Here is the problem, Ben
Robert Harris
If the Zapruder film was altered to hide the image of the limousine
coming to a full stop, you would be able to present a plausible
hypothosis for how it happened.
That hypothesis would explain how this was achieved, without leaving
telltale jumps in the film, by the motorcycles and the followup car.
It would explain how the followup car, which was extremely close to the
limo then, did not run into the rear of the limo, or hit SA Hill.
It would explain how the same effect was achieved in the Nix and
Muchmore films.
If alterations in the film also caused officer Chaney to disappear from
the Zfilm at frame 255, your hypothesis would explain that as well.
To totally eliminate images of Chaney and the stoppage of the limo, I
can only think of two possible explanations. Either a significant number
of frames were removed from the three films, or we are looking at a
total reinactment including standins along the road and in the vehicles.
I had also considered that just certain segments were reinacted and then
patched into the original film. But the problem with that is, that a
reinacted segment with the limo moving could not replace a segment with
a stationary limo, because it would place the limo too far down the road
and it would not match up with its position in the original.
Now, in all honesty, I am sure I have not given this concept as much
thought as you have. Are there hypotheses that I am overlooking?
If not, then which of the above do you think correctly explains the
forgery?
Robert Harris
Ben Holmes
Robert Harris says...
>
>
>If the Zapruder film was altered to hide the image of the limousine
>coming to a full stop, you would be able to present a plausible
>hypothosis for how it happened.
Already been done, Bob.
And I've discussed in the past briefly how I believe it took place - with very
rough alterations taking place that weekend, and much more detailed work taking
place over the months that followed.
None of this changes your cowardice and dishonesty in dealing with the
eyewitness statements, Bob.
>That hypothesis would explain how this was achieved, without leaving
>telltale jumps in the film, by the motorcycles and the followup car.
It's already been done in detail, by those who know the film industry, Bob.
What *I* know is the eyewitness statements, that you've been lying about. Why
the cowardice, Bob?
>It would explain how the followup car, which was extremely close to the
>limo then, did not run into the rear of the limo, or hit SA Hill.
The distance between cars would have *ZERO* impact on film alteration, Bob.
>It would explain how the same effect was achieved in the Nix and
>Muchmore films.
Yep... clearly Bob thinks that what can be done on one film, can't be done on
others. How silly!
>If alterations in the film also caused officer Chaney to disappear from
>the Zfilm at frame 255, your hypothesis would explain that as well.
If the limo stop were removed, Bob - then clearly so too was Chaney. You *do*
understand that it was the movement of the *LIMO* that brought Chaney to a
location where he's clearly seen in the Altgen's print, right?
>To totally eliminate images of Chaney and the stoppage of the limo, I
>can only think of two possible explanations. Either a significant number
>of frames were removed from the three films, or we are looking at a
>total reinactment including standins along the road and in the vehicles.
Yep... there have been fans of both possibilities.
>I had also considered that just certain segments were reinacted and then
>patched into the original film. But the problem with that is, that a
>reinacted segment with the limo moving could not replace a segment with
>a stationary limo, because it would place the limo too far down the road
>and it would not match up with its position in the original.
And E.T. really flew on that bicycle, right; Bob?
>Now, in all honesty, I am sure I have not given this concept as much
>thought as you have. Are there hypotheses that I am overlooking?
Mostly, that you are a coward for refusing to admit that your statement has been
proven incorrect by my citing of the eyewitness statements - hence your desire
to move the topic to something else.
But as I've previously stated, I'm going to keep the topic centered on *YOUR*
incorrect assertion until you retract it, or demonstrate beyond all doubt that
you're a dishonest liar, Bob.
aeffects
> If the Zapruder film was altered to hide the image of the limousine
> coming to a full stop, you would be able to present a plausible
> hypothosis for how it happened.
its called doing the black-craft, Bob.... Special Effects
Cinematography, aka optcial film printing... I can give you a great
text to get up to speed on. Printed in 1965, cover the entire optical
film printing industry at the time JFK was assassinated (and well
before)
> That hypothesis would explain how this was achieved, without
leaving
> telltale jumps in the film, by the motorcycles and the followup car.
Do you know anything about Optical Film Printing and/or Special
Effects Cinematography circa. 1963-64, Bob?
> It would explain how the followup car, which was extremely close to the
> limo then, did not run into the rear of the limo, or hit SA Hill.
its called film compositing (multiple film layers composed into one 2d
composite, Bob.
> It would explain how the same effect was achieved in the Nix and
> Muchmore films.
uh-uh-uh.... the Zapruder film is the topic... that's the
assassination bench-mark, lets get this one out of the way, then you
can make your case for the Nix and Muchmore....
> If alterations in the film also caused officer Chaney to disappear from
> the Zfilm at frame 255, your hypothesis would explain that as well.
>
> To totally eliminate images of Chaney and the stoppage of the limo, I
> can only think of two possible explanations. Either a significant number
> of frames were removed from the three films,
your getting closer, Bob. What do YOU determine "significant number of
frames", as in, *how many*?
or we are looking at a
> total reinactment including standins along the road and in the vehicles.
patent nonsense.... not needed at all... especially if you understand
film compositing
> I had also considered that just certain segments were reinacted and
then
> patched into the original film. But the problem with that is, that a
> reinacted segment with the limo moving could not replace a segment with
> a stationary limo, because it would place the limo too far down the road
> and it would not match up with its position in the original.
foolishness..... for the run of the mill Hollywood type optical film
print tech-compositor, the alteration is a piece of cake
> Now, in all honesty, I am sure I have not given this concept as much
> thought as you have. Are there hypotheses that I am overlooking?
yeah Bob, mine... read The Great Zapruder Film Hoax, I did a piece on
this very subject
> If not, then which of the above do you think correctly explains the
> forgery?
why not tell me what I missed, Bob I'm the film-video editor-special
effects compositor... been doing it for 40 years now.
You think I just make fools and mockery out of the Lone Nuts here?
> Robert Harris
Gil Jesus
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0CuoF009tWg
Hargis: Greer slowed down
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8KnjSEEf3D4
Woodward: Car seemed to...it didn't move
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jVEqGb9tpDY
Orville Nix tells Mark Lane that his film was "lost at the processing
plant" and when he got it back, that "some frames were ruined".
justm...@gmail.com
Harris, here's Healys rendition of the alteration of the Z film.
http://www.assassinationresearch.com/v1n1/healy1.html
Now you may want to read the following thread from the education forum
where Healy is ripped apart on his theory and even admits in one of
his post that there is NO evidence of the film ever being altered.
Here's another thread where Healy weasles his way out of answering
questions asked him, he learned well from his master Holmes:
http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=8122&st=0&p=76967&#entry76967
Some other comments by Healy himself on the z film:
"Haven't made a dime, Pat! Can't say that Oswald wasn't involved,
either..... Z-film dispute is a side show..."
http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=3711&st=120&p=49303&hl=zavada&
Search google Harris, Healy is made a fool of on the education forum
by excellent researchers. He tries his hardest to pretend he knows
what he's talking about. Bottom line is he's still an incoherent moron
everywhere else the same as he is on this group. Some things never
change ROFLMAO
Robert Harris
Ben Holmes <ad...@khadaji.com> wrote:
> In article
> <reharris1-6D2DC...@earthlink.vsrv-sjc.supernews.net>,
> Robert Harris says...
> >
> >
> >If the Zapruder film was altered to hide the image of the limousine
> >coming to a full stop, you would be able to present a plausible
> >hypothosis for how it happened.
>
> Already been done, Bob.
Then let's talk about it.
Tell me specifically what happened.
>
> And I've discussed in the past briefly how I believe it took place - with
> very
> rough alterations taking place that weekend, and much more detailed work
> taking
> place over the months that followed.
That's nice.
Tell me what happened.
>
> None of this changes your cowardice and dishonesty in dealing with the
> eyewitness statements, Bob.
I know Ben, and if I keep challenging you to answer my questions, I will
evolve into the dreaded "GUTLESS COWARD"!!
But I have to warn you Ben, if you take it to that level, you will force
me to double-dog dare you!!
Don't make me do that Ben.
>
> >That hypothesis would explain how this was achieved, without leaving
> >telltale jumps in the film, by the motorcycles and the followup car.
>
>
> It's already been done in detail, by those who know the film industry, Bob.
Really?
Then you should be eager to tell us about it.
>
> What *I* know is the eyewitness statements, that you've been lying about.
> Why
> the cowardice, Bob?
I wasn't always this way, Ben.
I was showing off my miniature Yorkie one day, and the damned thing
turned on me. I've never been the same since.
Tell us about the forgery, Ben.
>
>
> >It would explain how the followup car, which was extremely close to the
> >limo then, did not run into the rear of the limo, or hit SA Hill.
>
>
> The distance between cars would have *ZERO* impact on film alteration, Bob.
I guess I wasn't clear enough. I didn't say that the proximity of the
two vehicles would impact the alteration. I was more concerned that they
would impact one another, or Clint Hill.
>
>
> >It would explain how the same effect was achieved in the Nix and
> >Muchmore films.
>
>
> Yep... clearly Bob thinks that what can be done on one film, can't be done on
> others. How silly!
I'm sure "it" can be done on a dozen films - but don't you think all
this would be more convincing if you told us what "it" is?
>
>
> >If alterations in the film also caused officer Chaney to disappear from
> >the Zfilm at frame 255, your hypothesis would explain that as well.
>
>
> If the limo stop were removed, Bob - then clearly so too was Chaney.
Ok, so now we're getting somewhere.
Are you suggesting then, that the limo came to a full stop at the time,
or perhaps, just before Altgens snapped his photo?
> You
> *do*
> understand that it was the movement of the *LIMO* that brought Chaney to a
> location where he's clearly seen in the Altgen's print, right?
I'm afraid not, but perhaps after you explain what happened, I will.
>
>
> >To totally eliminate images of Chaney and the stoppage of the limo, I
> >can only think of two possible explanations. Either a significant number
> >of frames were removed from the three films, or we are looking at a
> >total reinactment including standins along the road and in the vehicles.
>
>
> Yep... there have been fans of both possibilities.
Well, which one do you want to discuss first?
>
>
> >I had also considered that just certain segments were reinacted and then
> >patched into the original film. But the problem with that is, that a
> >reinacted segment with the limo moving could not replace a segment with
> >a stationary limo, because it would place the limo too far down the road
> >and it would not match up with its position in the original.
>
>
> And E.T. really flew on that bicycle, right; Bob?
Once again, I guess I wasn't clear enough Ben.
A reenactment would have to have been in DP or a perfect match for DP to
have created the three films. And, a moving limo would travel a greater
distance during the same period, than a stopped limo would.
Are you with me so far, Ben?
So, by inserting a clip of a moving limo, into the "genuine" film, the
position of the limo would be totally different. So, you could not
return to the original without having to jump backward to the correct
location. That would totally expose the scam.
Therefore, the entire segment, from the point where the limo "stopped"
would have to have been a reinactment.
Ben, do you think this fabrication was filmed in Dealey Plaza, or in a
mockup of that area?
And how many actors and crew members did they hire?
Robert Harris
Robert Harris
<f0e95946-af3e-4ca8...@e25g2000prg.googlegroups.com>,
Gil Jesus <gjj...@aol.com> wrote:
> Nix film showing JFK limo slowing down almost to a stop
>
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0CuoF009tWg
That is absolutely correct, as I pointed out very recently.
But the Nix film matches PERFECTLY with Zapruder - even Dr. David Mantik
has confirmed that fact.
Therefore, the subjective appearance of a more pronounced slowdown is
based purely on perspective. The limo went from point A to point B in
exactly the same time span in all of the films.
So, if the Zfilm was altered, then the Nix and Muchmore films would have
to have been altered in exactly the same way.
Robert Harris
aeffects
wrote:
> On Mar 1, 7:05 am, Gil Jesus <gjjm...@aol.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> > Nix film showing JFK limo slowing down almost to a stop
>
> >http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0CuoF009tWg
>
> > Hargis: Greer slowed down
>
> >http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8KnjSEEf3D4
>
> > Woodward: Car seemed to...it didn't move
>
> >http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jVEqGb9tpDY
>
> > Orville Nix tells Mark Lane that his film was "lost at the processing
> > plant" and when he got it back, that "some frames were ruined".
>
> >http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8rdEpZu2QJY
>
> Harris, here's Healys rendition of the alteration of the Z film.
>
> http://www.assassinationresearch.com/v1n1/healy1.html
>
> Now you may want to read the following thread from the education forum
> where Healy is ripped apart on his theory and even admits in one of
> his post that there is NO evidence of the film ever being altered.
>
>
> Here's another thread where Healy weasles his way out of answering
> questions asked him, he learned well from his master Holmes:
>
>
> Some other comments by Healy himself on the z film:
> "Haven't made a dime, Pat! Can't say that Oswald wasn't involved,
damn, the freak of nature got to the Simkin forum -- you buy the book
toots-e-roll? We should save these threads, an avowed idiot lone
Neuter, er Nutter supporting an alleged mega longtime CT.... throw'em
all another bone, we gott'em in the correl, time to tame'em....
ROTFLMFAO!
> Search google Harris, Healy is made a fool of on the education forum
> by excellent researchers. He tries his hardest to pretend he knows
> what he's talking about. Bottom line is he's still an incoherent moron
> everywhere else the same as he is on this group. Some things never
> change ROFLMAO
anytime Robert, I'm here to please....
YoHarvey
>
> - Show quoted text -
anytime Robert, I'm here to please....
You and wife use the same terminology huh Healy?
Ben Holmes
Robert Harris says...
>
>In article <fqate...@drn.newsguy.com>,
> Ben Holmes <ad...@khadaji.com> wrote:
>
>> In article
>> <reharris1-6D2DC...@earthlink.vsrv-sjc.supernews.net>,
>> Robert Harris says...
>> >
>> >
>> >If the Zapruder film was altered to hide the image of the limousine
>> And I've discussed in the past briefly how I believe it took place - with
>>very rough alterations taking place that weekend, and much more detailed work
>> taking place over the months that followed.
>
>
>That's nice.
>
>
>Tell me what happened.
Been there, done that. The topic, Bob - is what the eyewitnesses saw - and your
lie about that.
>> None of this changes your cowardice and dishonesty in dealing with the
>> eyewitness statements, Bob.
>
>
>I know Ben, and if I keep challenging you to answer my questions, I will
>evolve into the dreaded "GUTLESS COWARD"!!
Bob, it doesn't work that way. When you refuse to support your own words, when
you refuse to answer my questions, then turn around and pretend that I must
answer all of yours - particularly when it's a different topic than the original
post - then you're just illustrating that you've lost.
You're a liar, Bob... and a coward as well.
>But I have to warn you Ben, if you take it to that level, you will force
>me to double-dog dare you!!
>
>Don't make me do that Ben.
I think I'll take my chances, Bob. You see, I'm a firm believer in Weisberg's
comment about the evidence.
I'm just going to keep hitting you with the evidence...
And, apparently, you're going to keep ducking and running...
>> >That hypothesis would explain how this was achieved, without leaving
>> >telltale jumps in the film, by the motorcycles and the followup car.
>>
>>
>> It's already been done in detail, by those who know the film industry, Bob.
>
>Really?
>
>Then you should be eager to tell us about it.
Why? I'd be far more interested in detailing the subtle differences between
Sasae Tsurikomi Ashi and Hiza Guruma, but the audience here would not appreciate
it.
However, those reading this will be fascinated to have caught you in a lie about
the evidence. You tried to claim that eyewitnesses "roughly adjacent" to the
limo never mentioned a limo stop... yet it's quite clear that even one of the
names *YOU* brought up did indeed mention a limo stop.
As well as a list of other names I cite.
I would think that you'd be eager to understand the eyewitness testimony -
instead you're lying about it. Why is that, Bob?
>> What *I* know is the eyewitness statements, that you've been lying about.
>> Why the cowardice, Bob?
>
>I wasn't always this way, Ben.
>
>I was showing off my miniature Yorkie one day, and the damned thing
>turned on me. I've never been the same since.
>
>Tell us about the forgery, Ben.
>
>>
>>
>> >It would explain how the followup car, which was extremely close to the
>> >limo then, did not run into the rear of the limo, or hit SA Hill.
>>
>>
>> The distance between cars would have *ZERO* impact on film alteration, Bob.
>
>I guess I wasn't clear enough. I didn't say that the proximity of the
>two vehicles would impact the alteration. I was more concerned that they
>would impact one another, or Clint Hill.
Meaningless...
>> >It would explain how the same effect was achieved in the Nix and
>> >Muchmore films.
>>
>>
>> Yep... clearly Bob thinks that what can be done on one film, can't be done on
>> others. How silly!
>
>I'm sure "it" can be done on a dozen films - but don't you think all
>this would be more convincing if you told us what "it" is?
I've told you repeatedly Bob... I'll be happy to discuss the mechanics of the
film alteration when you can admit that the evidence is there to support that it
*was* done.
When you need to lie about the eyewitness evidence - then there's no-where to
go, Bob.
>> >If alterations in the film also caused officer Chaney to disappear from
>> >the Zfilm at frame 255, your hypothesis would explain that as well.
>>
>>
>> If the limo stop were removed, Bob - then clearly so too was Chaney.
>
>
>Ok, so now we're getting somewhere.
No Bob... we aren't. What did Chaney say about the limo stop, Bob?
>Are you suggesting then, that the limo came to a full stop at the time,
>or perhaps, just before Altgens snapped his photo?
No Bob... that's not the way it works.
My "suggestion" or opinion is not the topic here - it's the eyewitnesses
themselves.
What did the *EYEWITNESSES* say, Bob? And why are you lying about them?
>> You *do* understand that it was the movement of the *LIMO* that brought
>> Chaney to a location where he's clearly seen in the Altgen's print, right?
>
>I'm afraid not,
And you're a bald-faced liar, Bob.
>but perhaps after you explain what happened, I will.
I've allowed the eyewitnesses themselves to describe what they saw - AND YOU
DENY THAT THEY DID.
Why is that, Bob?
>> >To totally eliminate images of Chaney and the stoppage of the limo, I
>> >can only think of two possible explanations. Either a significant number
>> >of frames were removed from the three films, or we are looking at a
>> >total reinactment including standins along the road and in the vehicles.
>>
>>
>> Yep... there have been fans of both possibilities.
>
>Well, which one do you want to discuss first?
The fact that you lied about eyewitnesses who were "roughly adjacent" when they
spoke about the limo stopping.
When we finish *that* conversation, Bob - you may have the floor.
>> >I had also considered that just certain segments were reinacted and then
>> >patched into the original film. But the problem with that is, that a
>> >reinacted segment with the limo moving could not replace a segment with
>> >a stationary limo, because it would place the limo too far down the road
>> >and it would not match up with its position in the original.
>>
>>
>> And E.T. really flew on that bicycle, right; Bob?
>
>Once again, I guess I wasn't clear enough Ben.
Actually, you've been quite clear - you don't believe that the film *could* have
been altered. You're living in a fantasy world where E.T. must have flown on a
bicycle, because that's clearly what is seen in *that* film.
What did the eyewitnesses report, Bob?
>A reenactment would have to have been in DP or a perfect match for DP to
>have created the three films. And, a moving limo would travel a greater
>distance during the same period, than a stopped limo would.
>
>Are you with me so far, Ben?
What did the eyewitnesses say, Bob?
>So, by inserting a clip of a moving limo, into the "genuine" film, the
>position of the limo would be totally different. So, you could not
>return to the original without having to jump backward to the correct
>location. That would totally expose the scam.
>
>Therefore, the entire segment, from the point where the limo "stopped"
>would have to have been a reinactment.
What did the eyewitnesses say, Bob? And why did you lie about it?
And do you ever plan to retract your lie?
>Ben, do you think this fabrication was filmed in Dealey Plaza, or in a
>mockup of that area?
>
>And how many actors and crew members did they hire?
How *many* eyewitnesses mentioned a limo stop, Bob?
How *many* eyewitnesses mentioned a limo slowdown, Bob? And why can't anything
like this be seen in the extant Z-film by viewers?
>Robert Harris
>
>
>>
>>
>>
>> >Now, in all honesty, I am sure I have not given this concept as much
>> >thought as you have. Are there hypotheses that I am overlooking?
>>
>>
>> Mostly, that you are a coward for refusing to admit that your statement has
>> been proven incorrect by my citing of the eyewitness statements - hence your
>> desire to move the topic to something else.
Dead silence... why are you playing the coward, Bob?
Does it embarrass you to have facts about this assassination that you weren't
aware of being so pointedly forced down your throat?
Ben Holmes
aeffects says...
My crystal ball is telling me that Bob will debate you on this topic the same
way he's debating me on *his* false assertion about the limo stop eyewitnesses,
with a great deal of ducking and running.
Sadly, none of this is needed for an honest man. It's entirely possible to be
honest and simply admit that the evidence is there - but that it's not
persuasive to you for one reason or another. But when you go to the efforts of
even denying that the evidence is there - all you've done is illustrate your
character.
Bob is now at the point of denying that the eyewitnesses I named are "roughly
adjacent", despite the fact that he put Moorman in that crowd.
Robert Harris
Ben Holmes <ad...@khadaji.com> wrote:
> In article
> <reharris1-8E396...@earthlink.vsrv-sjc.supernews.net>,
> Robert Harris says...
> >
> >In article <fqate...@drn.newsguy.com>,
> > Ben Holmes <ad...@khadaji.com> wrote:
> >
> >> In article
> >> <reharris1-6D2DC...@earthlink.vsrv-sjc.supernews.net>,
> >> Robert Harris says...
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >If the Zapruder film was altered to hide the image of the limousine
>
> >> And I've discussed in the past briefly how I believe it took place - with
> >>very rough alterations taking place that weekend, and much more detailed
> >>work
> >> taking place over the months that followed.
> >
> >
> >That's nice.
> >
> >
> >Tell me what happened.
>
>
> Been there, done that.
Then just repost that message for us.
Robert Harris
Chuck Schuyler
> In article <fqcdk002...@drn.newsguy.com>,> > <reharris1-8E3969.14040701032...@earthlink.vsrv-sjc.supernews.net>,
> > Robert Harris says...
>
> > >In article <fqateg02...@drn.newsguy.com>,> > >> <reharris1-6D2DCB.06312401032...@earthlink.vsrv-sjc.supernews.net>,
>
> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
The kook fight continues at this thread.
Bob, good post...you're winning on my scorecard, 4 to 2.
You're up, Ben.
By the way, a jolly good show by the both of you.
Ben Holmes
Ben Holmes
Robert Harris says...
>
>In article <fqcdk...@drn.newsguy.com>,
> Ben Holmes <ad...@khadaji.com> wrote:
>
>> In article
>> <reharris1-8E396...@earthlink.vsrv-sjc.supernews.net>,
>> Robert Harris says...
>> >
>> >In article <fqate...@drn.newsguy.com>,
>> > Ben Holmes <ad...@khadaji.com> wrote:
>> >
>> >> In article
>> >> <reharris1-6D2DC...@earthlink.vsrv-sjc.supernews.net>,
>> >> Robert Harris says...
>> >> >
>> >> >
>> >> >If the Zapruder film was altered to hide the image of the limousine
>>
>> >> And I've discussed in the past briefly how I believe it took place - with
>> >>very rough alterations taking place that weekend, and much more detailed
>> >>work
>> >> taking place over the months that followed.
>> >
>> >
>> >That's nice.
>> >
>> >
>> >Tell me what happened.
>>
>>
>> Been there, done that.
>
>
>Then just repost that message for us.
As soon as you support your lie, Bob - I'll be happy to go into more details of
the extant Z-film alteration.
Remember, Bob... there is no question that an honest man will evade. I've given
the answer above already in brief... and will be happy to get into details. But
if you can't name the "roughly adjacent" eyewitnesses, then how can you handle
the alteration of the extant Z-film?
Clearly I was correct. I've not received a *single* request to clarify that
statement.
Dead silence. Yet it's not possible to put Chaney anywhere *other* than
"roughly adjacent". It was his *JOB* that day to be "roughly adjacent.
Perhaps this is why Bob is deathly afraid of the motorcycle cops...
>> >Are you suggesting then, that the limo came to a full stop at the time,
>> >or perhaps, just before Altgens snapped his photo?
>>
>>
>> No Bob... that's not the way it works.
>>
>> My "suggestion" or opinion is not the topic here - it's the eyewitnesses
>> themselves.
>>
>> What did the *EYEWITNESSES* say, Bob? And why are you lying about them?
Dead silence.
Presumably, it's okay for *ME* to quote the eyewitnesses, but sheer poison for
Bob to do so.
>> >> You *do* understand that it was the movement of the *LIMO* that brought
>> >> Chaney to a location where he's clearly seen in the Altgen's print, right?
>> >
>> >I'm afraid not,
>>
>>
>> And you're a bald-faced liar, Bob.
>>
>>
>>
>> >but perhaps after you explain what happened, I will.
>>
>>
>> I've allowed the eyewitnesses themselves to describe what they saw - AND YOU
>> DENY THAT THEY DID.
>>
>> Why is that, Bob?
>>
>>
>>
>> >> >To totally eliminate images of Chaney and the stoppage of the limo, I
>> >> >can only think of two possible explanations. Either a significant number
>> >> >of frames were removed from the three films, or we are looking at a
>> >> >total reinactment including standins along the road and in the vehicles.
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> Yep... there have been fans of both possibilities.
>> >
>> >Well, which one do you want to discuss first?
>>
>>
>> The fact that you lied about eyewitnesses who were "roughly adjacent" when
>> they spoke about the limo stopping.
>>
>> When we finish *that* conversation, Bob - you may have the floor.
My crystal ball tells me that we're going to be stuck on this one topic for a
long time to come.
Much as Tony was stuck trying to find any evidence at all for his assertion that
Dr. Humes was busy burning paperwork on Saturday morning.
>> >> >I had also considered that just certain segments were reinacted and then
>> >> >patched into the original film. But the problem with that is, that a
>> >> >reinacted segment with the limo moving could not replace a segment with
>> >> >a stationary limo, because it would place the limo too far down the road
>> >> >and it would not match up with its position in the original.
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> And E.T. really flew on that bicycle, right; Bob?
>> >
>> >Once again, I guess I wasn't clear enough Ben.
>>
>>
>> Actually, you've been quite clear - you don't believe that the film *could*
>> have been altered. You're living in a fantasy world where E.T. must have
>> flown on a bicycle, because that's clearly what is seen in *that* film.
>>
>> What did the eyewitnesses report, Bob?
Of course, there's no question that an honest man will evade, right Bob?
>> >A reenactment would have to have been in DP or a perfect match for DP to
>> >have created the three films. And, a moving limo would travel a greater
>> >distance during the same period, than a stopped limo would.
>> >
>> >Are you with me so far, Ben?
>>
>>
>> What did the eyewitnesses say, Bob?
>>
>>
>> >So, by inserting a clip of a moving limo, into the "genuine" film, the
>> >position of the limo would be totally different. So, you could not
>> >return to the original without having to jump backward to the correct
>> >location. That would totally expose the scam.
>> >
>> >Therefore, the entire segment, from the point where the limo "stopped"
>> >would have to have been a reinactment.
>>
>>
>> What did the eyewitnesses say, Bob? And why did you lie about it?
>>
>> And do you ever plan to retract your lie?
>>
>>
>>
>> >Ben, do you think this fabrication was filmed in Dealey Plaza, or in a
>> >mockup of that area?
>> >
>> >And how many actors and crew members did they hire?
>>
>>
>> How *many* eyewitnesses mentioned a limo stop, Bob?
>>
>> How *many* eyewitnesses mentioned a limo slowdown, Bob? And why can't
>> anything like this be seen in the extant Z-film by viewers?
What is it about an honest man, again, Bob?
Chuck Schuyler
>
> As soon as you support your lie, Bob - I'll be happy to go into more details of
> the extant Z-film alteration.
>
> Remember, Bob... there is no question that an honest man will evade. I've given
> the answer above already in brief... and will be happy to get into details. But
> if you can't name the "roughly adjacent" eyewitnesses, then how can you handle
> the alteration of the extant Z-film?
The heavyweight kooks keep trading blows. Two titans of the conspiracy
movement that have given America so much are locked in mortal combat
over basic JFK assassination theory. It's like Kong versus the
Tyrannosaurus on Skull Island, and I must confess that I'm trembling
with anticipation.
You never know what kind of excitement is ready to break out at acj.
Great show, kooks.
Ben, seems you're still running from questions. Bob asked you to
square up the Zfilm alteration with some other the other films shot
that day...were they altered too?
Bob is up 5 to 2 now.
I feel lucky to just witness this historical event.
Time for some more popcorn!
Your up, Bob.
Bud
Yah, this is good stuff. Ben portrays the z-film as tampered with,
as proof of the work of the evil-doers, but Bob needs the z-film as
valid evidence, so he can interpret movements to support his pet
theories. Perhaps some common ground can be found, with Ben
stipulating that the portions of the z-film that Bob needs for his
theories were not tampered with, because when kooks fight amongst
themselves, the only winner possible is rational thought.
muc...@gmail.com
I particularly like the way Ben counts Moorman as a pro-stop witness,
while ignoring that her reported impression that the limo momentarily
stopped or hesitated AFTER she took her (z315-ish) picture seems to
contradict his theory that a stop occurred BEFORE Altgens took his
(z255-ish) picture. Assuming that the power of his rhetoric is a
reliable indicator, Ben must have everything figured out, so I can't
wait for him to tell us how many limo stops there really were.
Chuck Schuyler
> Yah, this is good stuff. Ben portrays the z-film as tampered with,
> as proof of the work of the evil-doers, but Bob needs the z-film as
> valid evidence, so he can interpret movements to support his pet
> theories. Perhaps some common ground can be found, with Ben
> stipulating that the portions of the z-film that Bob needs for his
> theories were not tampered with, because when kooks fight amongst
> themselves, the only winner possible is rational thought.
Both titans have retreated to their corners slightly bruised, but
anxious to reload for the next round. Bob is busily boning up on old
comments by Dr. Luis Alvarez, and Ben has put on the reading specs to
peruse The Great Zapruder Film Hoax by Jim Fetzer one more time.
I do believe that this kook fight will ultimately be a draw. Like the
Missouri Compromise of 1820, our CT titans will most likely draft the
Harris/Holmes Compromise of 2008. It will stipulate that the sections
of the Zapruder film that highlight Bob's theory were unaltered, but
that the rest of it was tampered with. Peace will once again reign
over Conspiracyville.
This will satisfy both kooks and allow them to kiss and make up.
Great kook fight, though. It's something I'll tell my grandkids about
someday, and I'm ready for the next round!
Robert Harris
Ben Holmes <ad...@khadaji.com> wrote:
I wouldn't want to support a lie, Ben.
> - I'll be happy to go into more details
> of
> the extant Z-film alteration.
>
> Remember, Bob... there is no question that an honest man will evade. I've
> given
> the answer above already in brief... and will be happy to get into details.
> But
> if you can't name the "roughly adjacent" eyewitnesses, then how can you
> handle
> the alteration of the extant Z-film?
ROFLMAO!!
If you wanted a list of the witnesses I perceived to be adjacent to the
limousine, then why didn't you ask BEFORE going off into these moronic
accusations?
You yourself, acknowledged that Brehm, Hill and Moorman made no
conclusive statements that the limo came to a full stop. And you are
citing numerous witnesses who were nowhere near, being adjacent to the
limo.
Here is a clue, Ben. HONEST men don't make accusations that they cannot
prove.
You not ONLY run from challenges that you support your theory, but you
run from challenges that you support your own ad hominem attacks.
Robert Harris
Robert Harris
<6c78a1a8-c268-48d8...@d21g2000prf.googlegroups.com>,
aeffects <aeffe...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Mar 1, 3:31 am, Robert Harris <reharr...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > If the Zapruder film was altered to hide the image of the limousine
> > coming to a full stop, you would be able to present a plausible
> > hypothosis for how it happened.
>
> its called doing the black-craft, Bob.... Special Effects
> Cinematography, aka optcial film printing... I can give you a great
> text to get up to speed on. Printed in 1965, cover the entire optical
> film printing industry at the time JFK was assassinated (and well
> before)
Well, its about time.
At least somebody around here, has the integrity to defend this "theory".
>
> > That hypothesis would explain how this was achieved, without
> leaving
> > telltale jumps in the film, by the motorcycles and the followup car.
>
> Do you know anything about Optical Film Printing and/or Special
> Effects Cinematography circa. 1963-64, Bob?
Nope, but I can certainly grasp the concept of layers overlaid upon one
another.
>
> > It would explain how the followup car, which was extremely close to the
> > limo then, did not run into the rear of the limo, or hit SA Hill.
>
> its called film compositing (multiple film layers composed into one 2d
> composite, Bob.
>
> > It would explain how the same effect was achieved in the Nix and
> > Muchmore films.
>
> uh-uh-uh.... the Zapruder film is the topic...
All three films synchronize perfectly. So the other two would have to
have been altered as well.
Is that a problem?
> that's the
> assassination bench-mark, lets get this one out of the way, then you
> can make your case for the Nix and Muchmore....
It is not MY case.
But I would presume that anything that was done to the Zfilm could have
been done to the others.
>
>
> > If alterations in the film also caused officer Chaney to disappear from
> > the Zfilm at frame 255, your hypothesis would explain that as well.
> >
> > To totally eliminate images of Chaney and the stoppage of the limo, I
> > can only think of two possible explanations. Either a significant number
> > of frames were removed from the three films,
>
> your getting closer, Bob. What do YOU determine "significant number of
> frames", as in, *how many*?
You could not get away with more than one contiguous frame deletion,
even when the limo was moving slowest. And even that, would throw off
the match with the other films.
>
> or we are looking at a
> > total reinactment including standins along the road and in the vehicles.
>
> patent nonsense.... not needed at all... especially if you understand
> film compositing
>
> > I had also considered that just certain segments were reinacted and
> then
> > patched into the original film. But the problem with that is, that a
> > reinacted segment with the limo moving could not replace a segment with
> > a stationary limo, because it would place the limo too far down the road
> > and it would not match up with its position in the original.
>
> foolishness..... for the run of the mill Hollywood type optical film
> print tech-compositor, the alteration is a piece of cake
>
>
> > Now, in all honesty, I am sure I have not given this concept as much
> > thought as you have. Are there hypotheses that I am overlooking?
>
> yeah Bob, mine... read The Great Zapruder Film Hoax, I did a piece on
> this very subject
Super!
Ok, where is it? I just googled that title and found a number of
different links. Does the vid at:
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=6264396057713515921
represent you correctly?
Robert Harris
aeffects
my goodness, no one of consequence is interested in talking to you
Lone Nut fools these days. Why is that? ROTFLMFAO!
justm...@gmail.com
>
> - Show quoted text -
Hey Healy, your wedding Anniversary is the 29th of this month.
Shouldn't you be out finding your wife a present? That is if she
hasn't already dumped your sorry ass for something better...hell
anything would be better then you. Guess I'll have to check divorce
records and see if she wised up and left you to wallow in your 500
square foot apt. alone LOL ...Funny no one responds to you either
unless its to ridicule or humiliate you, you must be proud!
aeffects
>
> aeffects <aeffect...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > On Mar 1, 3:31 am, Robert Harris <reharr...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > > If the Zapruder film was altered to hide the image of the limousine
> > > coming to a full stop, you would be able to present a plausible
> > > hypothosis for how it happened.
>
> > its called doing the black-craft, Bob.... Special Effects
> > Cinematography, aka optcial film printing... I can give you a great
> > text to get up to speed on. Printed in 1965, cover the entire optical
> > film printing industry at the time JFK was assassinated (and well
> > before)
>
> Well, its about time.
>
> At least somebody around here, has the integrity to defend this "theory".
Bob, the article up on Rich DellaRossa-JFK Research was first posted
there in 1999, I wrote it. It was then presented at the Univ of Minn
2003 Zapruder film symposium, then published in the Great Zaprduer
Film Hoax.
http://jfkresearch.com/page3.html 3rd article from the top -
a downloadable .pdf file
Simple deduction, Bob: the technology, expertise, manpower AND time
were available to do simple an/or major alteration re the in-camera
original Zapruder film (shot by Abraham Zapruder 11/22/63), prior to
late February 1964.
If the above is true, Bob, HOW does that affect your CT studies/
research concerning JFK assassination?
>
>
> > > That hypothesis would explain how this was achieved, without
> > leaving
> > > telltale jumps in the film, by the motorcycles and the followup car.
>
> > Do you know anything about Optical Film Printing and/or Special
> > Effects Cinematography circa. 1963-64, Bob?
>
> Nope, but I can certainly grasp the concept of layers overlaid upon one
> another.
we have a start...
>
>
> > > It would explain how the followup car, which was extremely close to the
> > > limo then, did not run into the rear of the limo, or hit SA Hill.
>
> > its called film compositing (multiple film layers composed into one 2d
> > composite, Bob.
>
> > > It would explain how the same effect was achieved in the Nix and
> > > Muchmore films.
>
> > uh-uh-uh.... the Zapruder film is the topic...
>
> All three films synchronize perfectly. So the other two would have to
> have been altered as well.
Bob, no one has posted anywhere all 3 film synched. I do know a
longtime Zapruder film researcher working on that. To this date its
not there Bob
> Is that a problem?
depends on the degree of alteration, timing is everything Bob and one
of the easiest things on a optical film printer to change --
especially if the optical film printer tech can do simple math
> > that's the
> > assassination bench-mark, lets get this one out of the way, then you
> > can make your case for the Nix and Muchmore....
>
> It is not MY case.
>
> But I would presume that anything that was done to the Zfilm could have
> been done to the others.
>
that's correct.... extensively or simply
>
> > > If alterations in the film also caused officer Chaney to disappear from
> > > the Zfilm at frame 255, your hypothesis would explain that as well.
>
> > > To totally eliminate images of Chaney and the stoppage of the limo, I
> > > can only think of two possible explanations. Either a significant number
> > > of frames were removed from the three films,
>
> > your getting closer, Bob. What do YOU determine "significant number of
> > frames", as in, *how many*?
>
> You could not get away with more than one contiguous frame deletion,
> even when the limo was moving slowest. And even that, would throw off
> the match with the other films.
>
would it? Let me let you in on something here, Bob.... in the craft
I've participated in for near-on 40 years now, we change "reality" to
make it fit a specific script...
here's the book: (one of the first books on the subject in the english
language)
Techniques of Special Effects of Cinematography by Raymond Fielding
1st Edition 1965.
check out Amazon, but find the 1st printing (1965) the book has been
updated multiple times as it is/was a university text... Ray Fielding
and I had a few email conversations concerning a possible Zavada
report rewrite, you did realize Roland was going to rewrite a portion
of his report didn't you? Roland asked Ray for his assistance in fact
in the rewrite project.after my article came out Roland Zavada beat a
path to Ray's door and chatted up my thesis....
Also, as a result of multiple conversations discussing the alteration
subject matter with John Costella, Roland Zavada quietly withdrew from
the 2003 UofMinn Zapruder Film Symposium. Needless to say, Jim Fetzer,
David Mantik, David Lifton, John Costella, Jack White and myself
struggled through the weekend without Zavada's presence. I did however
have multiple conversation with Roland after the fact, he got in touch
with me through Jim Fetzer.
p.s. the rewrite of the Zavada report never happend, Roland Zavada
suffered from heath issues, he did however during the timeperiod
manage to fly to a Lake Tahoe SMPTE meeting, he and I discussed the
merits of film gamma issues regarding the Zapruder film... the rewrite
was iced after that...
>
>
>
> > or we are looking at a
> > > total reinactment including standins along the road and in the vehicles.
>
> > patent nonsense.... not needed at all... especially if you understand
> > film compositing
>
> > > I had also considered that just certain segments were reinacted and
> > then
> > > patched into the original film. But the problem with that is, that a
> > > reinacted segment with the limo moving could not replace a segment with
> > > a stationary limo, because it would place the limo too far down the road
> > > and it would not match up with its position in the original.
>
> > foolishness..... for the run of the mill Hollywood type optical film
> > print tech-compositor, the alteration is a piece of cake
>
> > > Now, in all honesty, I am sure I have not given this concept as much
> > > thought as you have. Are there hypotheses that I am overlooking?
>
> > yeah Bob, mine... read The Great Zapruder Film Hoax, I did a piece on
> > this very subject
>
> Super!
>
> Ok, where is it? I just googled that title and found a number of
> different links. Does the vid at:
>
> http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=6264396057713515921
>
> represent you correctly?
nope Bob, that's not mine -- nor does it represent the UofMinn 2003
Zapruder film symposium.The symposium and ALL participants were
videotaped, DVD of all presentions created. For sale. It is my
understanding one set is available for borrow at Rich Dellarossa's JFK
Research.
My article (in full) complete with graphics is available at:
http://jfkresearch.com/page3.html 3rd article from the top -
a downloadable .pdf file
DHealy
justm...@gmail.com
>
> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
Harris....see also how Healys article was criticized and the
discussions at the education forum proving Healy is clueless.
Harris, here's Healys rendition of the alteration of the Z film.
http://www.assassinationresearch.com/v1n1/healy1.html
Now you may want to read the following thread from the education
forum
where Healy is ripped apart on his theory and even admits in one of
his post that there is NO evidence of the film ever being altered.
http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?s=35970dd6e5930b7e1d6d75b...
Here's another thread where Healy weasles his way out of answering
questions asked him, he learned well from his master Holmes:
http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=8122&st=0&p=769...
Some other comments by Healy himself on the z film:
"Haven't made a dime, Pat! Can't say that Oswald wasn't involved,
either..... Z-film dispute is a side show..."
http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=3711&st=120&p=4...
aeffects
wrote:
stay focused crone..... stay focused.... we need you defendingBob
Harris and CTer's...... LMFAO!
justm...@gmail.com
>
> - Show quoted text -
I am focused, you're full of crap and so is your pathetic
article....just making sure everyone sees what was really thought
about it. You actually think you can compete with Dale Myers, what a
joke ROFLMAO
aeffects
bring'em on, Crone! anytime - anywhere ROTFLMFAO can't protect Bob
Harris forever, prune.....
aeffects
bring'em on Crone..... bring em on! LMFAO
Chuck Schuyler
>
> - Show quoted text -
Healy, I've got some simple questions for you:
Why the need to alter the Zfilm when you don't even believe the real
Abe Zapruder filmed the event?
What was the purpose of planting a fake Zapruder on the little
concrete pedestal and filming the event and then altering the film?
Why not just destroy the film?
Why create the extra work by filming it at all?
Can you thoughtfully and rationally explain how and why the "two
Zapruders" theory came to be?
Ben Holmes
Robert Harris says...
>
>In article
><6c78a1a8-c268-48d8...@d21g2000prf.googlegroups.com>,
> aeffects <aeffe...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> On Mar 1, 3:31 am, Robert Harris <reharr...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>> > If the Zapruder film was altered to hide the image of the limousine
>> > coming to a full stop, you would be able to present a plausible
>> > hypothosis for how it happened.
>>
>> its called doing the black-craft, Bob.... Special Effects
>> Cinematography, aka optcial film printing... I can give you a great
>> text to get up to speed on. Printed in 1965, cover the entire optical
>> film printing industry at the time JFK was assassinated (and well
>> before)
>
>Well, its about time.
>
>At least somebody around here, has the integrity to defend this "theory".
Nice of you to be accurate... ("this" theory, rather than "his" theory) Of
course, a defense of a theory isn't merely an explanation of *how* it could have
happened - it's also a recitation of the evidence that it *DID* happen.
Of course, I accept that the extant Z-film has been altered, due to the
persuasive evidence that shows exactly this. But the "theory" that Bob and I
have been debating is far more specific - and concerns only *ONE* piece of
evidence for Z-film alteration - what the closest eyewitnesses actually said.
Bob has been forced to lie about it:
************************************************************************
"BTW, notice that you NEVER hear the people who were roughly adjacent to the
limo at the time of the slowdown, claiming the limo stopped - like Brehm, J
Hill, Moorman or the people directly across the road from them."
Moorman: "She recalls that the President's automobile was moving at the time she
took the second picture, and when she heard the shots, and has the impression
that the car either stopped momentarily or hesitated and then drove off in a
hurry." [22H838-839 (FBI Report)]
Bob lied.
Bill Newman: "The car momentarily stopped..." [Marrs 1989, p70]
"I believe Kennedy's car came to a full stop after the final shot." [Bill Sloan,
JFK; Breaking the Silence, 1993, p. 169]
"Now everywhere that you read about it, you don't read anything about the car
stopping. And when I say 'stopped' I mean very momentarily, like they hit the
brakes and just a few seconds passed and then they floorboarded and accelerated
on. [11/12/97 videotaped interview with William Law, Mark Rowe, and Ian Griggs]
"... and just for a moment they hesitated and stopped, and then they
floorboarded the car and shot off." [Sneed 1998, p.96]
Bob lied.
James Chaney: "at the time, after the shooting, from the time the shot first
rang out, the car stopped completely, pulled to the left and stopped..." [As
told to Roy Truly 3H266; 2H44-45]
Bob lied.
Billy Joe Martin: saw JFK's car stop "just for a moment" [Newcomb and Adams
1974, p. 71]
Bob lied.
Douglas Jackson: "the car just all but stopped just a moment." [Newcomb and
Adams 1974, p. 71]
Bob lied.
Mary Woodward (standing on the north side of Elm, a few yards east of the
Stemmons sign): "Instead of speeding up the car, the car came to a halt." [2H43
(Lane)]
Bob lied.
Bobby Hargis: "...and the Presidential car stopped almost immediately after
that." [6H 294 Newcomb & Adams, p.71]
Bob lied.
Alan Smith (according to a man claiming to be "Alan Smith", interviewed by Ian
Griggs in 1992, he was standing inside the northern pergola, close to the
Hesters): "The car was ten feet from me when a bullet hit the President in the
forehead... the car went about five feet and stopped." [The Chicago Tribune
(11/23/63), p. 9; Newcomb and Adams (1974), p. 71]
Bob lied.
Now, I've only listed eyewitnesses who both were "roughly adjacent" and who
*specifically* stated that the limo stopped.
Bob lied, and Bob has been ducking and running ever since I first pointed out
that the eyewitnesses DO NOT support his statement.
And while their may indeed be no question an honest man will evade, I'm clearly
not speaking to an "honest man".
************************************************************************
>> > That hypothesis would explain how this was achieved, without
>> leaving
>> > telltale jumps in the film, by the motorcycles and the followup car.
>>
>> Do you know anything about Optical Film Printing and/or Special
>> Effects Cinematography circa. 1963-64, Bob?
>
>Nope,
Then you're going to be hard-pressed to argue that alteration couldn't have been
done, when you don't even know the process...
But I have faith that your character will shine through, and you'll end up lying
to David just as you did to all the lurkers when you tried to claim that the
closest eyewitnesses "NEVER" asserted a limo stop.
aeffects
Ben,
I moved my response to a new thread with Bob Harris name in the thread
title.
Seems a few Lone Nutter's are coming to Bob's defense creating a bit
of diversion. I didn't help matters any.....
David Healy
On Mar 2, 11:01 am, Ben Holmes <ad...@khadaji.com> wrote:
> In article <reharris1-BB0D7C.16292802032...@earthlink.vsrv-sjc.supernews.net>,
> Robert Harris says...
>
>
>
>
>
> >In article
> ><6c78a1a8-c268-48d8-b594-651d16828...@d21g2000prf.googlegroups.com>,
aeffects
son, listen up real carefully... start a new thread well discuss ALL
the above AFTER your respond to: Can YOU positively ID Zapruder in
**ANY** film or photo taken in Dealey Plaza 11-22-63?
Even the Pope (Gary Mack) of Dealey Plaza can't do that.... we'll go
from there, eh!
Ben Holmes
aeffects says...
>
>Top Post
>
>Ben,
>
>I moved my response to a new thread with Bob Harris name in the thread
>title.
Bob's got some 'splaining to do. (I expect him to soon follow Tony and Martin's
example, and merely stop attempting to defend the extant Z-film against those of
us who can marshal the facts & evidence)
He simply can't get around the fact that one of his *OWN* cited eyewitnesses was
found in an early FBI report speaking of a limo stop.
Nor can he get around the simple fact that it *WAS* the closest eyewitnesses,
rather than merely those far away, who describe a limo stop. (Contradicting his
assertion...)
But even if you presume *only* a limo slowdown - IT'S NOT SEEN IN THE EXTANT
Z-FILM! And Bob has no explanation for that.
There are other things that eyewitnesses reported that are no longer seen in the
Z-film - but none with the impact of the limo slowdown/stop.
>Seems a few Lone Nutter's are coming to Bob's defense creating a bit
>of diversion. I didn't help matters any.....
Not LNT'ers... trolls. There's a difference.
LNT'ers don't dare come to Bob's defense... in fact, they're probably enjoying
this, since they were in the same boat that Bob is in right now - when Bob was
on the other side demonstrating a shot at Z-285.