> >> > "The XRays show absolute proof that JFK was only hit in the head onc=
>e!"
>>
>> >> > "without any doubt", "absolutely", "positively", "no doubt whatsoeve=

>r",
>> >> > etc. etc. etc.
>>

>> >> > But when I hear top scientists discussing other controversial issues=
>, I
>> >> > hear a much different kind of language, full of adverbs like "probab=
>ly"=3D
>> >,
>> >> > "maybe", "perhaps" or "I'm not sure", "It is probable that..", and s=
>o o=3D
>> >n.
>>
>> >> > And in fact, in other forums I have been ridiculed for saying "proba=
>bly=3D
>> >"
>> >> > or using similar terms. Obviously, all of these unequivocal certaint=
>ies
>> >> > cannot be correct. So what is it that drives so many otherwise ratio=
>nal
>> >> > people to overstate their opinions? I suspect that writers and other=
>s w=3D
>> >ho
>> >> > analyze the case, presume that their theories will be lost in the di=
>n, =3D
>> >if
>> >> > they say "I think this is what happened..." or describe their analys=
>is =3D
>> >as
>> >> > a "theory".
>>
>> >> > The JFK case is no different than a zillion other controversies. It =
>nee=3D
>> >ds
>> >> > to be studied with as much objectivity as we can muster and often, a=
> bi=3D
>> >t
>> >> > more. My own opinion is that certainties really do exist but are oft=
>en =3D

>> >the
>> >> > result of a lot of "maybe"s.
>>
>> >> > Or at least I think that's how it works.
>>

>> >> Fantastic post and it's been bugging me a long time too. =3DA0People a=
>re
>> >> afraid to say "I don't know" or "maybe". =3DA0In all areas of life.

>>
>> >> How can we know when your really certain if you always say you're
>> >> certain?
>>

>> >Here's the problem...... =A0The people who support the finding of LBJ's

>> >Select Blue Ribbon Committee believe it's the gospel..
>>
>> Not entirely true. Some of us believe the WC got the bottom line right,
>> but also don't believe everything they reported, esecially regarding the
>> medical evidence.
>
>John, how can the "bottom line" be correct when many of the figures in
>the equation ar totally false or inaccurate.

Easy, they had two choices; LHO did it alone or he had help. IMO, they got
it right...he did it alone.

>If I gave you a list of instructions for you to follow to travel from
>LA to New York City, but when you followed the instructions you found
>that you were in Anchorage Alaska ....would the "bottom line" still
>be correct?

Huh?

If you gave me a list of instructions, with some of them being flawed,
e.g. "turn right [south] when you get to Amarillo and after a couple of
days driving straight, cross the Rio Grande...then start looking for the
Statue of Liberty", I'd hope the Hell I would see that you had your head
in a very dark place when you put the instructions together and could make
the necessary adjustments....ending up in New York City.


>>
>> >... =A0 and

>> >they'll point out that their argument is supported by the "facts" as
>> >oublished in the Warren Report.
>> >Anybody who questions those "facts" is ridiculed as a Conspiracy
>> >theorist and a "kook".
>>
>> You're painting with a broad brush there, IMO. There are some CTs who I
>> believe were respected as miticulous researchers who presented reasonable
>> arguments.
>>
>> A couple of them who come to mind are John Hunt and Barb Junkkarinen. I

>> don't recall any LNers insulting them...but I do recall Marsh bad-mouthin=
>g
>> Barb. Funny thing is, IMO, both John and Barb forgot more about this case=

>,
>> especially about the medical evidence, than Marsh will ever know.
>>
>> >If a CT is so timid as to merely "offer an
>> >opinion" he's beaten down by the bastards
>>
>> Wow....those are pretty strong terms...."beaten down"?..."bastards"?
>>
>> Does that happen frequently?
>>
>> You must think it happens quite often to use the term, "bastards"?
>>
>> >because it's merely his
>> >opinion. Therefore both factions use the hard line of ..... "I know"
>>
>> --
>> John Canal
>> jca...@webtv.net
>
>

--
John Canal
jca...@webtv.net

[Robert Harris]

Lanny, my suggestion was that we discuss issues that will appeal to
intelligent people, rather than the trashtalk crowd.

I don't think most intelligent people give a crap about Robert Harris. I
think they will be far more interested in the assassination of JFK.

But to answer you specifically, I believe there is a very high
probability that there were two shots to the head, for a large number of
reasons in addition to the statements of the three experts I have cited.
If, over the last couple of decades, I made statements which suggested
certainty, that was an error, for which I apologize.

But rather than discuss your apparent obsession, why don't we talk about
the shot at 313, and the reasons you agree or disagree with me. I know
you have seen some of my videos on the subject, why don't you begin?

[Anthony Marsh]

Silly. Hoover and LBJ thought that Oswald was a hired killer.
That would also make it a conspiracy.

[Walt]

On Mar 9, 10:28 pm, John Canal <John_mem...@newsguy.com> wrote:
> In article <ae30dad4-db9b-477b-b5c8-d5cfde956...@c6g2000yqh.googlegroups.com>,

I would hope so too, John.... But you have stated that you believe that
even though LBJ's SBRC had some distances and compass headings wrong they
still arrived at the destination. I gotta tell ya John, that doesn't
demonstrsate that you have the ability to know that you've crossed the Rio
Grande and highway sugns are written in Spanish, and therefore you're not
going to see the Statue of Liberty..... Could be the effects of that
funny smellin tobacco.... Maybe you should change brands.

[Lanny]

On Sunday, March 10, 2013 10:20:50 PM UTC-4, Robert Harris wrote:
> Lanny, my suggestion was that we discuss issues that will appeal to
>
> intelligent people, rather than the trashtalk crowd.
>
>
>
> I don't think most intelligent people give a crap about Robert Harris. I
>
> think they will be far more interested in the assassination of JFK.
>
>
>
> But to answer you specifically, I believe there is a very high
>
> probability that there were two shots to the head, for a large number of
>
> reasons in addition to the statements of the three experts I have cited.
>
> If, over the last couple of decades, I made statements which suggested
>
> certainty, that was an error, for which I apologize.
>
>
>
> But rather than discuss your apparent obsession, why don't we talk about
>
> the shot at 313, and the reasons you agree or disagree with me. I know
>
> you have seen some of my videos on the subject, why don't you begin?
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Robert Harris
>
>

To begin with, I doubt I would have much trouble convincing anyone in this
forum of your proclivity to state theory as fact regarding most
assassination evidence that you’ve cared to comment on.

I also thought it was particularly telling that a new member of your
forum, after only 33 posts, saw the irony in your critical
characterization of Sherry Feister’s presentation of her research “as
though they were a done deal and beyond dispute.” Doesn’t take long to
make a first impression, huh?

But if I did not make it clear in my last post in this thread, let me make
the attempt once more. My “obsession,” as you put it, is not about
whatever nutty theories you may choose to believe about the assassination.
My outrage is in response to ANYONE stating as fact direct testimony of
witnesses that is in stark opposition to what those witnesses actually
said or their unmistakable intended context.

We covered this ground in your forum long ago. I really don’t see the
point of going over all of this again.

Our disagreement stems from the following:

1. Your previous assertions that a high powered rifle was not fired prior
to frame Z-285 because no witnesses manifested visible startle reactions
to an audible stimulus of a decibel level sufficient to provoke
involuntary startle reactions. You appear to maintain this viewpoint
despite scientific evidence showing that decibel levels of at least 124 db
can produce involuntary muscle contractions no more demonstrative than a
flinch of a contracted muscle or the momentary closing of the eyes, and
that this minimal physical reaction is quite common within the wide range
of valid involuntary neurological responses. Your apparent reliance on a
physically observable startle reaction on the part of one or more limo
passengers as a minimal evidentiary requirement to establish the presence
of high powered rifle fire prior to frame 285 is scientifically unfounded.

To my knowledge you’ve never explained why you reject these scientific
findings while accepting the science which establishes the minimum
threshold noise level for involuntary reactions or the mean physical
response time between the generation of the noise stimulus and the
involuntary reaction itself.


2. Your attempt to attribute a state of confusion on the part of Nellie
Connelly as to when she believed her husband was wounded. Your
suggestions that her view of only her husband’s back from the time of
his initial wounding on or about Z-frame 225 could have resulted in her
mistakenly believing that he was wounded by the alleged shot at frame 285
is directly contradicted by her Warren Commission testimony wherein she
fixes the moment of his wounding at frame 229 or perhaps into the low
230’s at most. Governor Connelly’s WC testimony of hearing a rifle
shot just before his wounding AND Mrs. Connally hearing BOTH the first
shot which she associated with the President’s wounding and the second
shot which struck her husband provide compelling evidence for gunshots
well in advance of frame 285. Neither of the Connally’s heard any
further gunshots until the third and final shot which struck President
Kennedy’s head at frame 313.

That bears repeating. Nellie Connally never testified to hearing the
sound at frame 285 you say she involuntarily reacted to nor perceived her
pulling her husband into her lap as an involuntary reaction to a sound.
In fact, she specifically described it as a conscious decision to her
husband’s condition which she OBSERVED. Neurological reactions can
certainly be involuntary. I don’t believe the act of being
“startled” can occur outside the state of consciousness. Do you?

3. Your implication that because witnesses misinterpreted any or all of
the gunshots as “firecrackers” or “motorcycle backfires” they
were, in reality, subjected to an auditory stimulus of some decibel level
LESS than that of an unsuppressed rifle is specious. The vast majority of
witnesses made this misidentification despite no clear evidence that any
fireworks were ever set off in Dealey Plaza that day and no motorcycle
patrolman ever confirmed that his vehicle backfired while on Houston or
Elm Street. Since President Kennedy and Governor Connelly’s wounds were
NOT inflicted by either fireworks or engine backfires, it is patently
ridiculous to believe that the loud noises people heard were anything
other than the gunshots which struck the President and the Governor.

That’s all I have the patience for at the moment. My purpose in
analyzing assassination evidence is not to evoke Damascus-road-like
conversion experiences from the rationally recalcitrant. My only hope is
to give newcomers to this discussion a better perspective from which to
judge certain theories that deserve a more penetrating look than they
might first be led to believe.

Alas, there are probably not very many of those folks here.

[Glenn V.]

Well stated, I agree fully with your description of JFK assassination
research, generally speaking (not making any judgments on the potential
quibble with Robert Harris).

Just want to add that far too many amateurs believe that they have far too
many answers. Which is why we often see oversimplifications of issues way
more complicated than described by various researchers, the medical
evidence first and foremost. I guess this is to be expected, when in this
case you even have certain scholars not knowing even the basics of how to
conduct basic research.

[Walt]

On Mar 10, 9:21 pm, Anthony Marsh <anthony.ma...@comcast.net> wrote:
> On 3/9/2013 10:28 PM, John Canal wrote:
>
>
>
>
>

> > In article <ae30dad4-db9b-477b-b5c8-d5cfde956...@c6g2000yqh.googlegroups.com>,

Excellent point......chalk up another one for Tony!

[Walt]

Alas, indeed...... I doubt that anybody enters this forum without some
preconceived idea, or theory, for which they are seeking
legitimization......everybody has their agenda.

[Robert Harris]

I'm sorry Lanny. I know you want to get into this endless ad hominem
broohaha but to tell you the truth, it just bores me to tears.

I cannot think of anything I care less about than what you think of me.
What I do care about is seriously studying the JFK assassination and
sharing what I have learned with others who also want to understand it.

I'm sorry that you don't think the same way. This really is a
fascinating murder mystery. It's a thousand times more interesting than
all this petty bickering and whining.



Robert Harris

[Lanny]

On Friday, March 15, 2013 12:29:46 PM UTC-4, Robert Harris wrote:
> I'm sorry Lanny. I know you want to get into this endless ad hominem
>
> broohaha but to tell you the truth, it just bores me to tears.
>
>
>
> I cannot think of anything I care less about than what you think of me.
>
> What I do care about is seriously studying the JFK assassination and
>
> sharing what I have learned with others who also want to understand it.
>
>
>
> I'm sorry that you don't think the same way. This really is a
>
> fascinating murder mystery. It's a thousand times more interesting than
>
> all this petty bickering and whining.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Robert Harris
>

I made three or four very simple statements about the nature of
scientifically valid auditory startle reactions, about Nellie Connally’s
verbatim sworn testimony and its intended context before the Warren
Commission and the HSCA, about her failure to hear or react to any
auditory stimulus at approximately frame 285 of the Zapruder film, and
that it is “patently ridiculous” to believe that the loud noises
people heard in Dealey Plaza were anything other than the unsuppressed
gunshots fired at the President despite the first impressions of many
witnesses mistaking them for “fireworks” and/or “motorcycle
backfires.”

Mine are very clear factual statements which directly contradict various
equally clear representations you have made about these same issues. In
all probability, one of us is correct in our foundational assumptions on
these matters, and one of us is in error.

But there is not an “ad hominem” logical fallacy within the lot of
them.

[Walt]

On Mar 15, 11:29 am, Robert Harris <bobharri...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> I'm sorry Lanny. I know you want to get into this endless ad hominem
> broohaha but to tell you the truth, it just bores me to tears.
>
> I cannot think of anything I care less about than what you think of me.
> What I do care about is seriously studying the JFK assassination and
> sharing what I have learned with others who also want to understand it.

Ha,ha,ha,hee,hee,hee.... Good One Robert!.....

>
> I'm sorry that you don't think the same way. This really is a
> fascinating murder mystery.

And you're never going to find the solution....Because your ego won't
allow it.... When someone points out that you're headed in the wrong
direction, rather than do the intelligent thing and listen you just keep
going deeper and deeper into the fog.....

[Robert Harris]

Walt wrote:
> On Mar 15, 11:29 am, Robert Harris <bobharri...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>> I'm sorry Lanny. I know you want to get into this endless ad hominem
>> broohaha but to tell you the truth, it just bores me to tears.
>>
>> I cannot think of anything I care less about than what you think of me.
>> What I do care about is seriously studying the JFK assassination and
>> sharing what I have learned with others who also want to understand it.
>
> Ha,ha,ha,hee,hee,hee.... Good One Robert!.....
>
>>
>> I'm sorry that you don't think the same way. This really is a
>> fascinating murder mystery.
>
> And you're never going to find the solution....Because your ego won't
> allow it....

ROFLMAO!!

Hey Lanny! I think we just found your soulmate.

Ad hominem, ad hominem, ad hominem.

Have you met Ben Holmes yet? He's another like minded soul whom you
should get together with.


Robert Harris

[Walt]

Robert, a wise man would LISTEN to his critiics..... Because his
critics will be totally candid....

That doesn't necessarily mean his critics are correct, but a wise man
would at least consider their criticism.

[Ben Holmes]

In article <UtWdnaQxMfrJOdXM...@earthlink.com>, Robert Harris
says...

5. Posters may not levy personal attacks against other posters. Ideas may
be vigorously discussed, but attacks on ideas should be phrased to make it
clear that the poster is not being attacked. Any post whose predominant
subject or theme is another poster rather than the assassination is likely
to be rejected. (Positive, supportive, or solicitous messages, however,
may be accepted at the moderators' discretion.)

Of course, this rule isn't enforced when the personal attack happens to be
against anyone who refuses to agree with the Warren Commission.

Does the term "hypocrisy" have any meaning here?


--
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ben Holmes
Learn to Make Money with a Website - http://www.burningknife.com

[Anthony Marsh]

McAdams told me that I was not allowed to call someone's theory stupid
because that was implying that the person was stupid.

> Of course, this rule isn't enforced when the personal attack happens to be
> against anyone who refuses to agree with the Warren Commission.
>

The WC defenders here are allowed and encouraged to call me a liar.
But when I simply post that they are wrong my messages are deleted.

> Does the term "hypocrisy" have any meaning here?
>
>

They'd need a college education to understand that.