For your listening pleasure

[Robert Harris]

For you nutters who continue to evade the facts, now you can also refuse
to face the music!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hxWGKQFv0gE





Robert Harris

[John Fiorentino]

Robert:

I wish it hadn't happened either, but JFK would want us to tell the truth
about his unfortunate death.

There's no credible evidence of a conspiracy Bob, none.

John F.




"Robert Harris" <bobha...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:B4-dnQ596OCGdpfN...@earthlink.com...

[Oswald_The_Loser's_Loser]

Let's debate alleged assassins not alleged music.

[bigdog]

Thanks, Bob. Another video we can ignore.

[timstter]

The expression *a tomcat being neutered with a rusty tin* comes to
mind, Bob.

Concerned Regards,

Tim Brennan
Sydney, Australia
*Newsgroup(s) Commentator*

*...NOT ONE of the three experts was able to strike the head or the
neck of the target EVEN ONCE.* (Emphasis added).
Mark Lane, Rush to Judgment, page 129, footnoted as: XVII 261-262.

And yet here IS WC XVII 261-262, showing hits to the head...
http://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh17/html/WH_Vol17_0144a.htm

[Peter Fokes]

On 22 Jul 2012 11:11:49 -0400, timstter <tims...@gmail.com> wrote:

>On Jul 22, 7:46�am, Robert Harris <bobharri...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>> For you nutters who continue to evade the facts, now you can also refuse
>> to face the music!
>>
>> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hxWGKQFv0gE
>>
>> Robert Harris

>
>The expression *a tomcat being neutered with a rusty tin* comes to
>mind, Bob.

>Concerned Regards,
>
>Tim Brennan

Actually Robert has composed an interesting and heartfelt song, and
his rendition is fine.

Tim gives us an example of why good music critics do not use ideology
as their starting point for assessment. No doubt Tim would believe an
angel was singing if Vince Bugliosi composed and sang a song!

Robert, you should add subtitles ... so we can sing along! Like this
....

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-fadCAHjN-s




Peter Fokes,
Toronto

[David Von Pein]

>>> "There's no credible evidence of a conspiracy Bob, none." <<<

Bingo.

[Robert Harris]

John Fiorentino wrote:
> Robert:
>
> I wish it hadn't happened either, but JFK would want us to tell the
> truth about his unfortunate death.
>
> There's no credible evidence of a conspiracy Bob, none.
>
> John F.

Funny, that when I present this nonexistent evidence, you, mcadams and the
other nutters all clam up.

If I was arguing that the driver did it, you guys would be all over me.
Why is it that no one will even talk about this?

Claiming that there is no evidence when in fact the evidence is so strong
that you are afraid to discuss it, is not very impressive John.


Robert Harris

[Robert Harris]

Peter Fokes wrote:
> On 22 Jul 2012 11:11:49 -0400, timstter <tims...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> On Jul 22, 7:46 am, Robert Harris <bobharri...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>> For you nutters who continue to evade the facts, now you can also refuse
>>> to face the music!
>>>
>>> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hxWGKQFv0gE
>>>
>>> Robert Harris
>
>>
>> The expression *a tomcat being neutered with a rusty tin* comes to
>> mind, Bob.
>
>> Concerned Regards,
>>
>> Tim Brennan
>
>
> Actually Robert has composed an interesting and heartfelt song, and
> his rendition is fine.

Thank you Peter. What I find amazing is that people can become so
hateful over a crime committed almost half a century ago.

What is even more baffling is that they do so, not because we disagree
but because I present evidence that they cannot refute and are forced to
evade.

I feel like I'm trying to explain evolution to religious radicals or
trying to get members of the Flat Earth Society to look at satellite
photos of Earth:-)

>
> Tim gives us an example of why good music critics do not use ideology
> as their starting point for assessment. No doubt Tim would believe an
> angel was singing if Vince Bugliosi composed and sang a song!
>
> Robert, you should add subtitles ... so we can sing along!

Well, here are the lyrics - not so great as a sing along, but they make
a decent ringtone!

Last night I had a dream
It seemed so real to me
It was November 22nd
1963

I was standing along Elm Street
Just barely in the grass
Bout halfway between Houston
And the triple underpass

**************************************
Just then I heard somebody
yell that he was here
The limo turned the corner
And the crowd began to cheer

I thought I heard a funny noise
As folks began to shout
The limo passed in front of me
And then all hell broke out

**************************************

Well there was bullets flying everywhere
My ears ached from the sound
Some folks screamed and some folks cried
I just dropped to the ground

Then things got deathly quiet
I got up and shook my head
I could smell the smoke still in the air
And I knew that man was dead

**************************************

We lost more than a president
There were a million dreams that died
Some commission was supposed to investigate
But they never really tried

Some folks used it to make a buck
Some folks tried to cover it up
For every tear somebody shed
Somebody else told a lie

(repeat last verse)




Robert Harris

[John Fiorentino]

Robert:

I will and have discussed just about anything in this case.

In regards to some things though Bob, they have been re-hashed ad
infinitum.

You apparently see things I don't (for instance in the Z-film).

Now, if I had never really looked at that film (instead I've viewed it
hundreds of times) then I would still be looking for some conclusions.

I've seen it, I've reviewed all the evidence I can get my hands on. I
don't agree with you. What is there to really discuss?

Nice lyrics and song btw

John F.


"Robert Harris" <bobha...@yahoo.com> wrote in message

news:5LWdnRw9G7HMq5HN...@earthlink.com...

[bigdog]

On Sunday, July 22, 2012 4:12:54 PM UTC-4, Robert Harris wrote:
>
> If I was arguing that the driver did it, you guys would be all over me.
> Why is it that no one will even talk about this?
>

Because it has been talked to death. You haven't convinced anyone and no
one has convinced you so what is the point?

[Sandy McCroskey]

On 7/22/12 4:12 PM, Robert Harris wrote:
> John Fiorentino wrote:
>> Robert:
>>
>> I wish it hadn't happened either, but JFK would want us to tell the
>> truth about his unfortunate death.
>>
>> There's no credible evidence of a conspiracy Bob, none.
>>
>> John F.
>
> Funny, that when I present this nonexistent evidence, you, mcadams and
> the other nutters all clam up.
>

"Clam up"?!

Everyone has responded to you, repeatedly. They just don't give the
response you want.

It seems you don't even hear them, because you persist with the *same*
questions.

After a while, anybody with any sense realizes it's a waste of time
arguing with you.


/sandy

[Jason Burke]

On 7/22/2012 1:12 PM, Robert Harris wrote:
> John Fiorentino wrote:
>> Robert:
>>
>> I wish it hadn't happened either, but JFK would want us to tell the
>> truth about his unfortunate death.
>>
>> There's no credible evidence of a conspiracy Bob, none.
>>
>> John F.
>
> Funny, that when I present this nonexistent evidence, you, mcadams and
> the other nutters all clam up.
>
> If I was arguing that the driver did it, you guys would be all over me.
> Why is it that no one will even talk about this?

Because you're just making stuff up? Ya think? Not even any of the CT folk
believe in your nonsense. Just give up. You'll feel better about yourself.

[Anthony Marsh]

Then why are you here regurgitating the same old tired arguments
thousands of times?

[Anthony Marsh]

On 7/22/2012 10:41 PM, John Fiorentino wrote:
> Robert:
>

> I will and have discussed just about anything in this case.
>
> In regards to some things though Bob, they have been re-hashed ad
> infinitum.
>
> You apparently see things I don't (for instance in the Z-film).
>
> Now, if I had never really looked at that film (instead I've viewed it
> hundreds of times) then I would still be looking for some conclusions.
>
> I've seen it, I've reviewed all the evidence I can get my hands on. I
> don't agree with you. What is there to really discuss?
>

No, you haven't. You intentionally refuse to look at the evidence.

[Robert Harris]

In article <500cb4b1$1...@mcadams.posc.mu.edu>,

Sandy McCroskey <gwmcc...@earthlink.net> wrote:

> On 7/22/12 4:12 PM, Robert Harris wrote:
> > John Fiorentino wrote:
> >> Robert:
> >>
> >> I wish it hadn't happened either, but JFK would want us to tell the
> >> truth about his unfortunate death.
> >>
> >> There's no credible evidence of a conspiracy Bob, none.
> >>
> >> John F.
> >
> > Funny, that when I present this nonexistent evidence, you, mcadams and
> > the other nutters all clam up.
> >
>
> "Clam up"?!
>
> Everyone has responded to you, repeatedly. They just don't give the
> response you want.

Yes, just like you "responded" today - with zero substance, addressing
NONE of the facts or evidence.

Why don't you tell us Sandy - in a nutshell, what was your best argument
against the 285 shot?

What was the best argument you've seen anyone present?

Please be specific.






Robert Harris

[Robert Harris]

In article <500c681b$1...@mcadams.posc.mu.edu>,

"John Fiorentino" <jefior...@optimum.net> wrote:

> Robert:
>
> I will and have discussed just about anything in this case.
>
> In regards to some things though Bob, they have been re-hashed ad
> infinitum.
>
> You apparently see things I don't (for instance in the Z-film).

Why can't you be specific, John? Are you claiming you do not see
reactions by the limo passengers in this part of the film?

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

Isn't it strange though, that David Von Pein tried to argue that they were
being thrown forward by Greer hitting the brakes - until I proved to him
that the reactions preceded the slowdown.

Then Mr. Pein changed his story and took your position, claiming that he
couldn't see any reactions at all.

David Reitzes said that Oswald could have fired both the shots at 285 and
313.

Greg Jaynes said they were reacting to a backfire by the Secret Service
followup car.

McAdams said Greer wasn't startled because he reacted too much! (honest,
he really did). Then a week or so later, his vision changed and he could
no longer see any reactions at all:-)

Why are all those people able to see what you can't see John?

>
> Now, if I had never really looked at that film (instead I've viewed it
> hundreds of times) then I would still be looking for some conclusions.

I'm afraid it ain't about quantity, Mr. Fiorentino:-)

>
> I've seen it, I've reviewed all the evidence I can get my hands on. I
> don't agree with you. What is there to really discuss?

Well, we could talk about reality and the only plausible explanation for
those reactions.




Robert Harris

[Sandy McCroskey]

You're always asking me to repeat what I've already said. Everybody else
too.

You must have a problem with your memory.

/sandy

[Sandy McCroskey]

Robert Harris wrote:
> In article <500c681b$1...@mcadams.posc.mu.edu>,
> "John Fiorentino" <jefior...@optimum.net> wrote:
>
>> Robert:
>>
>> I will and have discussed just about anything in this case.
>>
>> In regards to some things though Bob, they have been re-hashed ad
>> infinitum.
>>
>> You apparently see things I don't (for instance in the Z-film).
>
> Why can't you be specific, John? Are you claiming you do not see
> reactions by the limo passengers in this part of the film?
>

Groundhog Day.

/sandy

[Jason Burke]

Kind of hard to prove a negative, methinks.

>
>
>
>
>
> Robert Harris
>

[John Fiorentino]

Ok Bob:

I looked at your video again several times. Now watch JFK as the
centerpiece and ignore those around him.

What do you see?

Well, I see nothing. What your doing is extrapolating concurrent events
(movements, etc) in the limo which have no connection to one another.

That's my assessment from the film.

John F.



"Robert Harris" <bobha...@yahoo.com> wrote in message

news:bobharris77-847C...@70-3-168-216.pools.spcsdns.net...

[Anthony Marsh]

On 7/23/2012 1:42 PM, Robert Harris wrote:
> In article <500c681b$1...@mcadams.posc.mu.edu>,
> "John Fiorentino" <jefior...@optimum.net> wrote:
>
>> Robert:
>>
>> I will and have discussed just about anything in this case.
>>
>> In regards to some things though Bob, they have been re-hashed ad
>> infinitum.
>>
>> You apparently see things I don't (for instance in the Z-film).
>
> Why can't you be specific, John? Are you claiming you do not see
> reactions by the limo passengers in this part of the film?
>
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7GH5pGQy6yI
>
> Isn't it strange though, that David Von Pein tried to argue that they were
> being thrown forward by Greer hitting the brakes - until I proved to him
> that the reactions preceded the slowdown.
>

DVP is clueless. If his idea were correct then why don't the photos and
films shot the brake lights coming on?

> Then Mr. Pein changed his story and took your position, claiming that he
> couldn't see any reactions at all.
>
> David Reitzes said that Oswald could have fired both the shots at 285 and
> 313.
>

That doesn't count because he really doesn't believe it.

> Greg Jaynes said they were reacting to a backfire by the Secret Service
> followup car.
>

That no one else heard, neither the occupants nor the spectators.
Must have been a silent fart.

> McAdams said Greer wasn't startled because he reacted too much! (honest,
> he really did). Then a week or so later, his vision changed and he could
> no longer see any reactions at all:-)
>

Jeez, he can't even see the limo!

> Why are all those people able to see what you can't see John?
>
>
>
>>
>> Now, if I had never really looked at that film (instead I've viewed it
>> hundreds of times) then I would still be looking for some conclusions.
>
> I'm afraid it ain't about quantity, Mr. Fiorentino:-)
>
>>
>> I've seen it, I've reviewed all the evidence I can get my hands on. I
>> don't agree with you. What is there to really discuss?
>
>
> Well, we could talk about reality and the only plausible explanation for
> those reactions.
>

What reactions? You mean the ones in your imagination?

>
>
>
> Robert Harris
>

[Robert Harris]

In article <500da0e3$1...@mcadams.posc.mu.edu>,

"John Fiorentino" <jefior...@optimum.net> wrote:

> Ok Bob:
>
> I looked at your video again several times. Now watch JFK as the
> centerpiece and ignore those around him.
>
> What do you see?
>
> Well, I see nothing. What your doing is extrapolating concurrent events
> (movements, etc) in the limo which have no connection to one another.

Tell me something John. Three people dropped their heads downward by and
forward by 30 or more degrees, all within the same 1/6th of a second that
Greer reacted. That was the first time during the entire motorcade in
which they did such a thing. I posted this thing back in the mid nineties
but it still makes the point.

http://jfkhistory.com/pix/ducking.gif

Do you dispute that?

If not, do you believe that was just a coincidence?

And do you believe they were just confused when each of them testified
in one way or another that they heard a gunshot then?

Feel free btw, to ask me to document my claims. Just be specific about
what you want.


Robert Harris

[Robert Harris]

In article <500d8f3d$1...@mcadams.posc.mu.edu>,

Sandy, are my questions too hard?

Why can't you tell us about your best argument against the shot at 285??

Did you just forget what it was, or are you worried about hurting my
feelings:-)

I mean it's not because you don't have any arguments is it Sandy? It's not
because all you can do is post insults and trashtalk, is it??




Robert Harris

[Robert Harris]

In article
<bobharris77-847C...@70-3-168-216.pools.spcsdns.net>,

Robert Harris <bobha...@yahoo.com> wrote:

> In article <500c681b$1...@mcadams.posc.mu.edu>,
> "John Fiorentino" <jefior...@optimum.net> wrote:
>
> > Robert:
> >
> > I will and have discussed just about anything in this case.
> >
> > In regards to some things though Bob, they have been re-hashed ad
> > infinitum.
> >
> > You apparently see things I don't (for instance in the Z-film).
>
> Why can't you be specific, John? Are you claiming you do not see
> reactions by the limo passengers in this part of the film?
>
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7GH5pGQy6yI
>
> Isn't it strange though, that David Von Pein tried to argue that they were
> being thrown forward by Greer hitting the brakes - until I proved to him
> that the reactions preceded the slowdown.
>
> Then Mr. Pein changed his story and took your position, claiming that he
> couldn't see any reactions at all.
>
> David Reitzes said that Oswald could have fired both the shots at 285 and
> 313.
>
> Greg Jaynes said they were reacting to a backfire by the Secret Service
> followup car.
>
> McAdams said Greer wasn't startled because he reacted too much! (honest,
> he really did). Then a week or so later, his vision changed and he could
> no longer see any reactions at all:-)
>
> Why are all those people able to see what you can't see John?

I'm trying to remember who it was, but one of you nutters argued that
the limo passengers were reacting to John Connally shouting.

I guess he must have scared himself, since he reacted at the same time
the others did:-)





Robert Harris

[John Fiorentino]

Robert:

I think you're viewing natural movements in the limo. Nothing caused by a
"gunshot."

Now, I would be hard pressed to prove it didn't happen, but I see no
evidence that it did.

Your scenario would of course also indicate another shooter, and again,
there is no evidence of such.

John

"Robert Harris" <bobha...@yahoo.com> wrote in message

news:bobharris77-622A...@70-3-168-216.pools.spcsdns.net...

[Sandy McCroskey]

/sm

[Robert Harris]

In article <500e9ebc$1...@mcadams.posc.mu.edu>,

"John Fiorentino" <jefior...@optimum.net> wrote:

> Robert:
>
> I think you're viewing natural movements in the limo. Nothing caused by a
> "gunshot."

So, you think it's "natural" that three people would all duck within the
same 1/6th of a second???

And is it also natural, that they would just duck in perfect unison with
the driver's reaction which one of the world's top scientists confirmed
was the result of a loud and startling noise at frame 285???

Gosh, ain't these "coincidence" just amazing?

Would you answer a question for me John? Nellie Connally was one of
those people ducking (for no reason at all of course). What I find
interesting, is *when* she ducked.

She testified that she heard an ambiguous "noise" that she did not
identify as a gunshot, and then looked to the rear and saw JFK in
distress with his hands raised to the level of his neck. I'm sure you
already knew that, but I am reiterating for the sake of lurkers.

She continued her testimony, stating that shortly after seeing JFK, she
heard a shot that she thought (incorrectly, I believe), wounded her
husband. She said that she turned to him and then pulled him back to her.

She then stated that she heard the fatal head shot which caused her and
her husband to be pelted with tissue and blood.

When do you think each of those things happened John - by the frame
number?

http://jfkhistory.com/nellie2.gif

Do you think it is fair to say that she *thought* she heard a gunshot at
the time that she ducked and then pulled her husband back to her??








Robert Harris

[Robert Harris]

In article <500ead08$1...@mcadams.posc.mu.edu>,

Is it fair to say that you believe you've refuted my arguments but you're
just a bit bashful about repeating yourself?

Sandy, I must have overlooked it or perhaps I really do have a memory
problem. But why don't you at least repeat it for the benefit of the
lurkers who might have overlooked it like I did?

Tell us all about it Sandy:-)





Robert Harris

[John Fiorentino]

"Robert Harris" <bobha...@yahoo.com> wrote in message

news:bobharris77-8E24...@70-3-168-216.pools.spcsdns.net...

> In article <500e9ebc$1...@mcadams.posc.mu.edu>,
> "John Fiorentino" <jefior...@optimum.net> wrote:
>
>> Robert:
>>
>> I think you're viewing natural movements in the limo. Nothing caused by a
>> "gunshot."
>
> So, you think it's "natural" that three people would all duck within the
> same 1/6th of a second???

Well it's certainly not impossible, but that's not what is happening there.

>
> And is it also natural, that they would just duck in perfect unison with
> the driver's reaction which one of the world's top scientists confirmed
> was the result of a loud and startling noise at frame 285???

Citation please...........

>
> Gosh, ain't these "coincidence" just amazing?
>
> Would you answer a question for me John? Nellie Connally was one of
> those people ducking (for no reason at all of course). What I find
> interesting, is *when* she ducked.
>
> She testified that she heard an ambiguous "noise" that she did not
> identify as a gunshot, and then looked to the rear and saw JFK in
> distress with his hands raised to the level of his neck. I'm sure you
> already knew that, but I am reiterating for the sake of lurkers.
>
> She continued her testimony, stating that shortly after seeing JFK, she
> heard a shot that she thought (incorrectly, I believe), wounded her
> husband. She said that she turned to him and then pulled him back to her.
>
> She then stated that she heard the fatal head shot which caused her and
> her husband to be pelted with tissue and blood.
>
> When do you think each of those things happened John - by the frame
> number?

I don't have time to do frame #'s Robert, Nellie turned around more than
once.

[Sandy McCroskey]

Because I have a life.
/sm

[Robert Harris]

In article <500f50e7$1...@mcadams.posc.mu.edu>,

"John Fiorentino" <jefior...@optimum.net> wrote:

> "Robert Harris" <bobha...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:bobharris77-8E24...@70-3-168-216.pools.spcsdns.net...
> > In article <500e9ebc$1...@mcadams.posc.mu.edu>,
> > "John Fiorentino" <jefior...@optimum.net> wrote:
> >
> >> Robert:
> >>
> >> I think you're viewing natural movements in the limo. Nothing caused by a
> >> "gunshot."
> >
> > So, you think it's "natural" that three people would all duck within the
> > same 1/6th of a second???
>
> Well it's certainly not impossible, but that's not what is happening there.

Well, don't be bashful. Tell us what is *really* happening here. In fact,
let's resolve this thing before continuing. It is probably the most
important issue you will have discussed in a very long time.

Tell us why those three people dropped their heads within the same 1/6th
of a second that Greer reacted.

The floor is yours John.





Robert Harris

[John Fiorentino]

Robert:

I'm entertaining your thoughts, but don't play games. I don't have time to
waste.

You provide your citation and we'll move on. Otherwise I'll conclude my
participation.

Regards,

John F.

"Robert Harris" <bobha...@yahoo.com> wrote in message

news:bobharris77-A105...@70-3-168-216.pools.spcsdns.net...

[Robert Harris]

In article <500f53ba$1...@mcadams.posc.mu.edu>,

ROFLMAO!!

You couldn't have corroborated me better, if I had paid you.




Robert Harris

[Sandy McCroskey]

It's rather disturbing the way you fail to process what other people
tell you.
Sort of scary, actually.
Reminds me of some other people.
So I'm not laughing.

/sm

[Robert Harris]

In article <500fe6b8$1...@mcadams.posc.mu.edu>,

"John Fiorentino" <jefior...@optimum.net> wrote:

> Robert:
>

> I'm entertaining your thoughts, but don't play games. I don't have time to
> waste.
>
> You provide your citation and we'll move on. Otherwise I'll conclude my
> participation.

You stated, "Well it's certainly not impossible, but that's not what is
happening there.".

Your refusal to tell us what you think is "happening there", tells us mare
than anything you've ever said about this issue. You know very well, that
those reactions in perfect unison with one another were not just random
coincidence.

And I am not going to got fetch a citation for what we both know is true.
You might as well demand that I prove that the attack happened in Dallas.
Trying to exploit the fact that Alvarez used technical jargon, with terms
like "angular acceleration" is pathetic.

If you really are ignorant of what Alvarez said, then read his paper. In
the unlikely event that you actually believe he wasn't talking about a
loud noise startling Greer and Zapruder, then you should straighten
everyone out by telling us what he *really* meant.

But I think you're smarter than that John. I think you know very well what
Alvarez meant, but "games" are all that you have left.





Robert Harris

[Robert Harris]

In article <500f50e7$1...@mcadams.posc.mu.edu>,

"I DON'T HAVE TIME TO DO FRAME #'S ROBERT"??

ROFLMAO!!!

Hey, .john! How come you didn't think of that one? I'm afraid Mr.
Fiorentino is beating you out for the creativity award this year!




Robert Harris

[Robert Harris]

In article <50101ae6$1...@mcadams.posc.mu.edu>,

I understand EXACTLY what people tell me Sandy, especially when they are
trying to substitute lame insults for honest discussion and continually
evading the most important issues.

You have never presented a plausible argument to refute me Sandy. That
is why you cannot cite yourself doing so. But let me make this easier
for you.

Tell us about the best rebuttal you have EVER seen by ANYBODY, trying to
refute the evidence and analysis I posted in support of the 285 shot.

Please be very specific.



Robert Harris

[Sandy McCroskey]

That entire paragraph is nothing but a "lame insult."

You live in your own little world and never take the other person's
arguments seriously. I've never seen you engage in honest discussion. You
are nothing but a bully.

But as long as you can post the same nonsense over and over and blithely
accuse everybody who calls it by its proper name of "avoiding the issue"
you're going to be happy as a pig in shit.

> You have never presented a plausible argument to refute me Sandy. That
> is why you cannot cite yourself doing so. But let me make this easier
> for you.
>

Another demonstration of your annoyingly condescending attitude, although
you have no standing to condescend to anybody.

It's a rock-solid fact Robert Harris can't tell the difference between
subjective interpretation and hard evidence. Therefore, what is or isn't
"plausible" to Robert Harris is of no interest to me.

> Tell us about the best rebuttal you have EVER seen by ANYBODY, trying to
> refute the evidence and analysis I posted in support of the 285 shot.
>

Why would that be my responsibility? But I think my arguments have been
essentially the same as those of everybody else that finds your theory
impossible to swallow. I think I presented them well enough for anyone to
comprehend.

> Please be very specific.


Please go play in the traffic.

I've wasted enough of my time on you. You are not getting any more of it.


/sm

[John Fiorentino]

Robert:

That's all for me.


John F.

"Robert Harris" <bobha...@yahoo.com> wrote in message

news:bobharris77-3DA8...@70-3-168-216.pools.spcsdns.net...

[Robert Harris]

In article <50104bdb$1...@mcadams.posc.mu.edu>,

It may be an insult but it is hardly lame:-)

Or are you going to argue that you do indeed discuss these issues
honestly? If so, then let's do it.

>
> You live in your own little world and never take the other person's
> arguments seriously. I've never seen you engage in honest discussion. You
> are nothing but a bully.
>
> But as long as you can post the same nonsense over and over and blithely
> accuse everybody who calls it by its proper name of "avoiding the issue"
> you're going to be happy as a pig in shit.
>
>
> > You have never presented a plausible argument to refute me Sandy. That
> > is why you cannot cite yourself doing so. But let me make this easier
> > for you.
> >
>
> Another demonstration of your annoyingly condescending attitude, although
> you have no standing to condescend to anybody.
>
> It's a rock-solid fact Robert Harris can't tell the difference between
> subjective interpretation and hard evidence. Therefore, what is or isn't
> "plausible" to Robert Harris is of no interest to me.

Why are you being ambiguous and vague? What exactly, are you suggesting
is the product of my "subjective interpretation"??

Let me help you out here, Sandy. Why don't you say something like, "The
REAL reason why three people dropped their heads by more than 30 degrees
in perfect unison with Greer's and Zapruder's reaction is...."

And then tell us what you think is the most likely explanation. Or..

"The real reason Mrs. Connally said she heard two gunshots after looking
back at JFK in distress and then ducking simultaneously with the others
is..."

This is how you address issues like these. My explanation is that they
were reacting to what they SAID they were reacting to. But I'm sure you
have a much better explanation!

I just can't help but wonder why you refuse to share it with us:-)

>
>
>
> > Tell us about the best rebuttal you have EVER seen by ANYBODY, trying to
> > refute the evidence and analysis I posted in support of the 285 shot.
> >
>
> Why would that be my responsibility?

Because you implied rather strongly that my analysis has already been
refuted. And because everyone knows that if you had even a remotely good
argument, you would be flaunting it.





Robert Harris

[Sandy McCroskey]

Harris, instead of badgering people who have already given you their
considered opinion of your theories (ad nauseam) and who are now too
tired of the whole topic to waste any more time on it, why don't you
just go ahead and present your case over and over for whomever is
listening and see if you can get somebody else to agree with you... or
what objections other people raise?

What's the point in harassing people who have already answered your
questions?

You either failed to understand or understood but refuse to accept my
arguments. Fine. I can't express them any better than I already have.

I've given up trying to convince *you* of anything, Robert Harris.
Please do me the same favor.

/sandy

[Sandy McCroskey]

Gee, I must be more upset at Harris than I thought, as I see that I
misused "whomever" here.
Don't let it get around.

/sm

[Jason Burke]

No one is listening to Harris's "theory's" anymore. And he knows it.
Talk about beating a dead horse...

and see if you can get somebody else to agree with you...

In the entire history of mankind (well, at least since late 1963,) no
one has agreed with Harris's fantasy. He's STILL claiming Alvarez was
correct when he (Harris,) wants him to be correct, and incorrect when he
wants him to be incorrect. That's about all that needs to be said on
this subject - though Harris's wheedling and cajoling is getting more
and more desperate by the day. Oh wait! Over 10,000 people like him on
YouTube!

or
> what objections other people raise?
>
> What's the point in harassing people who have already answered your
> questions?

He DOES seem to enjoy it!

>
> You either failed to understand or understood but refuse to accept my
> arguments. Fine. I can't express them any better than I already have.
>
> I've given up trying to convince *you* of anything, Robert Harris.

As has the entire rest of the universe.

[Jason Burke]

Harris, everything you've posted in the last, few, years has been
beyond, lame.

You go on, living your, fantasy. (Have I ever mentioned that your
excessive use of smilies makes you look like like the aver 13-year-old
pimple-faced AOL user?)

[Jason Burke]

Harris, everything you've posted in the last, few, years has been
beyond, lame.

>

You go on, living your, fantasy. (Have I ever mentioned that your

excessive use of smilies makes you look like like the average
15-year-old pimple-faced AOL user?)

[Robert Harris]

In article
<bobharris77-EDFD...@70-3-168-216.pools.spcsdns.net>,

Robert Harris <bobha...@yahoo.com> wrote:

> In article <500fe6b8$1...@mcadams.posc.mu.edu>,
> "John Fiorentino" <jefior...@optimum.net> wrote:
>
> > Robert:
> >
> > I'm entertaining your thoughts, but don't play games. I don't have time to
> > waste.
> >
> > You provide your citation and we'll move on. Otherwise I'll conclude my
> > participation.
>
> You stated, "Well it's certainly not impossible, but that's not what is
> happening there.".
>
> Your refusal to tell us what you think is "happening there", tells us mare
> than anything you've ever said about this issue. You know very well, that
> those reactions in perfect unison with one another were not just random
> coincidence.

Sigh... another runner.




Robert Harris

[Robert Harris]

In article <juql9u$g79$4...@dont-email.me>,

Damn!!

And here I was, thinking you nutters couldn't come up with a logical
argument to save your lives!!






Robert Harris

[Robert Harris]

In article
<bobharris77-F267...@70-3-168-216.pools.spcsdns.net>,

Yoohoo, Sandy?

Why don't you take a crack at these issues?

Rather than constantly telling us about these imaginary rebuttals, post
YOUR explanation for those reactions.

YOU tell us why Nellie was mistaken about that gunshot that she told us
about and actually reacted to in the film.

C'mon Sandy, this is about more than petty little insults and pretense.
Tell us what you think caused these reactions.






Robert Harris

[Jason Burke]

I think I speak for most - if not all - when I say 'yawn'.

[Sandy McCroskey]

Lonely, Bob?
Sorry, I can't help you.
Why don't you try to find someone who can at least pretend to be
interested in your asinine theories?

> Why don't you take a crack at these issues?
>
> Rather than constantly telling us about these imaginary rebuttals, post
> YOUR explanation for those reactions.
>
> YOU tell us why Nellie was mistaken about that gunshot that she told us
> about and actually reacted to in the film.
>
> C'mon Sandy, this is about more than petty little insults and pretense.

That's all it's about anymore when you address me. You're not fooling
anybody.

I already told you what I think. You should have paid attention then.

I have nothing more to say to Robert Harris that is fit for polite
company.

/sandy

[Robert Harris]

In article <5011...@mcadams.posc.mu.edu>,

That certainly is a strange thing to say, since you and Jason have
replied to more of my posts than everyone else combined:-)

I'd hate to see what it would be like if you *were* interested!

>
> > Why don't you take a crack at these issues?
> >
> > Rather than constantly telling us about these imaginary rebuttals, post
> > YOUR explanation for those reactions.
> >
> > YOU tell us why Nellie was mistaken about that gunshot that she told us
> > about and actually reacted to in the film.
> >
> > C'mon Sandy, this is about more than petty little insults and pretense.
>
>
> That's all it's about anymore when you address me. You're not fooling
> anybody.

That's not true Sandy. I have asked you some very serious and relevant
questions. And I have practically begged you to state your best arguments
and the best arguments of other nutters.

If you genuinely believed you were right, it would take 6 strong men to
shut you up:-)

So why is it that you can't come up with anything, except childish
insults?

>
> I already told you what I think.

Yes, but what you seem confused about is that I didn't ask you what you
think. I already know that, Sandy.

What I asked you was specific questions about the evidence.

And I think you're afraid to get into that because you know the evidence
proves you wrong.

I have debated with young Earth creationists who are just like you. They
know very well that carbon dating and a zillion other things proves that
the Earth is not 6,000 years old. So they evade the evidence entirely
and refuse to discuss it.

You, and other hardcore nutters are just like them. All of you would
cheerfully debate me on the SBT or other arguments which you have a
solid case for. But you run from these issues about the shots.

And it's not just about the 285 shot. You have an equally serious
problem with the early shots and need to explain why no one heard more
than one of them and no one was startled by ANY of them.

Oswald could not have fired those shots, Sandy. It just didn't happen
and you guys need to man up and acknowledge that fact.





Robert Harris

[Greg Jaynes]

On Saturday, July 21, 2012 4:46:22 PM UTC-5, Robert Harris wrote:
> For you nutters who continue to evade the facts, now you can also refuse
>
> to face the music!
>
>
>
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hxWGKQFv0gE
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Robert Harris


Very good Robert!

Respectfully,
Greg Jaynes

[John Reagor King]

In article <126fd282-2f8f-47fd...@googlegroups.com>,

Greg Jaynes <jay...@mail.com> wrote:

> On Saturday, July 21, 2012 4:46:22 PM UTC-5, Robert Harris wrote:
> > For you nutters who continue to evade the facts, now you can also refuse
> >
> > to face the music!
> >
> > http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hxWGKQFv0gE
>

> Very good Robert!

I agree. I very frequently do not agree with other things, but at least
he puts himself out there.

And this musical talent I was not aware of until now, which I say as a
person with a masters in music.

[lone gunman]

On Saturday, July 21, 2012 10:46:22 PM UTC+1, Robert Harris wrote:
> For you nutters who continue to evade the facts, now you can also refuse
>
> to face the music!
>
>
>
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hxWGKQFv0gE
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

> Robert Harris

the guitar playing is nice, the singing is awfull !

[John Reagor King]

In article <79fb2db2-f454-4d34...@googlegroups.com>,

lone gunman <ThePu...@msn.com> wrote:

> On Saturday, July 21, 2012 10:46:22 PM UTC+1, Robert Harris wrote:
> > For you nutters who continue to evade the facts, now you can also refuse
> >
> > to face the music!
> >
> > http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hxWGKQFv0gE
>

> the guitar playing is nice, the singing is awfull !

Well, that was quite rude. I would have kept that comment to myself.

JRK

[lone gunman]

why beat about the bush ?

He has been rude to me many times !