Question for Mr. Von Pein

[Robert Harris]

David, may I assume that you are finished discussing this issue? Have you
noticed that even the other nutters have not tried to defend any of your
arguments, or deny mine.

If you are ready to acknowledge that I am right, then you ought to say so.
When you evade my arguments, you are only confirming that they are right.



Robert Harris


In article
<2b0211aa-6a5c-41ce...@u32g2000yqe.googlegroups.com>,
David Von Pein <davev...@aol.com> wrote:

> http://groups.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/msg/0a581746c27b7a2f
>
> [QUOTING FROM A 2009 DISCUSSION:]
>
> [GRAMMAR NOTE -- All of Robert Harris' needless commas have been
> removed by DVP in the post below.]
>
>
> ROBERT HARRIS SAID:
>
> >>> "David, why is it that in the Altgens photo, taken at the equivalent
> of [Zapruder frame] 255, after at least two shots have been fired, we see
> so many smiling faces, with no-one screaming or diving to the ground?" <<<
>
>
> DAVID VON PEIN SAID:
>
> Why would there necessarily have to be mass hysteria in Dealey Plaza at
> that time (circa Z255)?

There should have been mass hysteria after the FIRST shot, David.

I don't think you really understand what 130 decibels is.

A noisy vacuum cleaner will generate 70-80 decibels.

90 decibels is the point at which involuntary startle reactions will
occur and prolonged exposure can cause permanent hearing damage. That's
2-4 time louder than the vacuum.

100 db is twice as loud as that.

110 db is four times louder

120 db is eight time louder

130 db, the level that Oswald's rifle generated at street level, is
sixteen times louder.

David, THIS is what reactions to 130 decibels looks like,

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

You will see the same thing following 312, although the reactions then
were a little more pronounced than the ones following 285 - obviously,
because the two shots came from different rifles.

But there were no reactions by anyone that were even remotely like that,
prior to frame 285.

Do you disagree with that, David?


>
> At that point in the James Altgens picture, it's only been 5.2 seconds
> since Lee Harvey Oswald fired his first shot.

That shot could NOT have been fired by Oswald, or anyone else using a
high powered rifle.

David, imagine yourself walking into a relatively small area like DP,
that was fairly crowded, and then pulling out a MC rifle and just firing
it up into the air.

Do you think some people would have never noticed it all, while a few
others looked around saying, "gosh, what was that?". Or do you think
there would be pandemonium?

Your theory requires the bystanders to have totally overlooked one of
the early shots, and almost unanimously failing to identify the other
one as a gunshot. Further west, people like Brehm, Hill (both), Moorman
and others, never heard ANY of the early shots.

Of course, we can bicker about what people were supposed to hear, all
day. But this is the clincher, because we know that they only reacted
like this twice - once after 285 and once after 312.

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

And yet, the early shots SHOULD have been the loudest that day, to the
ears of the limo passengers, if Oswald had fired them all.

It is ridiculously obvious that he did not.



> Not exactly a long time,
> right Robert?

I have no idea what your point is David. Reactions to the 285 and 312
shots began within a third of a second and were MUCH different than the
reactions and nonreactions to the early shots.


> And two Secret Service agents are, indeed, reacting to the
> sound of the gunfire by looking over their right shoulders.

Of course they are. I've only described reactions to the 160 shot by Mr.
and Mrs. Kennedy, Nellie Connally and several of the Secret Service
agents, more times than I can remember.

I also described them in the long article at my website and in video
presentations.

Not only were they much different than the later, startle reactions, but
they were spread out over several seconds. As you know, startle
reactions must occur within no more than 1/3rd of a second or 6 frames.

>
> But it's only been 1.7 seconds since anyone in the limousine was HIT by a
> bullet, which is hardly enough time for people to start reacting to the
> EFFECTS of the shots being fired (i.e., the wounding of people in Dealey
> Plaza).

It doesn't matter how people reacted to what they saw. What we are
talking about is how they reacted to what they heard.

By studying those reactions David, the Zapruder film is no longer
silent. It can't tell us everything, but it tells us very clearly, when
high powered rifle shots were fired and when they weren't.

And when we look at the sworn testimonies of the people we see reacting,
they corroborate those shots almost perfectly.

Kellerman heard a "flurry" of "at least" two shots.

Greer heard nearly simultaneous shots, and felt the "concussion" of what
he described as the second one, as he was turned to the rear.

Jackie heard two shots after Connally began to shout.

Nellie described a shot that she believed, wounded her husband, shortly
after looking back and seeing JFK in distress. In the Zapruder film, we
can see exactly when she looked back and exactly when she reacted to the
shot that mistakenly thought hit her husband.

http://jfkhistory.com/nellie2.gif

>
> BTW, Bob, how can you determine if anyone is "screaming" or not via the
> silent Altgens photograph? (Just curious.)

No, but I can by reading the article at Mcadams website, which describes
analysis by professional lip readers who pinpointed the instant in which
JBC began to shout "no, no, no, no". You can see it here, David.

http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/listen.htm

Actually, with the better quality copies of the film available today, we
can all see the same thing. He started shouting in the 240's, just as
the lip readers claimed.


>
> >>> "Why do we ONLY see such things after frame 285?" <<<
>
> Because it was only after Z285 (and after Z313 actually) that the
> spectators realized what was truly happening in the Plaza -- i.e., that
> the President was being shot at.


Sorry David, that doesn't cut it.

Those people were not reacting to what they saw. They were reacting to
what they heard - just like the limo passengers, some of whom, reacted
instantly, while they were looking away from JFK.

Watch Kellerman react to the 312 shot, a scant 2 frames after 312 -
while his back was turned to JFK.

>
> Duh!

You got that right David:-)

>
> >>> "Why did none of the Secret Service agents pull out a gun until after
> frame 285?" <<<
>
> The Secret Service men reacted somewhat slowly, yes.

But that wasn't really their fault, because nothing they heard prior to
285 sounded like a real gunshot. Clint Hill didn't notice ANY of the
early shots. Neither Brehm, J Hill, Moorman and others at the west end
of DP.

And the overwhelming majority of relevant witnesses that day, only
noticed one of the early shots.

That's not the way high powered rifle shots work, David. They would have
been heard by people 5 blocks away.


> No denying that
> fact. But I don't really see how this inquiry bolsters your pet "Z285"
> theory though.

It "bolsters" it, because the first of two high powered rifle shots was
fired at 285. It was immediately after that, that Clint Hill jumped from
the followup car, in direct response to the shot he had just heard, and
the other agents also reacted.

Prior to that, the Secret Service didn't do more than look around for
that "backfire" or "firecracker" - for the same reason that none of the
limo passengers were startled. The early shots ranged from totally
inaudible to relatively weak. Even John Connally didn't hear the 223
shot, and neither did anyone else.


>
> >>> "Why did Clint Hill wait until after frame 285 to leap from the limo
> and state that he did so in direct reaction to a gunshot?" <<<
>
> I'm sure his leaping from the running board of the SS car was, indeed, "in
> direct reaction to a gunshot". Obviously Hill's running toward the
> President's car was "in direct reaction to a gunshot", for Pete sake. What
> ELSE would have been the reason for his dramatic action that day?
>
> But to state categorically that Clint Hill was "reacting" to a specific
> gunshot fired at precisely Z285 (as you theorize) is just plain silly and
> impossible to pin down with spot-on accuracy (as is the case with pretty
> much everything you purport with regard to your totally-subjective
> analysis of the Zapruder Film and the witness statements in relation to
> your pet Z285 theory).

That's not true David. In fact, we have very clear confirmations of when
he heard that shot. Consider this, from his report of 11/22/1963.

"On the left hand side was a grass area with a few people scattered
along it observing the motorcade passing, and I was visually scanning
these people when I heard a noise similar to a firecracker."

There were three candidates for the group that was, "observing the
motorcade passing". That was the crowd at the corner, the two guys just
west of them, and the small group in a grassy area which consisted of
Brehm & son, Babushka lady, J hill and Mary Moorman.

But the only one that matched his description, was number three, right
up to the point where Hill pointed out in later years, that some were
taking pictures (Babuska and Moorman).

And guess what David!?!

Every one of those people who made a statement on the record, described
hearing the first of several shots, just as the President was passing in
front of them!

Brehm said JFK "15-20 feet" from him when the first of those shots was
fired. David, look at your Zfilm and tell me how far Brehm was from JFK
at 285. Here's a clue, the road was 40 feet wide and the limo was just
to the left of center.

What do you get, David?

Jean Hill, just to Brehm's left said the limo was "almost abreast" of
her position and Mary Moorman said she heard 3-4 shots just as she was
snapping her last picture.

Don't you think it's an amazing coincidence that Hill said those people
were "observing the motorcade passing" when that shot was fired, and
that they said that shot was fired just as the motorcade was passing in
front of them??

And here is something else David. Hill said he was "scanning" that group
who were to his left, but all throughout the Zapruder film, right up to
the point where we lose him circa frame 250, we never see him look to
the left.

We pick him up again though, in the Altgens photo at 255. During those 5
frames, he has turned a considerable distance to his left, and is on
perfect track to be looking left, at that small group, well before frame
285.

Now, I am acutely aware of the silly nutter rebuttal, claiming that Hill
was scanning people to his left, via peripheral vision or whatever. But
look at the wide film at 223 and 224 David. Hill was clearly looking to
his right then. There is no way that he was scanning anybody to his left
at that point.

At 160, we just don't see enough of him to be sure. But why would Hill
be looking all the way down the road at Brehm & co. when there was a
much bigger crowd with more potential threats among the people closest
to them? That makes no sense at all.

And after that, Hill was obviously keeping an eye on Louis Witt, as
Steve Barber pointed out long ago, in an article at Mcadams website.
There is just no way that he had heard anything at that point, that he
perceived to be a gunshot.


>
> Time for another one of these -- Duh!

Don't be hard on yourself David. There was a time when I didn't know
this stuff either.


>
> >>> "Why did Bill Greer wait until just after 285 to slow the limo and
> spin around so fast that some critics thought his turns were humanly
> impossible?" <<<
>
> Once more we're treated to Bob Harris' unique subjective look at things.
> In Harris' world, everything seems to revolve around his fictitious missed
> shot at exactly Z285 of the Zapruder Film.

Hehe, we can always tell when David is in a hopeless corner because he
goes off into these silly ad hominem rants, apparently hoping that no
one will notice him evading the question:-)


>
> In Bob's one-sided "Z285 world", there isn't even the slightest
> possibility that what we're seeing in the Z-Film just after frame #285
> could be the limousine's occupants behaving in ways that might NOT
> indicate that they were each hearing a gunshot at precisely Z285.


David, you're boring me and I'm sure a lot of other people to tears.

All this trashtalk does, is tell everyone a lot more about you than it
does me.


>
> In Bob's "Z285" world, the movements of Nellie Connally and Jacqueline
> Kennedy couldn't POSSIBLY be the movements and actions of two women who,
> just 3.33 seconds prior to Z285, heard a gunshot being fired from Lee
> Oswald's gun on the sixth floor of the Book Depository....with that single
> gunshot resulting in the husbands of both of those women being wounded by
> the same bullet....with the two women then reacting in a perfectly normal
> fashion by LEANING IN toward their respective wounded spouses.
>
> The above scenario is simply IMPOSSIBLE in the Z285 world of Robert
> Harris.
>
> Go figure.

Ok, are we finished ranting David?

If so, I will repeat the question that you went to all that trouble to
evade:-)

"Why did Bill Greer wait until just after 285 to slow the limo and spin
around so fast that some critics thought his turns were humanly
impossible?"

Of course, Dr. Alvarez answered that question for us. Greer was reacting
to a very loud and startling noise at precisely frame 285. Alvarez
determined that the limo started to decelerate at precisely frame 294.
And we can see that Greer began his Linda Blair impression at 291-292.
That works out to be a perfect match, because he obviously lifted his
foot at the same time that he began to spin around. Watch Greer closely,

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

I'm sorry David, but this is not about my "little world". It's about
these ridiculously obvious reactions, the analysis of one of the top
scientists in the world, and the near unanimous statements by the same
people we see reacting and the large majority of other witnesses in DP
who reported that the final shots were "closely bunched".

Even the WC admitted that.

And "closely bunched" is a REALLY good match with 1.5 seconds, as
between 285 and 312. Don't you think?

>
> >>> "Why did Greer say he felt the "concussion" of the second shot as he
> was turned to the rear? And how do you explain why he didn't turn to the
> rear until well after 223??" <<<
>
> Once again, Mr. Harris is assigning ludicrous levels of ASSUMED AND
> PRESUMED SPOT-ON ACCURACY to the statements of certain Dealey Plaza
> witnesses.

Does anyone else find it incredible how I am making all these terrible
assumptions, by simply asking a question??


>
> We're only talking about a fraction more than THREE SECONDS IN REAL TIME
> between the time of the actual second shot fired (by Oswald at Z224) and
> Bob Harris' make-believe missed shot at Z285.
>
> 3.3 seconds, Bob!! That's all.

That's nice David. But why won't you answer the questions?

Why did Greer say he felt the "concussion" of the second shot as he was
turned to the rear?

First of all David, he wasn't turned to the rear at 223 or 160. But he
certainly was at 285. Don't you agree?

And what alternative explanations can you suggest for the "concussion"
Greer felt, other than the shock wave of a passing bullet??

David, they were in the midst of a shooting.

I can't think of any other alternatives but maybe I'm just lacking in
imagination. Can you think of anything?

>
> Anything you attribute to a missed shot at precisely Z285 can just as
> easily be attributed to Oswald's real second shot at Z224. The difference
> in real time is negligible.

David, startle reactions MUST begin within 1/3rd of a second, or 6
frames. Nothing those people heard 60 frames earlier could have evoked
startle reactions at the time they reacted.

The shot might have been later than 285, and it probably was. But it
could not have been earlier.


>
> But to Bob "Z285" Harris, 3.3 seconds is an amount of time that can be
> dissected and sliced to absolute perfection in the minds and testimony of
> EVERY SINGLE LIMO OCCUPANT.

I didn't know that I thought that David. I certainly never said it.

Why is it that you fail to respond to the things I really say, but are
eager to jump on the things you fabricate for me?

No one "dissected" anything. They just reacted to loud gunshots exactly
as we would expect them to.

It is us, the researchers to do the heavy lifting here and even that is
not very complicated. Thanks to the precision timing of the Zapruder
film, we are able to determine exactly when those people reacted and how
much time there was between various, visible events.

By simply watching the limo passengers David, the Zfilm is no longer
silent. It at least tells us when those people were exposed to gunshots
that were loud enough to startle them - and when they weren't.



>
> Can you say "That's ridiculous"? I sure can when talking about this
> silly "Z285" subject that Bob Harris loves so much.

I'm sorry David but I've put up with childish trashtalk for 16 years and
and I've learned that it's almost always used to cover up some nutter's
inability to deal with the evidence.

I wonder if you realize how transparent this is to anyone who didn't
just get off the bus.


>
> >>> "Why did both Mrs. Kennedy and Mrs. Connally believe that their
> husbands were hit by a shot that came after Gov Connally began to shout,
> but before the explosive headwound?" <<<
>
> http://groups.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/msg/9871273b0f35f000

I'm sorry David but you just linked everyone to literally dozens of
posts, by numerous people.

Why don't you just answer the question or if you think you've already
answered it, cut n paste the part which specifically dealt with that
issue?



>
> >>> "And why did they both visibly react to that shot in perfect unison
> with Zapruder's, Greer's and Kellerman's reactions?" <<<
>
> Coincidence.


David, are you actually suggesting that five people reacted within the
same 1/6th of a second, in a manner that was probably unlike anything
they had ever done in their lives, by coincidence????

Try to get five people to do ANYTHING within the same 1/6th of a second,
David. It won't happen, at least not in the first 50 tries.

And there was no reason for ANY of them to have been startled like that
without a cause. Even if Kellerman or Greer were the only ones to react
that way, we would need to consider that something noisy happened.

When five people react that way in perfect unison, this becomes the
mother of all slam dunks:-)



> And as I mentioned above, the coincidence is fully
> explainable and understandable and reasonable in the case of Nellie's and
> Jackie's in-unison head movements (which Harris thinks is "ducking" from
> the sound of a gunshot, but it isn't).

Really?

Then why did Nellie state very specifically that it was a gunshot,
shortly after she looked back at JFK, that caused her to react by
turning to her husband and pulling him back to her? Have you REALLY
studied this segment of the film David??

http://jfkhistory.com/nellie2.gif

As you watch it, keep an eye on Jackie too. She heard TWO shots after
Connally began to shout. And of course, both of them reacted within 2
frames of one another and every other surviving passenger in the limo.

Don't you find it just amazing how their statements match so perfectly
with their actual actions in the real world?



>
> >>> "Why did Kellerman duck and simultaneously shield his ear at exactly
> the same instant that the others reacted?" <<<
>
> Your "shield his ear" comment is pure speculation. And Kellerman's
> movements can easily be explained this way:
>
> He was reaching for the radio microphone in front of him.

That has to be the weirdest theory since badgeman.

Kellerman was not reaching for the microphone David. He was reaching for
his own ear. And trust me, you can't carry on much of a conversation by
sticking a microphone in your ear - especially when it's only there for
about half a second:-)

http://jfkhistory.com/royducks.gif

I can't believe you would actually make such a ridiculous statement. Was
this supposed to be some kind of joke??



>
> >>> "Why did Brehm, J. Hill and Mary Moorman all remember multiple shots,
> >>> beginning just as the limo passed in front of them?" <<<
>
> Maybe because there WERE multiple shots being fired at just about that
> time. Oswald fired two shots after Z160 (at Z224 and Z313), and all three
> of those witnesses were pretty close to the limo during that Z224-Z313
> timespan.

David, you need to look at a DP diagram.

They were nowhere near the limo at 223 and 160. The limo passed in front
of Brehm at precisely 285 and by the the others immediately after that.

And each of their statements was consistent with the shots at 285, 312
and about 319.

>
> >>> "Why did Greer say that the last shots were nearly simultaneous and
> Kellerman say they were like a "flurry"?" <<<
>
> Kellerman's "flurry of shells/shots coming into the car" testimony is
> very easily explained:
>
> He heard the effects of the head-shot bullet fragments striking the
> windshield and the chrome molding very near his seated position in the
> limousine. That is almost certainly the best explanation for Roy
> Kellerman's "flurry" testimony.

David, you are getting progressively more ridiculous. Tiny fragments
hitting a windshield don't sound even remotely like a high powered rifle
shot.

And Kellerman's very obviously startle reactions were PRIOR to the
headshot at 312, as were the others.


>
> BTW, how did bullet fragments from Lee Oswald's gun (CE567 and CE569) get
> into the front seat area of the limo if, as you suggest, Lee Oswald didn't
> actually HIT any victims (or the car's interior) with any of his
> Mannlicher-Carcano bullets on November 22nd?

That may have been because Oswald fired that shot.

We don't know for certain who it was and we have no proof that the FBI
delivered the original evidence to the Warren Commission. They certainly
didn't in the case of CE399.

But if Oswald did fire that shot, he certainly didn't fire any of the
shots before that.



>
> Were CE567/569 planted in the limo by evil cover-up agents after the
> assassination, Bob?

David, one thing we have in common is that neither of us know the answer
to that question.

But sadly, only one of us will admit it:-)

>
> >>> "Why did most witnesses recall that the final shots were closely
> bunched?" <<<
>
> And there were several who didn't recall such a thing, as I discuss
> here:
>
> http://groups.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/msg/a77dff325e995531


Of course there were David. There were nearly 400 people in DP that day.

But NONE of the professional law enforcement people, who were the best
trained and were there specifically to be alert for that kind of thing,
reported a shooting sequence that was consistent with your theory.

NONE of them reported that the first shots were closer than the final
ones, as your theory requires.


>
> >>> "Why is it that not even one law enforcement professional recalled the
> early shots being closer together than the final shots??" <<<
>
> What difference does it really make?

It makes a difference David, that the best trained witnesses unanimously
failed to support the LN scenario, because it supports the fact that you
are flatly wrong - as do several truckloads of other evidence:-)

>
> Oh, I know to a person who loves the idea of a JFK conspiracy (like Robert
> Harris, for example) something like this makes a world of difference.

Here we go again - poor David is cornered and so the poo pitching
begins:-)


>
> But the answers to the important questions "HOW MANY SHOTS WERE FIRED?"
> and "WHERE DID THE SHOTS COME FROM?" can be found by looking at the BEST
> EVIDENCE in the case when it comes to trying to answer those two
> inquiries.

David, the witnesses can only report the shots they heard. And most of
them only heard one of the early shots. Ergo, at least one was fired
from a suppressed weapon. This video goes into considerable detail about
the shooting, when the shots were fired, and the characteristics of each
shot. It's a bit long winded, but I have had a LOT of good feedback on
it, even by some of the nutters (and ex nutters:-)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cvqCtaBkyyE


>
> And the following links (in tandem) contain that "Best Evidence", IMO:
>
> http://reclaiming-history.googlegroups.com/web/074a.+THREE+BULLET+SHE...
>
> http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/images/shots3.jpg
>
> http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/images/shots4.jpg
>
> >>> "Why did Gov Connally not hear the shot that hit him?" <<<
>
> Simple: Because that shot ACTUALLY HIT HIM.

Gosh! Nothing gets by you, does it!


> And he was no doubt physically
> struck by that bullet (CE399, of course) before the sound of that shot
> reached his ears. I think you'll find that it is not uncommon for a victim
> of a gunshot wound to not physically hear the shot that wounded him.

I think it is uncommon David. Nothing was damaged that would have
affected his hearing and he said he continually heard the people around
him talking. Nor did he lose consciousness then. There is no reason on
Earth why he would not have heard a 130 decibel, high powered rifle shot.

But no one else heard a shot then either David. Their testimonies prove
that they ONLY heard one of the early shots, which was fired circa 160.

And they were obviously, not startled by any of them. That's the
clincher because if Oswald had fired the early shots, they would have
been noticeably louder to their ears than the ones at 285 and 312.
Therefore, their startle reactions would have probably been even more
dramatic than the later ones.

But there were no startle reactions prior 285. That's because there were
no high powered rifle shots then.



>
> Connally Addendum --
>
> Keep in mind that the totality of John Connally's testimony perfectly
> buttresses the single-assassin scenario and the Single-Bullet Theory
> particularly (whether JBC himself believed in the SBT or not).

The SBT is another very complicated can of worms. But for now, perhaps
it will suffice to say that I feel quite certain they were hit almost
simultaneously, at 223.


>
> John Connally, in 1967, even went so far as to admit that the SBT was
> certainly "possible" in his mind:
>
> http://groups.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/msg/741a872f58796bfe
>
> >>> "Why did no-one else in the limo hear that shot either?" <<<
>
> You're so entrenched in your belief of your made-up "Z285" missed shot
> that you will never ever be able to see that your theory rests solely on
> subjective and unprovable analysis of the Zapruder Film.


Yawn - ad hominem rant time again, which means David has no plausible
answer:-)

>
> Of course people in the limo heard the shot that hit Governor
> Connally....that was Shot #2 from Lee Oswald's gun at Z224. But you, Bob
> Harris, have convinced yourself that those limo occupants were talking
> about some OTHER shot (your make-believe Z285 shot, I guess).

Then why did most relevant witnesses say they only heard one early shot,
David. Somehow, I am not convinced that this is my fault:-)


>
> But, yes, of course the limo witnesses heard the shot that hit John
> Connally (except Mr. Connally himself, of course, as mentioned earlier).

Well, that sure settles that, except why is it that what they say they
heard is so much different from what you say they heard??

Have you contacted these people so that you can tell them what else they
heard that day?

I just came up with another one of those wild 'n crazy conspiracy type
theories David. My theory is that those people reported what they
actually heard.

Yeah, I know. That's just insane, but not as insane as another theory I
have, which is that the limo passengers heard shots when they said they
heard shots, because we can see them reacting then!!

Oh wait! I almost forgot! It's just a "coincidence" that they said they
heard a shot at the same time that they reacted.

Come on David. THINK!

>
> >>> "Why did his [John Connally's] wife only recall hearing ONE noise
> prior to him beginning to shout?" <<<
>
> If you fine-tune your analysis any further, you'll probably be able to
> convince yourself that Nellie Connally blinked her eyes exactly 17 times
> after hearing the first shot but before she heard her husband shout "No,
> no, no".

David, both Mrs. Connally and Mrs. Kennedy said they heard ONE ambiguous
noise prior to events which we know happened AFTER 223.

Kellerman heard ONE early noise and then a "flurry" of shots at the end.

Greer heard ONE early noise and then shots that were nearly simultaneous
at the end of the attack.

And "most" of the witnesses in DP who made statements about the shot
spacing said they heard ONE early shot or noise and then closely bunched
shots at the end - as per the WC report.

Determining when they heard three audible shots spread out over 8
seconds is not rocket science. It was incredibly simple, which is why
those witnesses were so consistent.

David, the Flat Earth Society has a better case than you do.

>
> >>> "Why did no-one in the limo recall more than one early shot and why
> did they exhibit no startle reactions prior to frame 285?" <<<
>
> If they had been standing right next to Oswald in the Sniper's Nest,
> perhaps they would have exhibited some "startle" reactions.


You obviously haven't researched this issue or you wouldn't have made
such a preposterous statement.

The HSCA tested the same model rifle that Oswald used, by placing
microphones along Houston at varying distances from the alleged SN.

They determined that Oswald's rifle generated a 130 decibel shock wave
at all distances and a muzzle blast that varied from 135db at the
closest point, to 115db at the farthest.

The listeners who were acoustics experts stated that they were surprised
at how loud those shots were and that they couldn't imagine how anyone
could have confused them with firecrackers or backfires.

They even brought in motorcycles to see if they would hide the sound of
the shots but concluded that the shots were so loud that the motorcycles
made no difference.

The short version is David, that high powered rifle shots are loud as
hell. And the reactions following 285 and 312, clearly confirm that
fact.


>
> As a comparison here, do you think that every limo occupant should be
> exhibiting "startle" reactions whenever one of the nearby motorcycles
> backfired (which, by all accounts, is something that happened
> frequently during Presidential motorcades)?

Of course not. They heard motorcycles backfiring all throughout the
motorcade and never exhibited startle reactions to them.

>
> Food for thought.
>
> >>> "And why DID they exhibit simultaneous startle reacts beginning a
> third of a second AFTER 285?" <<<
>
> They didn't. That's only your singularly subjective look at things.

Dr. Alvarez doesn't agree with you David. Neither does Dr. Michael
Stroscio - Phd. in physics who also wrote an extensive paper on
Alvarez's analysis, and later endorsed the paper I sent to him.

In his paper, Stroscio agreed with pretty much everything Alvarez said,
with the exception of course, of Alvarez's siren speculation.

But it doesn't take a Phd to identify the startle reactions David. And
the simple fact that they all reacted within the same 1/6th of a second,
settles this issue beyond any conceivable doubt.


> I
> doubt that one other person on the planet would evaluate the movements
> of the limo occupants the exact same way that Robert "Z285" Harris has
> done.

Then why did some of your fellow nutters argue that the limo passengers
were startled by a backfire?

OHMIGOD!! I feel another ad hominem rant coming:-)


>
> >>> "Why did Dr. Luis Alvarez conclude that Zapruder and Greer were
> startled by a loud noise at precisely frame 285?" <<<
>
> I'll take this opportunity to quote the author of the JFK Bible:
>
> "The CBS experiment [in 1967] proves that a gunshot will
> normally cause a cameraman?s neuromuscular system to go into, as Dr.
> [Luis] Alvarez put it, ?a temporary spasm.?

But you left out the part that this was in reference to Zapruder's
reactions. Zapruder was much further from the bullet's path and was only
exposed to a small fraction of the sound of the shock wave.


>
> "So the three gunshots that day [November 22, 1963] would have
> almost assuredly caused a startled reaction in Zapruder and, hence, a blur
> on his film. And we find blurs around Z160 (the first shot), around
> Z220?228 (which clearly coincides with Kennedy?s and Connally?s
> reactions to the second shot), and Z313 (the third shot).

LOL!! This reminds of CT's who jump on any of the many dozens of blurred
frames in the Zapruder film in order to try to forcefit a shot into
their theories.

Using that criteria, you would have to have had snippers firing machine
guns that day:-)

David, here is how you separate blurrings that were caused by gunshots
from false positives. You simple realize that anything which startled
Zapruder, had to have startled the limo passengers. Only, the limo
passengers would have been startled much more because they were so close
to the path of the bullet.

Does that make sense David?

Let me give you a major clue here.

Alvarez, who studied this phenomenon in considerable depth in Africa,
also talked about how startling noises will provoke a SERIES of startle
reactions, 1/3rd of a second or app. 6 Zframes apart. So, following 312,
we see startle reactions at 318, 324 and 331. Make sense?

Now take a look at 285 David. What do you see at 290-291, 296 and 302??

David, I think I will move this post to a new thread which will be about
the 285 shot. I will look forward to your reply, rants and all:-)






Robert Harris

[David Von Pein]

>>> "Have you noticed that even the other nutters have not tried to defend
any of your arguments, or deny mine." <<<

Yeah, nobody cares, Bob. Nobody.

Anyway, my lengthy 12/1/09 post speaks for itself. It says all that needs
to be said about your silliness:

http://groups.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/msg/0a581746c27b7a2f

[John McAdams]

On 27 Dec 2011 00:25:59 -0500, David Von Pein <davev...@aol.com>
wrote:

>

Bob seems to think that if he just badgers people enough, they will
agree with him.

We moderators decided to let him get in one more post demanding a
response from you.

From now on, any attempts of his to badger you will be deleted.

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

[David Von Pein]

"Anything [Bob Harris] attributes to a missed shot at precisely Z285

can just as easily be attributed to Oswald's real second shot at Z224. The

difference in real time is negligible. But to Bob "Z285" Harris, 3.3

seconds is an amount of time that can be dissected and sliced to absolute

perfection in the minds and testimony of EVERY SINGLE LIMO OCCUPANT." --
DVP; December 2009

[Pamela Brown]

On Dec 26, 11:28 pm, John McAdams <john.mcad...@marquette.edu> wrote:
> On 27 Dec 2011 00:25:59 -0500, David Von Pein <davevonp...@aol.com>

> wrote:
>
>
>
> >>>> "Have you noticed that even the other nutters have not tried to defend
> >any of your arguments, or deny mine." <<<
>
> >Yeah, nobody cares, Bob. Nobody.
>
> >Anyway, my lengthy 12/1/09 post speaks for itself. It says all that needs
> >to be said about your silliness:
>
> >http://groups.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/msg/0a581746c27b7a2f
>
> Bob seems to think that if he just badgers people enough, they will
> agree with him.

Where on earth could that idea have come from?

>
> We moderators decided to let him get in one more post demanding a
> response from you.
>

Will posts by others making demands on other posters be censured too?

[Pamela Brown]

On Dec 26, 9:00 pm, Robert Harris <bobharri...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> David, may I assume that you are finished discussing this issue? Have you
> noticed that even the other nutters have not tried to defend any of your
> arguments, or deny mine.
>
> If you are ready to acknowledge that I am right, then you ought to say so.

With all due respect, Robert, it is you who have to persuade someone
that your position is correct.

> When you evade my arguments, you are only confirming that they are right.
>
> Robert Harris
>
> In article

> <2b0211aa-6a5c-41ce-8f22-5c503481a...@u32g2000yqe.googlegroups.com>,

> fired. David, ...
>
> read more »

[Pamela Brown]

What if there were shots at both places?
Couldn't this also be part of the flurry of shots Kellerman referenced?

[Anthony Marsh]

On 12/27/2011 10:43 AM, Pamela Brown wrote:
> On Dec 26, 11:28 pm, John McAdams<john.mcad...@marquette.edu> wrote:
>> On 27 Dec 2011 00:25:59 -0500, David Von Pein<davevonp...@aol.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>>>>> "Have you noticed that even the other nutters have not tried to defend
>>> any of your arguments, or deny mine."<<<
>>
>>> Yeah, nobody cares, Bob. Nobody.
>>
>>> Anyway, my lengthy 12/1/09 post speaks for itself. It says all that needs
>>> to be said about your silliness:
>>
>>> http://groups.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/msg/0a581746c27b7a2f
>>
>> Bob seems to think that if he just badgers people enough, they will
>> agree with him.
>
> Where on earth could that idea have come from?
>
>>
>> We moderators decided to let him get in one more post demanding a
>> response from you.
>>
>
> Will posts by others making demands on other posters be censured too?
>

No, only WC defenders will be protected.

[Robert Harris]

In article
<7d7ca851-eada-4dae...@h3g2000yqa.googlegroups.com>,

David Von Pein <davev...@aol.com> wrote:

> >>> "Have you noticed that even the other nutters have not tried to defend
> any of your arguments, or deny mine." <<<
>
> Yeah, nobody cares, Bob. Nobody.

Well, that certainly is interesting David. I thought quite a few people
cared about whether this was a conspiracy or not. I don't think 6 million
people would have watched my videos if they didn't care.

And I even thought that you cared, David.

>
> Anyway, my lengthy 12/1/09 post speaks for itself. It says all that needs
> to be said about your silliness:

David, why is it that you are always so ambiguous about my "silliness"??

Am I "silly" for accepting the conclusion by one of the greatest
scientists of the 20th century that Greer was startled by a loud noise?

Am I "silly" for accepting the statements of the limo passengers regarding
the shots they heard at precisely the instant in which we can see them
react??

Am I "silly" for accepting that the large majority of relevant witnesses
in DP that day, heard only one early shot and then closely bunched shots
at the end??

Am I "silly" for pointing out what even many nutters have agreed, are
obvious startle reactions?

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


What really is "silly" david, is your attempt to argue that these people
were startled by a shot almost 4 seconds earlier, when every expert in the
world who has studied startle reactions, agrees that they MUST occur
within 1/3rd of a second.

Your argument would have them reacting to a noise TWELVE times earlier
than 1/3rd of a second.

You are flatly, indisputably wrong.

And you can post as much insulting, mcadams-approved trashtalk as you
like, but nothing is going to change that.




Robert Harris



>
> http://groups.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/msg/0a581746c27b7a2f

[John Canal]

In article <5964e082-7bd1-4fed...@z25g2000vbs.googlegroups.com>,
Pamela Brown says...

>
>On Dec 26, 11:28=A0pm, John McAdams <john.mcad...@marquette.edu> wrote:
>> On 27 Dec 2011 00:25:59 -0500, David Von Pein <davevonp...@aol.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>>
>>

>> >>>> "Have you noticed that even the other nutters have not tried to defe=

>nd
>> >any of your arguments, or deny mine." <<<
>>
>> >Yeah, nobody cares, Bob. Nobody.
>>

>> >Anyway, my lengthy 12/1/09 post speaks for itself. It says all that need=

>s
>> >to be said about your silliness:
>>
>> >http://groups.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/msg/0a581746c27b7a2f
>>
>> Bob seems to think that if he just badgers people enough, they will
>> agree with him.
>
>Where on earth could that idea have come from?
>
>>
>> We moderators decided to let him get in one more post demanding a
>> response from you.
>>
>
>Will posts by others making demands on other posters be censured too?

I don't know about posts from other posters, but my guess is that any
further posts for DVP's attention submitted by me might be. I've been
trying to get him to offer reasonable answers to my questions re. the
entry location (for the bullet that hit JFK in the BOH) for a few years
now and his silence has been deafening...and telling.

But I won't "badger" him any more re. this matter.

John Canal

[John McAdams]

On 27 Dec 2011 15:45:11 -0500, Robert Harris <bobha...@yahoo.com>
wrote:

>In article
><7d7ca851-eada-4dae...@h3g2000yqa.googlegroups.com>,
> David Von Pein <davev...@aol.com> wrote:
>
>> >>> "Have you noticed that even the other nutters have not tried to defend
>> any of your arguments, or deny mine." <<<
>>
>> Yeah, nobody cares, Bob. Nobody.
>
>
>Well, that certainly is interesting David. I thought quite a few people
>cared about whether this was a conspiracy or not. I don't think 6 million
>people would have watched my videos if they didn't care.
>
>And I even thought that you cared, David.
>
>>
>> Anyway, my lengthy 12/1/09 post speaks for itself. It says all that needs
>> to be said about your silliness:
>
>David, why is it that you are always so ambiguous about my "silliness"??
>
>Am I "silly" for accepting the conclusion by one of the greatest
>scientists of the 20th century that Greer was startled by a loud noise?
>

A startle reaction is something specific, Bob.

<Quote on>

startle reaction [stahr´t'l]

the various psychophysiological phenomena, including involuntary motor
and autonomic reactions, evidenced by an individual in reaction to a
sudden, unexpected stimulus, as a loud noise.

Miller-Keane Encyclopedia and Dictionary of Medicine, Nursing, and
Allied Health, Seventh Edition. © 2003 by Saunders, an imprint of
Elsevier, Inc. All rights reserved.

<Quote off>

Voluntary reactions are not startle reactions.

Your only argument seems to be "Alvarez was a great scientist."

How many scientists (even great ones) get into silly things when they
wander outside their area of expertise?

William Shockley, for example, got involved in racist theories of
intelligence.

>Am I "silly" for accepting the statements of the limo passengers regarding
>the shots they heard at precisely the instant in which we can see them
>react??
>

You don't "accept their statements." You selectively use them.

>Am I "silly" for accepting that the large majority of relevant witnesses
>in DP that day, heard only one early shot and then closely bunched shots
>at the end??
>

But you think nobody heard a shot before your 285 shot, don't you?

>Am I "silly" for pointing out what even many nutters have agreed, are
>obvious startle reactions?
>
>http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7GH5pGQy6yI
>
>

Those aren't startle reactions, Bob.

>What really is "silly" david, is your attempt to argue that these people
>were startled by a shot almost 4 seconds earlier, when every expert in the
>world who has studied startle reactions, agrees that they MUST occur
>within 1/3rd of a second.
>

Those aren't startle reactions, Bob.

>Your argument would have them reacting to a noise TWELVE times earlier
>than 1/3rd of a second.
>
>You are flatly, indisputably wrong.
>
>And you can post as much insulting, mcadams-approved trashtalk as you
>like, but nothing is going to change that.
>

You can embarrass yourself with more dogmatic prattle, trying to
badger people into accepting your silly theory, but it will do you no
good.

.John

--
The Kennedy Assassination Home Page
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/home.htm

[John McAdams]

On 27 Dec 2011 15:45:54 -0500, John Canal <John_...@newsguy.com>
wrote:

>In article <5964e082-7bd1-4fed...@z25g2000vbs.googlegroups.com>,
>Pamela Brown says...
>>
>>
>>>

>>> We moderators decided to let him get in one more post demanding a
>>> response from you.
>>>
>>
>>Will posts by others making demands on other posters be censured too?
>
>I don't know about posts from other posters, but my guess is that any
>further posts for DVP's attention submitted by me might be. I've been
>trying to get him to offer reasonable answers to my questions re. the
>entry location (for the bullet that hit JFK in the BOH) for a few years
>now and his silence has been deafening...and telling.
>
>But I won't "badger" him any more re. this matter.
>
>

You are like Harris. You think the only "reasonable" answer is one
agreeing with you.

But you have no right to insist that anybody has to aggree with you.

Learn to agree to disagree.

[Pamela Brown]

On Dec 27, 12:00 pm, Anthony Marsh <anthony.ma...@comcast.net> wrote:
> On 12/27/2011 10:43 AM, Pamela Brown wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Dec 26, 11:28 pm, John McAdams<john.mcad...@marquette.edu>  wrote:
> >> On 27 Dec 2011 00:25:59 -0500, David Von Pein<davevonp...@aol.com>
> >> wrote:
>
> >>>>>> "Have you noticed that even the other nutters have not tried to defend
> >>> any of your arguments, or deny mine."<<<
>
> >>> Yeah, nobody cares, Bob. Nobody.
>
> >>> Anyway, my lengthy 12/1/09 post speaks for itself. It says all that needs
> >>> to be said about your silliness:
>
> >>>http://groups.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/msg/0a581746c27b7a2f
>
> >> Bob seems to think that if he just badgers people enough, they will
> >> agree with him.
>
> > Where on earth could that idea have come from?
>
> >> We moderators decided to let him get in one more post demanding a
> >> response from you.
>
> > Will posts by others making demands on other posters be censured too?
>
> No, only WC defenders will be protected.

But that's not fair!

[John Canal]

In article <4efa3107....@news.supernews.com>, John McAdams says...

>
>On 27 Dec 2011 15:45:54 -0500, John Canal <John_...@newsguy.com>
>wrote:
>
>>In article <5964e082-7bd1-4fed...@z25g2000vbs.googlegroups.com>,
>>Pamela Brown says...
>>>
>>>
>>>>
>>>> We moderators decided to let him get in one more post demanding a
>>>> response from you.
>>>>
>>>
>>>Will posts by others making demands on other posters be censured too?
>>
>>I don't know about posts from other posters, but my guess is that any
>>further posts for DVP's attention submitted by me might be. I've been
>>trying to get him to offer reasonable answers to my questions re. the
>>entry location (for the bullet that hit JFK in the BOH) for a few years
>>now and his silence has been deafening...and telling.
>>
>>But I won't "badger" him any more re. this matter.
>>
>>
>
>You are like Harris. You think the only "reasonable" answer is one
>agreeing with you.
>
>But you have no right to insist that anybody has to aggree with you.

That's the first thing you've said in your reply that's correct, i.e. I
don't have the right to insist that anyone believes me.

Actually, I'd prefer they conclude I'm correct on their own based on my
arguments.

Do you remember when you said the circular defect (to refresh your memory,
that was the "circular defect" I highlighted in the copy of F8 that I
posted a couple of years ago) was "deep" inside the cranial cavity (if you
don't, I got a hard copy of your post)?

Then you claimed it wasn't the entry...remember that (if you don't I've
got a hard copy of that post too)?

Then you claimed "my entry" [the aforementoned "circular defect"] was not
the same as Zimmerman's.....remember that? Why yes of course, I've got a
hard copy of that also, funny you should ask.

Then, in response to that outrageous claim, you might recall that I posted
a quote by Zimmerman saying, "the 'circular defect' I said was the entry,
was indeed the entry" (surprise, surprise, if you don't recall that, I've
got a hard copy of that too).

You also might remember that your response to that was that Zimmerman must
have changed his mind.

Do you see where I'm going with this? If not, let me help you out;

If that "circular defect" that I highlighted is in fact the entry (and my
guess is that "deep inside" you know damn well it is), then you yourself
have helped make the case for a low entry.

And, unlike Robert's claims, the individuals who I agree with on this are
the ones who saw or examined the body and noted for the record the
location of the near-EOP entry wound in his BOH.

Don't blame me .john, for you trusting Baden and Spitz, who were close
associates of Russell Fisher, the one who first mangled the medical
evidence....blame yourself!

I'm sure you won't respond to this, but if you want to delete or reject
it...I'd email it to everyone anyway.

>Learn to agree to disagree.

Suggest you follow your own advice.

:-)


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

[David Von Pein]

>>> "I've been trying to get him [DVP] to offer reasonable answers to my questions re. the entry location (for the bullet that hit JFK in the BOH) for a few years now and his silence has been deafening...and telling." <<<

I haven't been silent at all. In fact, I've got a 16-part series on
"JFK's Head Wounds" at one of my websites, right here:

http://JFK-Archives.blogspot.com/2011/04/index.html#JFK-Head-Wounds

And one of the biggest reasons I have archived most of my Internet
posts over the last 5 to 8 years is for just this very reason--so that
I can then link directly to a previous post (or a series of articles)
where I have addressed the topic in question--instead of having to
write the whole response out again in a brand-new post.

And such previous links come in very handy whenever I hear someone
like Bob Harris claiming that I have never seriously discussed his
"Z285" theory in the past....or when someone like Mr. Canal wants to
pretend that I have not offered any "reasonable answers" to his "BOH"
questions in the past. Because I know I have provided such answers. At
least they are "reasonable" to me.

My answers, of course, are not reasonable to John Canal. And that's
the rub right there. But I certainly have addressed the BOH topics
brought up by John C. and I have addressed the "Z285" theory of Robert
Harris'. And my long-winded 12/1/09 response to Bob (linked recently
on these forums) proves that I have taken a great deal of time to
address his theory.

And my (thus far) 16-part "BOH" series certainly indicates that there
is no "deafening silence" emanating from DVP's computer when it comes
to debating Mr. Canal about his theories either.

Some people sure have short memories, don't they?

[Anthony Marsh]

And a lot of other scientists make fun of his theory that an asteroid
killed the Dinosaurs.
I got an undercurrent of the scientists on the Ramsey Panel not being
impressed by his theory about the shock wave physically moving the
Zapruder camera to cause the jiggles.

[John Canal]

In article <96997f41-9a82-4de8...@v24g2000yqk.googlegroups.com>,
David Von Pein says...

Yes, "you" do. For example, you must not even recall how your signature
"cut and paste" method for replying to posts (that you must have felt
fairly challenged your positions) was so frustrating to me I quit trying
to debate you?

To refresh your so-called memory, you would cut out all the points that
you obviously had no counter-arguments for and paste in the one or two you
"thought" you could rebut.

You actually made the "cut and paste" method of responding to an argument
popular. Congratulations.

No, David, you never replied to even most of my points. Case in point is
the list of ones I made earlier in this very thread...you ignored them and
simply replied to what I said about you not responding to my posts.

Good job.

Typical.

One more point on this matter. Do you recall that you'd simply repeatedly
post, ad nauseam, copies of the lateral skull X-ray and the BOH photo as
your rebuttal to my numerous points, even though I offered you a
reasonable explanation why those pictures only "appeared" to help your
case for a high entry and no BOH wound?

You call that reponding to my arguments?

That figures David.

So how about replying to those points I listed earlier in this thread...or
are you just planning to post the skull X-ray and BOH photo...again?

If you ARE planning to do that (and I wouldn't be the least bit surprised
if you were) don't bother. Just run and hide because you can't offer any
reasonable counter-points.

You've got class, David, real class....you just have a pathetic way of
debating....and, like Posner, VB, and McAdams--and some others here--can't
admit it when you're wrong.

Heck, if you'd make a list of all the witnesses who saw the body who you
imply were hallucinating about what they said they saw (re. JFK's head
wounds), that list would be as long as your arm.

That makes sense...after all witnesses are wrong about what they saw all
the time, right?...even literally dozens of them, right?

Sure, that's logical.

LOL.

And 11 witnesses who saw the body, including two neurosurgeons, didn't
know cerebellum from cerebrum, right?

LOL.

And numerous witnesses, including the autopsists, didn't know JFK's
cowlick from his EOP, right?

LOL.

Again, in a nutshell, Fisher refuted Humes (not even face to face, of
course).....and Baden and Spitz, being close associates of Fisher,
endorsed Fisher's conclusions vs. Humes' (Rockefeller and HSCA).

For all practical purposes, that's why we're having this "debate".

And again, none of you that parrot Fisher (including, but not limited to
Posner, VB, you, and McAdams) read or refuted what the highly credentialed
ARRB forensic experts reported (re. the mythical cowlick entry) "before"
you came to your conclusions that, naturally, you wouldn't change to avoid
embarrassment.

Excellent research/deductive reasoning.

Cheers.

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

[David Von Pein]

I know John Canal hates to hear it -- but here it is again anyway:

The autopsy photos and X-rays prove John Canal to be wrong about his
BOH theories. (And the Zapruder Film doesn't do John's theories any
good either.)

Those pictures and X-rays are the best evidence when it comes to
President Kennedy's wounds. And they always will be the best evidence.
That's why they were taken in the first place.

John Canal merely wants to reinterpret those photos and X-rays in some
very strange ways, to provide some make-believe support for his
equally strange theories about a "stretched scalp" and a "sutured
scalp" and another theory about how Dr. Humes deliberately "under-
reported" the amount of damage to the back of JFK's head.

But the photos and X-rays aren't lying to us, John. And they weren't
lying to the Clark Panel or the HSCA's Forensic Pathology Panel
either.

It boils down to this:

John A. Canal, just like Robert Harris, has a pet theory that he's
been peddling for more than ten years, and he wants more people to
jump on his bandwagon.

And I guess I can understand that. If I had a pet theory, I suppose
I'd enjoy at least a little support from other people too. That's just
human nature.

But, IMO, John Canal is wrong. And in my past posts, I think I have
explained why I think he is wrong. Do we really need to re-hash
everything for the 11th time?

[John Canal]

Let me try your "Cut and Paste" method of debating.

[I deleted the other B/S]

DVP wrote:

>But, IMO, John Canal is wrong.

I'm at least glad to see that you admitted it was only your opinion.

>And in my past posts, I think I have
>explained why I think he is wrong.

You only "think"? I sense a little lack of certainty about me being wrong.

>Do we really need to re-hash
>everything for the 11th time?

How do you "re-hash" points you never addressed even once, let alone 11
times?

Yes or No question:

Did you ever read what the ARRB forensic experts reported re. the
existence of any bullet entry wound in JFK's cowlick prior to posting that
you believed the bullet that hit JFK in the head entered in his cowlick?

Unfortunately, that question will face the chopping block of Mr. "C & P."
Von Pein.

If it does, please don't bother replying at all to this.

Thanks in advance.


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

[David Von Pein]

Gee, I sure have made some enemies around here in late December of 2011,
haven't I?

Bob Harris is following me (and John McAdams) around like a homesick
puppy, with Robert starting new "Z285" threads faster than Oswald dashed
down those Depository stairs.

Ben Holmes, as usual, is having a ball calling me a "liar" (again).

Tom Rossley completely ignored my very cordial offer (via e-mail) to help
him out with archived copies of his radio debates. So I guess he hates my
guts (again).

And John Canal is all bent out of shape (again) because I refuse to accept
the notion that Dr. Humes "deliberately under-reported" the wounds in
JFK's head, etc.

I guess I must be doing something right. :-)

Happy New Year.