Questions for DVP
Robert Harris
255, after at least two shots have been fired, we see so many smiling
faces, with no-one screaming or diving to the ground?
Why do we ONLY see such things after frame 285?
Why did none of the Secret Service agents pull out a gun until after frame
285?
Why did Clint Hill wait until after frame 285, to leap from the limo and
state that he did so in direct reaction to a gunshot?
Why did Bill Greer wait until just after 285, to slow the limo and spin
around so fast that some critics thought his turns were humanly
impossible?
Why did Greer say he felt the "concussion" of the second shot, as he was
turned to the rear? And how do you explain why he didn't turn to the rear
until well after 223??
Why did both Mrs. Kennedy and Mrs. Connally believe that their husbands
were hit by a shot that came after Gov Connally began to shout, but before
the explosive headwound?
And why did they both visibly react to that shot in perfect unison with
Zapruder's, Greer's and Kellerman's reactions?
Why did Kellerman duck and simultaneously shield his ear, at exactly the
same instant that the others reacted?
Why did Brehm, J. Hill and Mary Moorman all remember multiple shots,
beginning just as the limo passed in front of them?
Why did Greer say that the last shots were nearly simultaneous and
Kellerman say they were like a "flurry"?
Why did most witnesses recall that the final shots were closely bunched?
Why is it that not even one law enforcement professional recalled the
early shots being closer together than the final shots??
Why did Gov Connally not hear the shot that hit him? Why did no-one else
in the limo hear that shot either? (ask me to prove it)
Why did his wife only recall hearing ONE noise prior to him beginning to
shout?
Why did no-one in the limo recall more than one early shot and why did
they exhibit no startle reactions prior to frame 285?
And why DID they exhibit simultaneous startle reacts beginning a third of
a second AFTER 285?
Why did Dr. Luis Alvarez conclude that Zapruder and Greer were startled by
a loud noise at precisely frame 285?
Why did DMN reporter Mary Woodward recall two closely bunched shots as the
limo approached her, that she described as "ear shattering", David? How
could some shots be ear shattering while others were not heard at all??
And why did so many other witnesses state that the first noise they heard,
sounded much different than the ones at the end?
Robert Harris
The Dutchman
All rhetorical questions, all legitimate. But all constitute a relatively
small pool, in a sea of questions, whose number, though indeterminate, is
sufficiently enormous to support any species of fish, be they of LN or CT
variety.
David Von Pein
[GRAMMAR NOTE -- All of Robert Harris' needless commas have been
removed by DVP in the post below.]
>>> "David, why is it that in the Altgens photo, taken at the equivalent of [Zapruder Film frame #] 255, after at least two shots have been fired, we see so many smiling faces, with no-one screaming or diving to the ground?" <<<
Why would there necessarily have to be mass hysteria in Dealey Plaza
at that time (circa Z255)?
At that point in the James Altgens picture, it's only been 5.2 seconds
since Lee Harvey Oswald fired his first shot. Not exactly a long time,
right Robert? And two Secret Service agents are, indeed, reacting to
the sound of the gunfire by looking over their right shoulders.
But it's only been 1.7 seconds since anyone in the limousine was HIT
by a bullet, which is hardly enough time for people to start reacting
to the EFFECTS of the shots being fired (i.e., the wounding
of people in Dealey Plaza).
BTW, Bob, how can you determine if anyone is "screaming" or not via
the silent Altgens photograph? (Just curious.)
>>> "Why do we ONLY see such things after frame 285?" <<<
Because it was only after Z285 (and after Z313 actually) that the
spectators realized what was truly happening in the Plaza -- i.e.,
that the President was being shot at.
Duh!
>>> "Why did none of the Secret Service agents pull out a gun until after frame 285?" <<<
The Secret Service men reacted somewhat slowly, yes. No denying that
fact. But I don't really see how this inquiry bolsters your pet "Z285"
theory though.
>>> "Why did Clint Hill wait until after frame 285 to leap from the limo and state that he did so in direct reaction to a gunshot?" <<<
I'm sure his leaping from the running board of the SS car was, indeed,
"in direct reaction to a gunshot". Obviously Hill's running toward the
President's car was "in direct reaction to a gunshot", for Pete sake.
What ELSE would have been the reason for his dramatic action that day?
But to state categorically that Clint Hill was "reacting" to a
specific gunshot fired at precisely Z285 (as you theorize) is just
plain silly and impossible to pin down with spot-on accuracy (as is
the case with pretty much everything you purport with regard to your
totally-subjective analysis of the Zapruder Film and the witness
statements in relation to your pet Z285 theory).
Time for another one of these -- Duh!
>>> "Why did Bill Greer wait until just after 285 to slow the limo and spin around so fast that some critics thought his turns were humanly impossible?" <<<
Once more we're treated to Bob Harris' unique subjective look at
things. In Harris' world, everything seems to revolve around his
fictitious missed shot at exactly Z285 of the Zapruder Film.
In Bob's one-sided "Z285 world", there isn't even the slightest
possibility that what we're seeing in the Z-Film just after frame #285
could be the limousine's occupants behaving in ways that might NOT
indicate that they were each hearing a gunshot at precisely Z285.
In Bob's "Z285" world, the movements of Nellie Connally and Jacqueline
Kennedy couldn't POSSIBLY be the movements and actions of two women
who, just 3.33 seconds prior to Z285, heard a gunshot being fired from
Lee Oswald's gun on the sixth floor of the Book Depository....with
that single gunshot resulting in the husbands of both of those women
being wounded by the same bullet....with the two women then reacting
in a perfectly normal fashion by LEANING IN toward their respective
wounded spouses.
The above scenario is simply IMPOSSIBLE in the Z285 world of Robert
Harris.
Go figure.
>>> "Why did Greer say he felt the "concussion" of the second shot as he was turned to the rear? And how do you explain why he didn't turn to the rear until well after 223??" <<<
Once again, Mr. Harris is assigning ludicrous levels of ASSUMED AND
PRESUMED SPOT-ON ACCURACY to the statements of certain Dealey Plaza
witnesses.
We're only talking about a fraction more than THREE SECONDS IN REAL
TIME between the time of the actual second shot fired (by Oswald at
Z224) and Bob Harris' make-believe missed shot at Z285.
3.3 seconds, Bob!! That's all.
Anything you attribute to a missed shot at precisely Z285 can just as
easily be attributed to Oswald's real second shot at Z224. The
difference in real time is negligible.
But to Bob "Z285" Harris, 3.3 seconds is an amount of time that can be
dissected and sliced to absolute perfection in the minds and testimony
of EVERY SINGLE LIMO OCCUPANT.
Can you say "That's ridiculous"? I sure can when talking about this
silly "Z285" subject that Bob Harris loves so much.
>>> "Why did both Mrs. Kennedy and Mrs. Connally believe that their husbands were hit by a shot that came after Gov Connally began to shout, but before the explosive headwound?" <<<
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/msg/9871273b0f35f000
>>> "And why did they both visibly react to that shot in perfect unison with Zapruder's, Greer's and Kellerman's reactions?" <<<
Coincidence. And as I mentioned above, the coincidence is fully
explainable and understandable and reasonable in the case of Nellie's
and Jackie's in-unison head movements (which Harris thinks is
"ducking" from the sound of a gunshot, but it isn't).
>>> "Why did Kellerman duck and simultaneously shield his ear at exactly the same instant that the others reacted?" <<<
Your "shield his ear" comment is pure speculation. And Kellerman's
movements can easily be explained this way:
He was reaching for the radio microphone in front of him.
>>> "Why did Brehm, J. Hill and Mary Moorman all remember multiple shots, beginning just as the limo passed in front of them?" <<<
Maybe because there WERE multiple shots being fired at just about that
time. Oswald fired two shots after Z160 (at Z224 and Z313), and all
three of those witnesses were pretty close to the limo during that
Z224-Z313 timespan.
>>> "Why did Greer say that the last shots were nearly simultaneous and Kellerman say they were like a "flurry"?" <<<
Kellerman's "flurry of shells/shots coming into the car" testimony is
very easily explained:
He heard the effects of the head-shot bullet fragments striking the
windshield and the chrome molding very near his seated position in the
limousine. That is almost certainly the best explanation for Roy
Kellerman's "flurry" testimony.
BTW, how did bullet fragments from Lee Oswald's gun (CE567 and CE569)
get into the front seat area of the limo if, as you suggest, Lee
Oswald didn't actually HIT any victims (or the car's interior) with
any of his Mannlicher-Carcano bullets on November 22nd?
Were CE567/569 planted in the limo by evil cover-up agents after the
assassination, Bob?
>>> "Why did most witnesses recall that the final shots were closely bunched?" <<<
And there were several who didn't recall such a thing, as I discuss
here:
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/msg/a77dff325e995531
>>> "Why is it that not even one law enforcement professional recalled the early shots being closer together than the final shots??" <<<
What difference does it really make?
Oh, I know to a person who loves the idea of a JFK conspiracy (like
Robert Harris, for example) something like this makes a world of
difference.
But the answers to the important questions "HOW MANY SHOTS WERE
FIRED?" and "WHERE DID THE SHOTS COME FROM?" can be found by looking
at the BEST EVIDENCE in the case when it comes to trying to answer
those two inquiries.
And the following links (in tandem) contain that "Best Evidence", IMO:
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/images/shots3.jpg
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/images/shots4.jpg
>>> "Why did Gov Connally not hear the shot that hit him?" <<<
Simple: Because that shot ACTUALLY HIT HIM. And he was no doubt
physically struck by that bullet (CE399, of course) before the sound
of that shot reached his ears. I think you'll find that it is not
uncommon for a victim of a gunshot wound to not physically hear the
shot that wounded him.
Connally Addendum --
Keep in mind that the totality of John Connally's testimony perfectly
buttresses the single-assassin scenario and the Single-Bullet Theory
particularly (whether JBC himself believed in the SBT or not).
John Connally, in 1967, even went so far as to admit that the SBT was
certainly "possible" in his mind:
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/msg/741a872f58796bfe
>>> "Why did no-one else in the limo hear that shot either?" <<<
You're so entrenched in your belief of your made-up "Z285" missed shot
that you will never ever be able to see that your theory rests solely
on subjective and unprovable analysis of the Zapruder Film.
Of course people in the limo heard the shot that hit Governor
Connally....that was Shot #2 from Lee Oswald's gun at Z224. But you,
Bob Harris, have convinced yourself that those limo occupants were
talking about some OTHER shot (your make-believe Z285 shot, I guess).
But, yes, of course the limo witnesses heard the shot that hit John
Connally (except Mr. Connally himself, of course, as mentioned
earlier).
>>> "Why did his [John Connally's] wife only recall hearing ONE noise prior to him beginning to shout?" <<<
If you fine-tune your analysis any further, you'll probably be able to
convince yourself that Nellie Connally blinked her eyes exactly 17
times after hearing the first shot but before she heard her husband
shout "No, no, no".
>>> "Why did no-one in the limo recall more than one early shot and why did they exhibit no startle reactions prior to frame 285?" <<<
If they had been standing right next to Oswald in the Sniper's Nest,
perhaps they would have exhibited some "startle" reactions.
As a comparison here, do you think that every limo occupant should be
exhibiting "startle" reactions whenever one of the nearby motorcycles
backfired (which, by all accounts, is something that happened
frequently during Presidential motorcades)?
Food for thought.
>>> "And why DID they exhibit simultaneous startle reacts beginning a third of a second AFTER 285?" <<<
They didn't. That's only your singularly subjective look at things. I
doubt that one other person on the planet would evaluate the movements
of the limo occupants the exact same way that Robert "Z285" Harris has
done.
>>> "Why did Dr. Luis Alvarez conclude that Zapruder and Greer were startled by a loud noise at precisely frame 285?" <<<
I'll take this opportunity to quote the author of the JFK Bible:
"The CBS experiment [in 1967] proves that a gunshot will
normally cause a cameraman’s neuromuscular system to go into, as Dr.
[Luis] Alvarez put it, “a temporary spasm.”
"So the three gunshots that day [November 22, 1963] would have
almost assuredly caused a startled reaction in Zapruder and, hence, a
blur on his film. And we find blurs around Z160 (the first shot),
around Z220–228 (which clearly coincides with Kennedy’s and Connally’s
reactions to the second shot), and Z313 (the third shot).
"The demonstrable defect in blur or jiggle analysis is that
although a gunshot will produce a blur (and hence, the absence of a
blur is very strong circumstantial evidence of the absence of a
gunshot), a blur obviously does not necessarily have to be caused by a
gunshot.
"Any number of other things--a cough, an unintentional nudge
(Zapruder’s secretary was right next to him), a gust of wind, movement
of Zapruder’s feet, even his efforts to keep an object in frame--could
also cause a blur.
"Zapruder himself testified before the Warren Commission that
his images weren’t very clear for the simple reason that his camera
movements were magnified by the telephoto lens setting he was using.
“Did you ever have binoculars,” he asked, “and every time you move,
everything is exaggerated in the move? That’s one reason why they’re
kind of blurred, the movement” (7 H 572).
"Further, the emotional reaction of what one sees through the
viewfinder could also easily cause a startled reaction. Indeed,
Zapruder testified how he reacted to the sight of the impact of the
bullet on Kennedy’s head (“I started...yelling, ‘They’ve killed
him.’”) (7 H 571–572).
"This would explain the fact that Alvarez, Hartmann, and Scott
all detected blurs in the Zapruder film not only around the time of
the head shot at Z313, but also around Z330–334, a second later, when
he was fully absorbing the horrific sight of the president’s head
having exploded in front of him.
"In fact, though the overwhelming weight of the evidence shows
that only three shots were fired in Dealey Plaza, the two experts from
the HSCA photographic panel saw six blurs on the Zapruder film, the
weakest of which was around Z290–292, a time when there is no evidence
at all that a shot was fired (6 HSCA 30).
"Because of all of the above variables and imponderables, and
because there is no known way to distinguish a blur or jiggle caused
by an involuntary reaction from one caused by, for instance, a
voluntary pan/search movement, blur or jiggle analysis can never be
conclusive on the number or timing of the shots fired in Dealey Plaza
and should not be given great weight." -- Vincent Bugliosi; Pages
335-336 of "Reclaiming History: The Assassination Of President John F.
Kennedy" (Endnotes)(c.2007)
http://www.ReclaimingHistory.blogspot.com
>>> "Why did DMN reporter Mary Woodward recall two closely bunched shots as the limo approached her, that she described as "ear shattering", David? How could some shots be ear shattering while others were not heard at all??" <<<
Possibly due to Oswald's first (missed) shot at Z160 being something
akin to a misfire (but not a complete misfire, since the bullet
certainly was fired from the gun, as indicated by the number of shells
[3] found on the floor in the Sniper's Nest).
That first shot could have had a different (and quieter) sound to it.
In fact, many/most witnesses reported that the first sound they heard
sounded more like a firecracker than it did a rifle shot.
>>> "And why did so many other witnesses state that the first noise they heard sounded much different than the ones at the end?" <<<
See my last comment.
In the final analysis, we're left with these things:
1.) THREE shells being found in the TSBD Sniper's Nest.
2.) Lee Oswald's rifle (with his prints on it) being found on the same
floor as the shells.
3.) Bullet fragments CE567 and CE569 (fired conclusively from Oswald's
rifle) being found in the limousine.
4.) Bullet CE399 being determined by both the Warren Commission and
the HSCA to be the bullet that injured both Kennedy and Connally in
Dealey Plaza (like it or not).
5.) And this previously-linked witness statistic:
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/images/shots3.jpg
When looking at the above list (plus many other items of physical and
circumstantial evidence that I didn't mention), you don't have to be
an A+ student in mathematics to figure out the most-reasonable and
most-likely answer to the basic questions concerning the assassination
of John F. Kennedy.
But, for some odd reason, the obvious answers to those questions keep
eluding conspiracy theorists the world over.
~shrug~
David Von Pein
December 1, 2009
http://www.Oswald-Is-Guilty.blogspot.com
http://www.DavidVonPein.blogspot.com
Gil Jesus
> [GRAMMAR NOTE -- All of Robert Harris' needless commas have been
> removed by DVP in the post below.]
ROFLMAO ........what an asshole.
mucher1
What has Bob Harris done to deserve such a disparaging remark from
you, Gil?
PS: Remember to give yourself a good flogging tonight, you Christian
hypocrite!
Robert Harris
<d6cf948b-fcd4-4be3...@g12g2000yqa.googlegroups.com>,
David Von Pein <davev...@aol.com> wrote:
> [GRAMMAR NOTE -- All of Robert Harris' needless commas have been
> removed by DVP in the post below.]
>
> >>> "David, why is it that in the Altgens photo, taken at the equivalent of
> >>> [Zapruder Film frame #] 255, after at least two shots have been fired, we
> >>> see so many smiling faces, with no-one screaming or diving to the
> >>> ground?" <<<
>
> Why would there necessarily have to be mass hysteria in Dealey Plaza
> at that time (circa Z255)?
>
> At that point in the James Altgens picture, it's been only 5.2 seconds
> since Lee Harvey Oswald fired his first shot. Not exactly a long time,
> right Robert? And two Secret Service agents are, indeed, reacting to
> the sound of the gunfire by looking over their right shoulders.
David, if Oswald had fired those shots, agents in the followup car would
have been exposed to a 130 decibel shock wave and a muzzle blast of
about 125 decibels.
The muzzle blast alone was at the level you would hear, standing four
feet from a pneumatic riveter.
Before we continue, would you arrange to listen to sound levels in that
range, and then report back to the newsgroup?
You won't be able to do it on your stereo unless the speakers are bigger
than you are, but perhaps there is a construction project going on
somewhere near you where you can listen to the riveter.
Dealey Plaza is a pretty small place David. If someone went there on a
busy day, say on the anniversary and fired high powered rifle shots down
in to the crowd, do you REALLY think everyone would stand around
smiling??
Do you think the cops would look around thinking, "oh gosh, what was
that??"
You need to get a grip on reality, David. You want so desperately to
deny a conspiracy that you have made this thing your religion. You've
lost all traces of objectivity. When you seal your mind, David, you
cripple yourself.
Robert Harris
>
> But it's only been 1.7 seconds since anyone in the limousine was HIT
> by a bullet, which is hardly enough to time for people to start
> reacting to the EFFECTS of the shots being fired (i.e., the wounding
> of people in Dealey Plaza).
>
> BTW, Bob, how can you determine if anyone is "screaming" or not, via
> the silent Altgens photograph? (Just curious.)
>
>
> >>> "Why do we ONLY see such things after frame 285?" <<<
>
> Because it was only after Z285 (and after Z313 actually) that the
> spectators realized what was truly happening in the Plaza -- i.e.,
> that the President was being shot at.
>
> Duh!
>
>
> >>> "Why did none of the Secret Service agents pull out a gun until after
> >>> frame 285?" <<<
>
> The Secret Service men reacted somewhat slowly, yes. No denying that
> fact. But I don't really see how this inquiry bolsters your pet "Z285"
> theory though.
>
>
>
> >>> "Why did Clint Hill wait until after frame 285 to leap from the limo and
> >>> state that he did so in direct reaction to a gunshot?" <<<
>
> I'm sure his leaping from the running board of the SS car was, indeed,
> "in direct reaction to a gunshot". Obviously Hill's running toward the
> President's car was "in direct reaction to a gunshot", for Pete sake.
> What ELSE would have been the reason for his dramatic action that day?
>
> But to state categorically that Clint Hill was "reacting" to a
> specific gunshot fired at precisely Z285 (as you theorize) is just
> plain silly and impossible to pin down with spot-on accuracy (as is
> the case with pretty much everything you purport with regard to your
> totally-subjective analysis of the Zapruder Film and the witness
> statements in relation to your pet Z285 theory).
>
> Time for another one of these -- Duh!
>
>
>
> >>> "Why did Bill Greer wait until just after 285 to slow the limo and spin
> >>> around so fast that some critics thought his turns were humanly
> >>> impossible?" <<<
>
>
> Once more we're treated to Bob Harris' unique subjective look at
> things. In Harris' world, everything seems to revolve around his
> fictitious missed shot at exactly Z285 of the Zapruder Film.
>
> In Bob's one-sided "Z285 world, there isn't even the slightest
> possibility that what we're seeing in the Z-Film just after frame #285
> could be the limousine's occupants behaving in ways that might NOT
> indicate their each hearing a gunshot at precisely Z285.
>
> In Bob's "Z285" world, the movements of Nellie Connally and Jacqueline
> Kennedy couldn't POSSIBLY be the movements and actions of two women
> who, just 3.33 seconds prior to Z285, heard a gunshot being fired from
> Lee Oswald's gun on the sixth floor of the Book Depository....with
> that single gunshot resulting in the husbands of both of those women
> being wounded by the same bullet....with the two women then reacting
> in a perfectly normal fashion by LEANING IN toward their respective
> wounded spouses.
>
> The above scenario is simply IMPOSSIBLE in the Z285 world of Robert
> Harris.
>
> Go figure.
>
>
> >>> "Why did Greer say he felt the "concussion" of the second shot, as he was
> >>> turned to the rear? And how do you explain why he didn't turn to the rear
> >>> until well after 223??" <<<
>
> Once again, Mr. Harris is assigning ludicrous levels of ASSUMED AND
> PRESUMED SPOT-ON ACCURACY to the statements of certain Dealey Plaza
> witnesses.
>
> We're only talking about a fraction more than THREE SECONDS IN REAL
> TIME between the time of the actual second shot fired (by Oswald at
> Z224) and Bob Harris' make-believe missed shot at Z285.
>
> 3.3 seconds, Bob!! That's all.
>
> Anything you attribute to a missed shot at precisely Z285 can just as
> easily be attributed to Oswald's real second shot at Z224. The
> difference in real time is negligible.
>
> But to Bob "Z285" Harris, 3.3 seconds is an amount of time that can be
> dissected and sliced to absolute perfection in the minds and testimony
> of EVERY SINGLE LIMO OCCUPANT.
>
> Can you say "That's ridiculous"? I sure can when talking about this
> silly "Z285" subject that Bob Harris loves so much.
>
>
>
> >>> "Why did both Mrs. Kennedy and Mrs. Connally believe that their husbands
> >>> were hit by a shot that came after Gov Connally began to shout, but
> >>> before the explosive headwound?" <<<
>
>
> http://groups.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/msg/9871273b0f35f000
>
>
>
> >>> "And why did they both visibly react to that shot in perfect unison with
> Zapruder's, Greer's and Kellerman's reactions?" <<<
>
>
> Coincidence. And as I mentioned above, the coincidence is fully
> explainable and understandable and reasonable in the case of Nellie's
> and Jackie's in-unison head movements (which Harris thinks is
> "ducking" from the sound of a gunshot, but it isn't).
>
>
> >>> "Why did Kellerman duck and simultaneously shield his ear at exactly the
> >>> same instant that the others reacted?" <<<
>
>
> Your "shield his ear" comment is pure speculation. And Kellerman's
> movements can easily be explained this way:
>
> He was reaching for the radio microphone in front of him.
>
>
> >>> "Why did Brehm, J. Hill and Mary Moorman all remember multiple shots,
> >>> beginning just as the limo passed in front of them?" <<<
>
> Maybe because there WERE multiple shots being fired at just about that
> time. Oswald fired two shots between Z224 and Z313, and all three of
> those witnesses were pretty close to the limo during that timespan.
>
>
>
> >>> "Why did Greer say that the last shots were nearly simultaneous and
> >>> Kellerman say they were like a "flurry"?" <<<
>
>
> Kellerman's "flurry of shells/shots coming into the car" testimony is
> very easily explained -- He heard the effects of the head-shot bullet
> fragments striking the windshield and the chrome molding very near his
> seated position in the limousine. That is almost certainly the best
> explanation for Roy Kellerman's "flurry" testimony.
>
> BTW, how did bullet fragments from Lee Oswald's gun (CE567 and CE569)
> get into the front seat area of the limo if, as you suggest, Lee
> Oswald didn't actually HIT any victims (or the car's interior) with
> any of his Mannlicher-Carcano bullets on November 22nd?
>
> Were CE567/569 planted in the limo by evil cover-up agents after the
> assassination, Bob?
>
>
> >>> "Why did most witnesses recall that the final shots were closely
> >>> bunched?" <<<
>
>
> And there were several who didn't recall such a thing, as I document
> here:
>
> http://groups.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/msg/a77dff325e995531
>
>
>
>
>
> >>> "Why is it that not even one law enforcement professional recalled the
> >>> early shots being closer together than the final shots??" <<<
>
> What difference does it really make?
>
> Oh, I know to a person who loves the idea of a JFK conspiracy (like
> Robert Harris, for example) something like this makes a world of
> difference. But the answers to the questions "HOW MANY SHOTS WERE
> FIRED?" and "WHERE DID THE SHOTS COME FROM?" can be found by looking
> at the BEST EVIDENCE in the case when it comes to trying to answer
> those two inquiries.
>
> And the following links (in tandem) contain that "Best Evidence", IMO:
>
> http://reclaiming-history.googlegroups.com/web/074a.+THREE+BULLET+SHELLS+FOUND
> +IN+TSBD+SNIPER%27S+NEST?gda=UPFKeWkAAADaPnAtlvPjxRWfhTgppBLhA_i0Gxqm3a_rn6Mkz
> ehCm-b4nxXGSepDGQKscLxMDR5-SFN4DNGB16sScKia7Zks-hEblyNrtl_F7CWyFgZ_lI5mdpvIvJW
> 3QPcvTrj7Q2aECKgQbmraGdxlZulaYnsh
>
>
> http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/images/shots3.jpg
>
> http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/images/shots4.jpg
>
>
>
>
> >>> "Why did Gov Connally not hear the shot that hit him?" <<<
>
>
> Simple: Because that shot ACTUALLY HIT HIM. And he was no doubt
> physically struck by that bullet (CE399, of course) before the sound
> of that shot reached his ears. I think you'll find that it is not
> uncommon for a victim of a gunshot wound to not physically hear the
> shot that wounded him.
>
> Connally Addendum -- Keep in mind that the totality of John Connally's
> testimony perfectly buttresses the single-assassin scenario and the
> Single-Bullet Theory particularly (whether JBC himself believed in the
> theory or not).
>
> John Connally, in 1967, even went so far as to admit that the SBT was
> certainly "possible" in his mind:
>
> http://groups.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/msg/741a872f58796bfe
>
>
>
> >>> "Why did no-one else in the limo hear that shot either? (ask me to prove
> >>> it)." <<<
>
>
> You're so entrenched in your belief of your made-up "Z285" missed shot
> that you will never ever be able to see that your theory rests solely
> on subjective and UNPROVABLE analysis of the Zapruder Film.
>
> Of course people in the limo heard the shot that hit Governor
> Connally....that was Shot #2 from Lee Oswald's gun at Z224. But you,
> Bob Harris, have convinced yourself that those limo occupants were
> talking about some OTHER shot (your make-believe Z285 shot, I guess).
>
> But, yes, of course the limo witnesses heard the shot that hit John
> Connally (except Mr. Connally himself, of course, as mentioned
> earlier).
>
>
> >>> "Why did his [John Connally's] wife only recall hearing ONE noise prior
> >>> to him beginning to shout?" <<<
>
>
> If you fine-tune your analysis any further, you'll probably be able to
> convince yourself that Nellie Connally blinked her eyes exactly 17
> times after hearing the first shot but before she heard her husband
> shout "No, no, no".
>
>
> >>> "Why did no-one in the limo recall more than one early shot and why did
> >>> they exhibit no startle reactions prior to frame 285?" <<<
>
>
> If they had been standing right next to Oswald in the Sniper's Nest,
> perhaps they would have exhibited some "startle" reactions.
>
> As a comparison here, do you think that every limo occupant should be
> exhibiting "startle" reactions whenever one of the nearby motorcycles
> backfires (which, by all accounts, is something that happened
> frequently during Presidential motorcades)?
>
>
> Food for thought, isn't it?
>
>
> >>> "And why DID they exhibit simultaneous startle reacts beginning a third
> >>> of a second AFTER 285?" <<<
>
>
> They didn't. That's only your singularly subjective look at things. I
> doubt that one other person on the planet would evaluate the movements
> of the limo occupants the exact same way that Robert "Z285" Harris has
> done.
>
>
> >>> "Why did Dr. Luis Alvarez conclude that Zapruder and Greer were startled
> >>> by a loud noise at precisely frame 285?" <<<
>
>
> Kennedy" (c.2007)
>
> http://www.ReclaimingHistory.blogspot.com
>
>
>
> >>> "Why did DMN reporter Mary Woodward recall two closely bunched shots as
> >>> the limo approached her, that she described as "ear shattering", David?
> >>> How could some shots be ear shattering while others were not heard at
> >>> all??" <<<
>
> Possibly due to Oswald's first (missed) shot at Z160 being something
> akin to a misfire (but not a complete misfire, since the bullet
> certainly was fired from the gun, as indicated by the number of shells
> [3] found on the floor in the Sniper's Nest).
>
> That first shot could have had a different (and not as loud) sound to
> it. In fact, many/most witnesses reported that the first sound they
> heard sounded more like a firecracker than it did a rifle shot.
>
>
>
> >>> "And why did so many other witnesses state that the first noise they
> >>> heard sounded much different than the ones at the end?" <<<
>
>
> See my last comment.
>
>
> In the final analysis, we're left with those THREE shells in the
> Sniper's Nest....plus Lee Oswald's rifle (with his prints on it) on
> the same floor as the shells....and CE567/569 in the limo....and CE399
> being determined by both the Warren Commission and the HSCA to be the
> bullet that injured both Kennedy and Connally in Dealey Plaza (like it
> or not)....and this previously-linked witness statistic:
>
> http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/images/shots3.jpg
>
>
> When looking at the above data (plus many other items of physical and
> circustantial evidence that I didn't mention), you don't have to be an
> A+ student in mathematics to figure out the most-reasonable and most-
> likely answer to the basic questions concerning the assassination of
> John F. Kennedy.
>
> But, for some odd reason, the obvious answers to those questions keep
> eluding conspiracy theorists the world over.
>
David Von Pein
>>> "You need to get a grip on reality, David. You want so desperately to deny a conspiracy that you have made this thing your religion. You've lost all traces of objectivity. When you seal your mind, David, you cripple yourself." <<<
Another pot/kettle moment from the e-lips of R. Harris.
BTW, what about CE567/569, Bob? Planted or legit? If legit, then those
two bullet fragments chip away at your theory quite a bit, don't they
Bob?
Or would you prefer to ignore those crucial bullet fragments that were
found in the limousine and came out of OSWALD'S 130-DECIBEL CARCANO
RIFLE?
David Von Pein
>>> "Dealey Plaza is a pretty small place David. If someone went there on a busy day, say on the anniversary and fired high powered rifle shots down in to the crowd, do you REALLY think everyone would stand around smiling??" <<<
Regardless of your opinions as to the source of all the gunshots,
SOMEBODY most certainly DID fire THREE shots from Lee Oswald's C2766
Mannlicher-Carcano rifle from the 6th Floor of the Depository during
the assassination of JFK on 11/22/63.
How do we know this for a fact?
CE510 (that's how):
Bud
> In article
> <d6cf948b-fcd4-4be3-be26-14ba50937...@g12g2000yqa.googlegroups.com>,
> David Von Pein <davevonp...@aol.com> wrote:
>
> > [GRAMMAR NOTE -- All of Robert Harris' needless commas have been
> > removed by DVP in the post below.]
>
> > >>> "David, why is it that in the Altgens photo, taken at the equivalent of
> > >>> [Zapruder Film frame #] 255, after at least two shots have been fired, we
> > >>> see so many smiling faces, with no-one screaming or diving to the
> > >>> ground?" <<<
>
> > Why would there necessarily have to be mass hysteria in Dealey Plaza
> > at that time (circa Z255)?
>
> > At that point in the James Altgens picture, it's been only 5.2 seconds
> > since Lee Harvey Oswald fired his first shot. Not exactly a long time,
> > right Robert? And two Secret Service agents are, indeed, reacting to
> > the sound of the gunfire by looking over their right shoulders.
>
> David, if Oswald had fired those shots, agents in the followup car would
> have been exposed to a 130 decibel shock wave and a muzzle blast of
> about 125 decibels.
>
> The muzzle blast alone was at the level you would hear, standing four
> feet from a pneumatic riveter.
So how do you explain witnesses not hearing them?
Your theory has the witnesses up by the TSBD missing some of these
loud shots, does it not?
> >http://reclaiming-history.googlegroups.com/web/074a.+THREE+BULLET+SHE...
> > normally cause a cameraman�s neuromuscular system to go into, as Dr.
> > [Luis] Alvarez put it, �a temporary spasm.�
>
> > "So the three gunshots that day [November 22, 1963] would have
> > almost assuredly caused a startled reaction in Zapruder and, hence, a
> > blur on his film. And we find blurs around Z160 (the first shot),
> > around Z220�228 (which clearly coincides with Kennedy�s and Connally�s
> > reactions to the second shot), and Z313 (the third shot).
>
> > "The demonstrable defect in blur or jiggle analysis is that
> > although a gunshot will produce a blur (and hence, the absence of a
> > blur is very strong circumstantial evidence of the absence of a
> > gunshot), a blur obviously does not necessarily have to be caused by a
> > gunshot.
>
> > "Any number of other things--a cough, an unintentional nudge
> > (Zapruder�s secretary was right next to him), a gust of wind, movement
> > of Zapruder�s feet, even his efforts to keep an object in frame--could
> > also cause a blur.
>
> > "Zapruder himself testified before the Warren Commission that
> > his images weren�t very clear for the simple reason that his camera
> > movements were magnified by the telephoto lens setting he was using.
> > �Did you ever have binoculars,� he asked, �and every time you move,
> > everything is exaggerated in the move? That�s one reason why they�re
> > kind of blurred, the movement� (7 H 572).
>
> > "Further, the emotional reaction of what one sees through the
> > viewfinder could also easily cause a startled reaction. Indeed,
> > Zapruder testified how he reacted to the sight of the impact of the
> > bullet on Kennedy�s head (�I started...yelling, �They�ve killed
> > him.��) (7 H 571�572).
>
> > "This would explain the fact that Alvarez, Hartmann, and Scott
> > all detected blurs in the Zapruder film not only around the time of
> > the head shot at Z313, but also around Z330�334, a second later, when
> > he was fully absorbing the horrific sight of the president�s head
> > having exploded in front of him.
>
> > "In fact, though the overwhelming weight of the evidence shows
> > that only three shots were fired in Dealey Plaza, the two experts from
> > the HSCA photographic panel saw six blurs on the Zapruder film, the
> > weakest of which was around Z290�292, a time when there is no evidence
Bud
> 255, after at least two shots have been fired, we see so many smiling
> faces, with no-one screaming or diving to the ground?
>
> Why do we ONLY see such things after frame 285?
>
> Why did none of the Secret Service agents pull out a gun until after frame
> 285?
>
> Why did Clint Hill wait until after frame 285, to leap from the limo and
> state that he did so in direct reaction to a gunshot?
>
> Why did Bill Greer wait until just after 285, to slow the limo and spin
> around so fast that some critics thought his turns were humanly
> impossible?
>
> Why did Greer say he felt the "concussion" of the second shot, as he was
> turned to the rear? And how do you explain why he didn't turn to the rear
> until well after 223??
>
> Why did both Mrs. Kennedy and Mrs. Connally believe that their husbands
> were hit by a shot that came after Gov Connally began to shout, but before
> the explosive headwound?
Jackie said she was looking to her left, heard Connolly saying "No,
no, no", and then turned and noticed her husband had been shot.
> And why did they both visibly react to that shot in perfect unison with
> Zapruder's, Greer's and Kellerman's reactions?
>
> Why did Kellerman duck and simultaneously shield his ear, at exactly the
> same instant that the others reacted?
>
> Why did Brehm, J. Hill and Mary Moorman all remember multiple shots,
> beginning just as the limo passed in front of them?
>
> Why did Greer say that the last shots were nearly simultaneous and
> Kellerman say they were like a "flurry"?
>
> Why did most witnesses recall that the final shots were closely bunched?
>
> Why is it that not even one law enforcement professional recalled the
> early shots being closer together than the final shots??
>
> Why did Gov Connally not hear the shot that hit him? Why did no-one else
> in the limo hear that shot either? (ask me to prove it)
>
> Why did his wife only recall hearing ONE noise prior to him beginning to
> shout?
She said the second shot she heard hit her husband.
Robert Harris
<b1fd5e92-3938-4873...@m35g2000vbi.googlegroups.com>,
The Dutchman <kks44...@gmail.com> wrote:
WTF are you talking about?
Robert Harris
Robert Harris
<664767e2-d5d6-407f...@h2g2000vbd.googlegroups.com>,
Bud <sirs...@fast.net> wrote:
http://www.jfkhistory.com/ALL/ALL.mov
Robert Harris
> > > normally cause a cameraman�s neuromuscular system to go into, as Dr.
> > > [Luis] Alvarez put it, �a temporary spasm.�
> >
> > > "So the three gunshots that day [November 22, 1963] would have
> > > almost assuredly caused a startled reaction in Zapruder and, hence, a
> > > blur on his film. And we find blurs around Z160 (the first shot),
> > > around Z220�228 (which clearly coincides with Kennedy�s and
> > > Connally�s
> > > reactions to the second shot), and Z313 (the third shot).
> >
> > > "The demonstrable defect in blur or jiggle analysis is that
> > > although a gunshot will produce a blur (and hence, the absence of a
> > > blur is very strong circumstantial evidence of the absence of a
> > > gunshot), a blur obviously does not necessarily have to be caused by a
> > > gunshot.
> >
> > > "Any number of other things--a cough, an unintentional nudge
> > > (Zapruder�s secretary was right next to him), a gust of wind, movement
> > > of Zapruder�s feet, even his efforts to keep an object in frame--could
> > > also cause a blur.
> >
> > > "Zapruder himself testified before the Warren Commission that
> > > his images weren�t very clear for the simple reason that his camera
> > > movements were magnified by the telephoto lens setting he was using.
> > > �Did you ever have binoculars,� he asked, �and every time you move,
> > > everything is exaggerated in the move? That�s one reason why they�re
> > > kind of blurred, the movement� (7 H 572).
> >
> > > "Further, the emotional reaction of what one sees through the
> > > viewfinder could also easily cause a startled reaction. Indeed,
> > > Zapruder testified how he reacted to the sight of the impact of the
> > > bullet on Kennedy�s head (�I started...yelling, �They�ve killed
> > > him.��) (7 H 571�572).
> >
> > > "This would explain the fact that Alvarez, Hartmann, and Scott
> > > all detected blurs in the Zapruder film not only around the time of
> > > the head shot at Z313, but also around Z330�334, a second later, when
> > > he was fully absorbing the horrific sight of the president�s head
> > > having exploded in front of him.
> >
> > > "In fact, though the overwhelming weight of the evidence shows
> > > that only three shots were fired in Dealey Plaza, the two experts from
> > > the HSCA photographic panel saw six blurs on the Zapruder film, the
> > > weakest of which was around Z290�292, a time when there is no evidence
Bud
Its a simple question, Harris, don`t hide behind your links.
Robert Harris
<2096b9ca-6aed-4499...@g26g2000yqe.googlegroups.com>,
David Von Pein <davev...@aol.com> wrote:
> [GRAMMAR NOTE -- All of Robert Harris' needless commas have been
> removed by DVP in the post below.]
>
> >>> "David, why is it that in the Altgens photo, taken at the equivalent
> [Zapruder Film frame #] 255, after at least two shots have been fired, we
> see so many smiling faces, with no-one screaming or diving to the ground?"
> <<<
>
> Why would there necessarily have to be mass hysteria in Dealey Plaza
> at that time (circa Z255)?
Because if Oswald had fired the early shots, they would have been
excrutiatingly loud David.
Now, I realize that you're trying to claim this is a subjective issue,
but the HSCA confirmed the sound levels that the limo passengers would
have been subjected to, and they were many times higher than the point
at which reactions become involuntary.
The limo passengers proved that, by reacting dramatically and in perfect
unison with one another following 285 and 312.
Those early shots SHOULD have been louder than the later ones, if they
had all come from Oswald.
>
> At that point in the James Altgens picture, it's been only 5.2 seconds
> since Lee Harvey Oswald fired his first shot.
Oswald could not have fired the early shots, David. The reactions to it
by the people close to JFK and in the followup car would have been
INVOLUNTARY.
They had no say in the matter, David, just as they had no say in whether
they reacted following 285 and 312.
> Not exactly a long time,
> right Robert?
By definition, startle reactions will begin within 1/3rd of a second
following the stimulus.
No-one fired a high powered rifle that day, prior to frame 285.
> And two Secret Service agents are, indeed, reacting to the
> sound of the gunfire by looking over their right shoulders.
They were undoubtedly reacting to gunfire, but they didn't know it at
the time. They heard some kind of a noise and suspected it was a
firecracker or a backfire. But as numerous witnesses confirmed, it
didn't sound at all like the rifle shots that were fired later.
>
> But it's only been 1.7 seconds since anyone in the limousine was HIT by a
> bullet, which is hardly enough to time for people to start reacting to the
> EFFECTS of the shots being fired (i.e., the wounding of people in Dealey
> Plaza).
Nonsense.
Look at a video of the Reagan attempt. People who were looking away from
the shooter, were on the ground, or ducking instantly.
You just don't seem to grasp the concept of how a 120-130 decibel noise
affects people, David. There have been quite a few studies on the
subject. Have you read some of those papers??
>
> BTW, Bob, how can you determine if anyone is "screaming" or not, via
> the silent Altgens photograph? (Just curious.)
NWR
>
>
> >>> "Why do we ONLY see such things after frame 285?" <<<
>
> Because it was only after Z285 (and after Z313 actually)
Why are you saying "after 313"??
Are you actually going to try to deny the reactions beginning at 291?
Do you think Alvarez was FOS?? What are your credentials, David? Won any
Nobel prizes lately?
Why do you think Greer slowed the limo?? Was he "in on it", or did he
just decide that if he slowed waaay down, it might confuse the
assassins??
Do you deny that Clint Hill jumped from the running board in direct
reaction to a gunshot??
Oh and btw, in his testimony, Hill told the WC that he thought JFK,
FIRST reacted to being hit, at the same time he jumped. How could he
have thought such a thing, David?
Even people like Larry Sturdevan have confirmed the simultaneous nature
of the reactions. Are you still in denial that they happened, exactly as
I claim they happened???
> that the
> spectators realized what was truly happening in the Plaza
"realized" is the wrong verb, David. These were INVOLUNTARY reactions.
There was no time to "realize" anything at that instant. You need to
understand that, if you ever hope to understand what happened during the
attack.
>-- i.e.,
> that the President was being shot at.
>
> Duh!
>
>
> >>> "Why did none of the Secret Service agents pull out a gun until after
> frame 285?" <<<
>
> The Secret Service men reacted somewhat slowly, yes.
Bullshit!
They reacted almost instantly, after hearing the first noise that really
sounded like a gunshot.
Read their own testimonies, David! Like numerous other witnesses, most
of them said the first noise was much different than the shots at the
end of the attack.
> No denying that fact.
> But I don't really see how this inquiry bolsters your pet "Z285" theory
> though.
It doesn't. I doubt that you can grasp this concept, but it is not my
agenda to "bolster" anything. My research is for the singular purpose of
finding out what happened that day. I form my conclusions from the
evidence and let the proverbial chips fall where they may.
The fact that the early shots came from a much different weapon than the
one used to fire the later shots, is ridiculously obvious. You can see
it in the reactions and lack of reactions by the bystanders and you can
read it in the statements of those same people.
>
>
>
> >>> "Why did Clint Hill wait until after frame 285 to leap from the limo
> and state that he did so in direct reaction to a gunshot?" <<<
>
> I'm sure his leaping from the running board of the SS car was, indeed, "in
> direct reaction to a gunshot". Obviously Hill's running toward the
> President's car was "in direct reaction to a gunshot", for Pete sake. What
> ELSE would have been the reason for his dramatic action that day?
Let me give you another clue here, David. Clint Hill said he was
"scanning" a small group in a grassy area to his left, who was watching
the motorcade pass, when he heard the shot that provoked him to jump.
These are his own words,
"On the left hand side was a grass area with a few people scattered
along it observing the motorcade passing, and I was visually scanning
these people when I heard a noise "
You can follow Hill pretty much continuously in the wide version of the
film. Do you EVER see him looking to his left??
No, Hill did not lie David. But he turned to his left AFTER he was out
of our view. And the ONLY group that matched his description was the one
that included Brehm, his kid, BL, J Hill and Moorman.
The only other two candidates was the large crowd on the corner, and the
two guys looking back to the rear.
JFK passed directly in front of Brehm at... oh what was that frame
number, David??
Clint Hill did not look to his left until after frame 255 David. Further
confirmation comes from the fact that half a second earlier than 255, we
see Hill in the Zfilm looking much further to his right, which means he
was in the process of turning at a fairly rapid pace, to his left.
Altgens was using a fast lense, to avoid blurring, so Hill appears
stationary in the photo, but he was not, David. He was turning to his
left and toward Brehm & co.
He had 30 frames to complete that turn David. He could easily have been
looking at Brehm in a third of that time.
How much more perfect does the timing need to be, David??
>
> But to state categorically that Clint Hill was "reacting" to a specific
> gunshot fired at precisely Z285 (as you theorize) is just plain silly and
> impossible to pin down with spot-on accuracy
Actually, thanks to Hill's very specific and detailed testimony, you are
wrong on that one too, David.
We CAN in fact, pin these things down. You just have to spend a bit more
time researching than you do attacking your adversaries.
> (as is the case with pretty
> much everything you purport with regard to your totally-subjective
> analysis of the Zapruder Film and the witness statements in relation to
> your pet Z285 theory).
I'm sorry you have to resort to personal insults David.
It really is a poor substitute for reason.
>
> Time for another one of these -- Duh!
>
>
>
> >>> "Why did Bill Greer wait until just after 285 to slow the limo and
> spin around so fast that some critics thought his turns were humanly
> impossible?" <<<
>
>
> Once more we're treated to Bob Harris' unique subjective look at things.
More ad hominem, eh David??
> In Harris' world, everything seems to revolve around his fictitious missed
> shot at exactly Z285 of the Zapruder Film.
And more ad hominem.
This is how we know David is in serious trouble:-)
>
> In Bob's one-sided "Z285 world, there isn't even the slightest possibility
> that what we're seeing in the Z-Film just after frame #285 could be the
> limousine's occupants behaving in ways that might NOT indicate their each
> hearing a gunshot at precisely Z285.
And more...
>
> In Bob's "Z285" world, the movements of Nellie Connally and Jacqueline
> Kennedy couldn't POSSIBLY be the movements and actions of two women who,
> just 3.33 seconds prior to Z285, heard a gunshot being fired from Lee
> Oswald's gun on the sixth floor of the Book Depository....with that single
> gunshot resulting in the husbands of both of those women being wounded by
> the same bullet....with the two women then reacting in a perfectly normal
> fashion by LEANING IN toward their respective wounded spouses.
>
> The above scenario is simply IMPOSSIBLE in the Z285 world of Robert
> Harris.
David, five people reacted, beginning within the same 1/6th of a second.
They could not have done that if they consciously tried to. It could
only have been a startle reaction, which was an involuntary response.
And we know when Mrs. Kennedy and Mrs. Connally heard the shot that they
mistakenly believed, hit their spouses.
Mrs. Connally was very specific that the shot was fired AFTER she looked
back and saw JFK wounded.
And Mrs. Kennedy stated that she heard that shot after Connally began to
shout and drew her attention to him. In the film, it is very easy to see
when he began to shout, and there is no dispute whatsoever, that he did
that, well AFTER 223.
>
> Go figure.
"Why did Bill Greer wait until just after 285 to slow the limo and
> spin around so fast that some critics thought his turns were humanly
> impossible?"
David, why are you evading that question?
Dr. Luis Alvarez determined that Greer was startled by a loud noise at
frame 285. Now this is a guy who not only won a Nobel prize, but he was
the youngest scientist on the Manhattan Project, invented numerous,
patented gizmos and in his spare time, figured out why the dinosaurs
went extinct.
And if he was wrong, then why DID Greer slow the limo, David??
David, do you remember that 130 decibel shock wave the HSCA measured??
Do you realize that it was not only loud as hell, but it generated a
considerable force that could blow out a candle or move a piece of
paper??
Do you think such a thing just might have startled Greer and caused him
to feel the "concussion" of the shot on his face?
>
>
> >>> "Why did Greer say he felt the "concussion" of the second shot, as he
> was turned to the rear? And how do you explain why he didn't turn to the
> rear until well after 223??" <<<
>
> Once again, Mr. Harris is assigning ludicrous levels of ASSUMED AND
> PRESUMED SPOT-ON ACCURACY to the statements of certain Dealey Plaza
> witnesses.
By "ludicrous levels", you mean I believed the witness, right David??
The problem is David, that we already know Greer was severely startled,
which is why he made the terrible mistake of slowing the limousine. That
is also why he spun around so quickly.
Back in the 90's, I was debating some of the more radical of the
conspiracy people who were claiming that Greer's turn really did suggest
that the film was altered.
So, the next day, I had some people at my computer business help me with
an experiment. They videtaped me, sitting in a chair and turning from
front to rear, and back again, as quickly as I could. Knowing that the
camcorder ran at 30 fps, it was quite easy see how long it took to make
those turns and compare them with Greer's.
I managed to match him, but just barely, and it took several tries. I
actually felt dizzy, when I was done.
Greer was spinning around VERY fast, David. And he began those turns at
EXACTLY the same instant that four other people began to react.
>
> We're only talking about a fraction more than THREE SECONDS IN REAL
> TIME between the time of the actual second shot fired (by Oswald at
> Z224) and Bob Harris' make-believe missed shot at Z285.
>
> 3.3 seconds, Bob!! That's all.
I have no idea what your point is.
>
> Anything you attribute to a missed shot at precisely Z285 can just as
> easily be attributed to Oswald's real second shot at Z224. The
> difference in real time is negligible.
Nonsense.
You need to understand the nature of startle reactions. Look at the
"what was that" reactions to the shot at 160, David. They are spread out
over more than a hundred frames. Jackie reacted to it first, at around
170 and Greer reacted at around 260.
But the reactions following 285 and 312 ALL began within 6 frames, or
1/3rd of a second.
That could NOT have happened at 224.
>
> But to Bob "Z285" Harris,
Hehe, we can always tell when you are going into ad hominem mode,
because you address me in the third person.
Do you REALLY think that is an effective tactic, David.
> 3.3 seconds is an amount of time that can be
> dissected and sliced to absolute perfection in the minds and testimony
> of EVERY SINGLE LIMO OCCUPANT.
Your statement makes no sense at all, David. I am not dissecting
anything. Science has resolved pretty much everything we need to know
about startle reactions.
I'm sorry you don't like it, but there is just no controversy about how
this stuff works.
>
> Can you say "That's ridiculous"? I sure can when talking about this
> silly "Z285" subject that Bob Harris loves so much.
More ad hominem...
>
>
>
> >>> "Why did both Mrs. Kennedy and Mrs. Connally believe that their
> husbands were hit by a shot that came after Gov Connally began to shout,
> but before the explosive headwound?" <<<
>
>
> http://groups.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/msg/9871273b0f35f000
Yes David, that was a fine rebuttal to the notion that Nellie refuted
the SBT. In fact, it sounds in places, quite similar to what I have been
saying for a very long time.
But you evade one very important question.
You don't tell us how Nellie heard the shot that she mistakenly believed
wounded the governor. And she was very specific, that she HEARD the
shot, David.
Nor do you address the fact that she began to turn toward her husband at
frame 291, which is exactly when four other people began to react, and
when Dr. Alvarez said Zapruder and Greer began to react.
Do you think that was just a coincidence, David?
>
>
>
> >>> "And why did they both visibly react to that shot in perfect unison
> with Zapruder's, Greer's and Kellerman's reactions?" <<<
>
>
> Coincidence. And as I mentioned above, the coincidence is fully
> explainable and understandable and reasonable in the case of Nellie's and
> Jackie's in-unison head movements (which Harris thinks is "ducking" from
> the sound of a gunshot, but it isn't).
LOL! I just love these absolute, SUBJECTIVE declarations.
Tell me something David, what are the odds that JUST Kellerman would be
riding along in the car and duck while he was twisting his head to the
right and raising his hand to shield his left ear.
Oh wait! I almost forgot. He stuck the radio in his ear so that he could
have a 1/6th of a second conversation. Isn't that your "explanation"
David:-)
And do you also have an explanation for why he recalled a "flurry of
shells" coming into the car then?
Hehe, I'll bet you do.
>
>
> >>> "Why did Kellerman duck and simultaneously shield his ear at exactly
> the same instant that the others reacted?" <<<
>
>
> Your "shield his ear" comment is pure speculation. And Kellerman's
> movements can easily be explained this way:
>
> He was reaching for the radio microphone in front of him.
And why exactly, did he stick a microphone in his ear, David?
And why did he need to twist his head to the right as he was ducking?
>
>
> >>> "Why did Brehm, J. Hill and Mary Moorman all remember multiple shots,
> beginning just as the limo passed in front of them?" <<<
>
> Maybe because there WERE multiple shots being fired at just about that
> time. Oswald fired two shots between Z224 and Z313, and all three of those
> witnesses were pretty close to the limo during that timespan.
Brehm told the FBI that the limo travelled "10-12 feet" as three shots
were fired - the last of which was after the fatal headshot.
And why did he say that JFK was "15-20 feet" from him when the first of
those shots were fired?
By my measurements, JFK was 18 feet from him at frame 285.
What do you get David?
>
>
>
> >>> "Why did Greer say that the last shots were nearly simultaneous and
> Kellerman say they were like a "flurry"?" <<<
>
>
> Kellerman's "flurry of shells/shots coming into the car" testimony is very
> easily explained -- He heard the effects of the head-shot bullet fragments
> striking the windshield and the chrome molding very near his seated
> position in the limousine. That is almost certainly the best explanation
> for Roy Kellerman's "flurry" testimony.
Really?
"Let me give you an illustration, sir, before I can give you an answer.
You have heard the sound barrier, of a plane breaking the sound barrier,
bang, bang? That is it. "
David, you seem to have forgotten that two of those shots at the end of
the attack, were extremely loud. Obviously, Kellerman did not.
>
> BTW, how did bullet fragments from Lee Oswald's gun (CE567 and CE569)
> get into the front seat area of the limo if, as you suggest, Lee
> Oswald didn't actually HIT any victims (or the car's interior) with
> any of his Mannlicher-Carcano bullets on November 22nd?
>
> Were CE567/569 planted in the limo by evil cover-up agents after the
> assassination, Bob?
Oswald may have fired the shot at 312, David. And I used to state that
he probably did, for precisely that reason. But over the years I have
learned that there were indeed, "evil cover-up agents" in the FBI.
The worst of them was J. Edgar Hoover, who clearly stated that his
agenda was to "convince the public" that Oswald acted alone.
So each of us has to decide whether we trust the FBI to have passed the
correct fragments on to the National Archives, or whether they treated
that evidence like they did CE399.
I also don't like the fact that according to Guinn, they deep sixed the
original fragments that they claimed to have tested and were supposed to
have passed along to the archives, giving Guinn no opportunity to verify
their results.
Interested lurkers should look at this video to see exactly how
trustworthy the FBI was and how they dealt with evidence of conspiracy:
There is also a version at Youtube.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HKwqhf0MYio
>
>
> >>> "Why did most witnesses recall that the final shots were closely
> bunched?" <<<
>
>
> And there were several who didn't recall such a thing, as I document
> here:
>
> http://groups.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/msg/a77dff325e995531
Of course there were some who did not. But you haven't answered the
question.
>
>
>
>
>
> >>> "Why is it that not even one law enforcement professional recalled the
> early shots being closer together than the final shots??" <<<
>
> What difference does it really make?
It makes a great deal of difference David, because these were people who
were trained to be alert and were assigned to keep an eye out for
trouble. In ANY crime, it is presumed that police officers are much
better witnesses than the average person, who is chatting with his or
her friends and has no obligation to be alert.
The fact that NONE of them corroborate the shooting scenario that is
required to make your theory fly, is enormously important David. It is
just one more corroboration on top of numerous others.
Hehe, since David has no rebuttal, I smell another ad hominem coming:-)
>
> Oh, I know to a person who loves the idea of a JFK conspiracy (like Robert
> Harris, for example) something like this makes a world of difference. But
> the answers to the questions "HOW MANY SHOTS WERE FIRED?" and "WHERE DID
> THE SHOTS COME FROM?" can be found by looking at the BEST EVIDENCE in the
> case when it comes to trying to answer those two inquiries.
David, I am not disputing any of that evidence. There is no doubt at all
that some of the shots were audible and recognized by the witnesses, and
that most of them perceived three shots.
But we BOTH agree that only one early shot was heard by most people that
day, do we not?? And we know that if that shot was fired by Oswald, it
would have been enormously loud and would have provoked involuntary
startle reactions among at least, the people in the limo.
Obviously, if only one of the early shots was heard, then there has to
be a DIFFERENT explanation for how people heard the other two.
Can you understand that David?
So, the fact that most people only heard three of the shots, does NOT
support your theory. In fact, it tells us that there was at least FOUR
shots, counting the one (actually two) that no-one perceived.
Think about it David.
>
> And the following links (in tandem) contain that "Best Evidence", IMO:
>
> http://reclaiming-history.googlegroups.com/web/074a.+THREE+BULLET+SHELLS+FOUND
> +IN+TSBD+SNIPER%27S+NEST?gda=UPFKeWkAAADaPnAtlvPjxRWfhTgppBLhA_i0Gxqm3a_rn6Mkz
> ehCm-b4nxXGSepDGQKscLxMDR5-SFN4DNGB16sScKia7Zks-hEblyNrtl_F7CWyFgZ_lI5mdpvIvJW
> 3QPcvTrj7Q2aECKgQbmraGdxlZulaYnsh
>
>
> http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/images/shots3.jpg
>
> http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/images/shots4.jpg
>
>
>
>
> >>> "Why did Gov Connally not hear the shot that hit him?" <<<
>
>
> Simple: Because that shot ACTUALLY HIT HIM. And he was no doubt physically
> struck by that bullet (CE399, of course) before the sound of that shot
> reached his ears. I think you'll find that it is not uncommon for a victim
> of a gunshot wound to not physically hear the shot that wounded him.
It is more than "uncommon" David. You will not find even a single case
in which a shooting victim who did not lose consciousness, failed to
hear the otherwise audible shot that wounded him.
Now, that is not including military people who were hearing numerous
shots at the time, or a shot from a sniper a mile away.
David, can you grasp the concept that CONNALLY DID NOT HEAR THAT SHOT
FOR THE SAME REASON THAT MOST WITNESSES HEARD ONLY ONE EARLY SHOT???
Jackie, Nellie, Kellerman, and Greer ALL described a sequence of events
which included ONE shot and then a post-223 event, and then two more at
the end.
>
> Connally Addendum -- Keep in mind that the totality of John Connally's
> testimony perfectly buttresses the single-assassin scenario
Utter nonsense.
If that were true, he would certainly have heard the shot that hit him.
And so would everyone else in that limo, and throughout DP.
And there is absolutely nothing he said, that uniquely supports the SA
theory.
> and the
> Single-Bullet Theory particularly (whether JBC himself believed in the
> theory or not).
Well, his statements certainly don't prove the SBT but they are
consistent with the notion that one bullet passed through both victims.
>
> John Connally, in 1967, even went so far as to admit that the SBT was
> certainly "possible" in his mind:
>
> http://groups.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/msg/741a872f58796bfe
>
>
>
> >>> "Why did no-one else in the limo hear that shot either? (ask me to
> prove it)." <<<
>
>
> You're so entrenched in your belief of your made-up "Z285" missed shot
> that you will never ever be able to see that your theory rests solely on
> subjective and UNPROVABLE analysis of the Zapruder Film.
David, why do you waste all this time on insults and ad hominem attacks?
I am not a conspiracy nut. My research has contradicted at least as much
and probably more of the traditional JFK conspiracy theories than it has
your theory. I'm sorry but it just turned out that the conclusion didn't
go your way.
But there is not a single conspiracy belief I hold that is not in the
mainstream, David. I am a skeptic, an atheist and my heroes are men like
Dawkins and Carl Sagan.
Speaking of skeptics, did you know that Snopes once spent time in
alt.conspiracy.jfk?
I could be wrong, but I *think* I was the one who convinced him to at
least remain an agnostic on the JFK issue, after I convinced him to look
at the reactions:-)
>
> Of course people in the limo heard the shot that hit Governor
> Connally....that was Shot #2 from Lee Oswald's gun at Z224. But you, Bob
> Harris, have convinced yourself that those limo occupants were talking
> about some OTHER shot (your make-believe Z285 shot, I guess).
Then why did Mrs. Connally ONLY recall one shot prior to seeing JFK in
distress, David?
And why did Mrs. Kennedy ONLY hear one vague noise, prior to being
distracted by JBC's shouting??
And why did Greer hear ONLY one shot prior to turning to the rear, when
he heard the second?
And why did Kellerman recall hearing a noise, then turning to his right
and then to his left, before hearing that flurry of "at least" two shots?
It's easy to see in the film, the sequence of events that those people
reported, and every one of them were spot on, David.
Every one of them, including Gov Connally, heard just one of the early
shots. You can take that to the bank.
>
> But, yes, of course the limo witnesses heard the shot that hit John
> Connally (except Mr. Connally himself, of course, as mentioned earlier).
David, that's not what THEY said.
And their reactions fully corroborate their statements.
>
>
> >>> "Why did his [John Connally's] wife only recall hearing ONE noise
> prior to him beginning to shout?" <<<
>
>
> If you fine-tune your analysis any further, you'll probably be able to
> convince yourself that Nellie Connally blinked her eyes exactly 17
> times after hearing the first shot but before she heard her husband
> shout "No, no, no".
I'm sorry you choose to evade the question, David.
But you know very well, that Nellie only heard one shot prior to seeing
JFK wounded and hearing her husband begin to shout.
She heard the shot at 160 but she didn't hear the one at 223, David.
Neither did anyone else.
>
>
> >>> "Why did no-one in the limo recall more than one early shot and why
> did they exhibit no startle reactions prior to frame 285?" <<<
>
>
> If they had been standing right next to Oswald in the Sniper's Nest,
> perhaps they would have exhibited some "startle" reactions.
Oswald could not have fired any of the early shots David. I have proven
that to you in spades.
>
> As a comparison here, do you think that every limo occupant should be
> exhibiting "startle" reactions whenever one of the nearby motorcycles
> backfires (which, by all accounts, is something that happened frequently
> during Presidential motorcades)?
Motorcycle backfires are not nearly as loud as rifle shots, David.
The HSCA brought in three motorcycles during their tests in DP and they
were totally drowned out by the shots.
>
>
> Food for thought, isn't it?
>
>
> >>> "And why DID they exhibit simultaneous startle reacts beginning a
> third of a second AFTER 285?" <<<
>
>
> They didn't. That's only your singularly subjective look at things. I
> doubt that one other person on the planet would evaluate the movements of
> the limo occupants the exact same way that Robert "Z285" Harris has done.
Interesting:-)
I wonder why after over 43 thousand views, I have almost unanimous five
star ratings on my Z285 video.
And why I got a full endorsement from Dr. Michael Stroscio, who holds a
phd in physics and has chaired Presidential Science commissions:-)
I'm sorry to burst your bubble, David. I realize that ad hominem insults
are pretty much all you have left.
>
>
> >>> "Why did Dr. Luis Alvarez conclude that Zapruder and Greer were
> startled by a loud noise at precisely frame 285?" <<<
>
>
> I'll take this opportunity to quote the author of the JFK Bible:
LOL!!
No, David. Cite Alvarez, not someone who can barely spell Physics, let
alone understand it.
Alvarez described a SERIES of reactions, following gunshots in app. 6
frame intervals. Look at your Zfilm and you will see exactly THREE
blurrings at 318, 324 and 331.
You see the same thing following 285, although they are not as strong.
Look at 290-291, 296, and 302.
But you're missing your big chance to ridicule me, David. Think about
it. If the early shots were inaudible or nearly inaudible, then how
could Alvarez have concluded that Zapruder was startled by shots prior
to 285??
In fact, you can also take a potshot at him too, because we know today,
that the early shots were almost certainly, not fired when he thought
they were.
Damn! Here's your chance to out me, AND Alvarez. If that doesn't give
you a wet dream David, then nothing will!
Robert Harris
Robert Harris
<d30cb2ca-7918-44e5...@z7g2000vbl.googlegroups.com>,
Bud <sirs...@fast.net> wrote:
That is correct, Bud.
When do you think she heard that second shot?
Robert Harris
Gil Jesus
> In article
> <b1fd5e92-3938-4873-9216-bbf834462...@m35g2000vbi.googlegroups.com>,
> �The Dutchman <kks44910...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > All rhetorical questions, all legitimate. But all constitute a relatively
> > small pool, in a sea of questions, whose number, though indeterminate, is
> > sufficiently enormous to support any species of fish, be they of LN or CT
> > variety.
>
> WTF are you talking about?
>
FYI: "The Dutchman" is "Bud".
Bud
You are one crackerjack detective, Gil.
mucher1
You never were known for your detective skills, "Gil". No wonder you
were kicked off the police force...
The Dutchman
> In article
> <b1fd5e92-3938-4873-9216-bbf834462...@m35g2000vbi.googlegroups.com>,
Sorry. Got carried away with a fish metaphor. I just meant, that with all
the bits of information surrounding the assassination that have been
gleaned through 45 years of virtually 24/7 research, done by hundreds, if
not thousands of researchers, professional or otherwise-- with all this
info, one can accumulate what seems to be a tremendous weight of of
evidence for a particular viewpoint. But compared to all the weight of the
evidence applicable to that viewpoint, it would be tiny.
Robert Harris
<4be1bdab-99e3-4a45...@e20g2000vbb.googlegroups.com>,
Bud <sirs...@fast.net> wrote:
David, your question proved that you are clueless about what is being
discussed here. The early shots were NOT loud at all.
If you are too lazy to watch the video, then that's fine, but I am not
going to reply or waste my time trying to explain it all to you.
Furthermore, you need to post in the moderated group, since you always
resort to ad hominem attacks when you've had your ass kicked.
Robert Harris
Bud
> In article
> <d30cb2ca-7918-44e5-babc-b8fd149a8...@z7g2000vbl.googlegroups.com>,
She said she turned and saw Kennedy with his hands up at his neck. When
does that occur, Harris?
Seems that neither woman was looking at their husbands at z-224. Jackie
is looking to her left, hears Connally saying "no, no, no", turns and
notices her husband`s distress. Mrs Connally turned and was looking at
Kennedy with his arms up to his neck, then heard her husband s saying "No,
no, no." John Connally said he said "no, no, no" when he was hit. All this
has to be at z-224 and shortly after.
> Robert Harris
Robert Harris
<1f8f4120-7c6b-445f...@m26g2000yqb.googlegroups.com>,
The Dutchman <kks44...@gmail.com> wrote:
I don't agree at all. Why would anyone try to read a thousand books, in
order to resolve this crime?
Why not instead, just look at the crime and then ask the right questions?
Why did the limo passengers react as they did?
Why did the President react as he did, at various times during the
attack?
Why didn't people hear some of the shots? Why did other shots have them
jumping out of their skins?
What amazed me back in 95 when I started this was, how ridiculously
obvious some of this stuff was. And it all points to the same
conclusion.
The video I posted simply shows us what happened. And that's why some of
these people are going nuts. They have no rebuttal and no excuses.
Robert Harris
jas
>
> read more »
I have one word for your Z 285 shot theory:
BUNK.
If you're so sure of it, take it to the DOJ and report back on this
forum what they say.
Other than that, you're touting something that is nothing but a
figment of your imagination, and no one's buying it.
David Von Pein
>>> "You [Robert Harris] are touting something that is nothing but a figment of your imagination, and no one's buying it." <<<
Indeed.
Bob Harris is one of those conspiracy promoters who seems to think
that the evidence that POSITIVELY EXISTS (e.g., the THREE bullet
shells in the Sniper's Nest and bullet fragments CE567/569) is
evidence that is far LESS reliable and valid than the evidence that
DOES NOT exist at all (e.g., ANY credible signs at all that THREE
silenced shots were fired from the Dal-Tex Building plus a shot from a
sewer on Elm St., as Robert Harris purports as the absolute truth).
But we must always remember that Harris (according to Harris) knows
WAY MORE than those bums who were part of the WC, HSCA, Clark, and
Rockefeller panels.
Harris also doesn't even seem to realize that his theory about JFK's
head-wound locations is not at all in-sync with the Parkland
witnesses. Harris seems to think that his "TOP OF THE HEAD WAS DAMAGED
AND HINGED" theory corroborates and buttresses all of the Parkland
witnesses, even though those witnesses said that the FAR-RIGHT-REAR of
Kennedy's head was blown open, not the VERY TOP of his head.
Somehow, to Harris, the TOP equals the RIGHT-REAR-OCCIPITAL. Most
curious.
Harris also thinks he's an expert on the precise angles in Dealey
Plaza, such as his exacting "2 degrees" declaration with respect to
his make-believe Dal-Tex shooter. Apparently Harris has gone to Dealey
Plaza and used surveyor's equipment to officially measure the angles
from the third floor of the Dal-Tex to the location of JFK's car at
certain Z-Film frames. Otherwise, how does Harris know these precise
angles?
He might be able to get somewhat close by guessing at the angles, but
as far as total precision, I'm a bit dubious about anything Mr. Harris
has to say about anything in this murder case (to say the least).
And Bob's silliness regarding the "decibel" levels of Lee Oswald's
Carcano is simply hilarious. Harris thinks he has "PROVEN" that
Oswald's rifle could not possibly have been fired prior to Z255 or
Z285, because the crowd on the street would have been "jumping out of
their skins" if any shots had been fired from Rifle C2766 prior to the
Altgens picture being taken (even though that gun was located 6
stories above everybody in the Plaza, vs. being located right next to
the ears of any of the witnesses on the street).
LOL.
In short -- Robert Harris is extremely full of himself. And he is full
of totally-subjective theories that can never be proven.
Moreover, Harris' theories do not (in any way at all) undermine the
credibility of the "Oswald Shot Kennedy" conclusion reached by the
Warren Commission in 1964 and re-confirmed by the HSCA in 1978.
That's the way it goes when a person decides to "solve" the case based
on nothing but his own vivid subjective imagination (and Vincent
Palamara's recent declaration that "The Secret Service killed Kennedy"
is another good example of this).
When a person engages in that type of imaginative exercise, there is
always plenty of ammunition for an LNer like myself to fight back with
-- especially when such ammunition is the very same ammunition (and
cartridge cases) that came out of a Mannlicher-Carcano rifle that a
person named Bob Harris insists could not possibly have fired ANY
shots that struck either JFK, Governor Connally, or the limousine on
November 22, 1963.
Robert Harris
<3f0b36ee-3403-43a9...@v25g2000yqk.googlegroups.com>,
Bud <sirs...@fast.net> wrote:
Bud, are you really the Dutchman?
Robert Harris
David Von Pein
>>> "Oswald could not have fired any of the early shots David. I have proven that to you in spades." <<<
LOL.
Bob doesn't like those pesky little ballistics details I mentioned
earlier, such as those THREE shells FROM OSWALD'S GUN in the Sniper's
Nest and those two large fragments FROM OSWALD'S GUN in the limo.
But let's just ignore those shells and fragments FROM OSWALD'S GUN,
right Bob?
Robert Harris
It must be very frustrating for you to be totally unable to refute
this.
But there's a reason why you can't do it. This not a conjectural
theory. This is what really happened.
Robert Harris
Bud
>
>
>
> Bud <sirsl...@fast.net> wrote:
> > On Dec 1, 6:20 pm, Gil Jesus <gjjm...@aol.com> wrote:
> > > On Dec 1, 1:39 pm, Robert Harris <reharr...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > > > In article
> > > > <b1fd5e92-3938-4873-9216-bbf834462...@m35g2000vbi.googlegroups.com>,
> > > > The Dutchman <kks44910...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > > All rhetorical questions, all legitimate. But all constitute a
> > > > > relatively
> > > > > small pool, in a sea of questions, whose number, though indeterminate,
> > > > > is
> > > > > sufficiently enormous to support any species of fish, be they of LN or
> > > > > CT
> > > > > variety.
>
> > > > WTF are you talking about?
>
> > > > Robert Harris-
>
> > > FYI: "The Dutchman" is "Bud".
>
> > You are one crackerjack detective, Gil.
>
> Bud, are you really the Dutchman?
Consider the source, Harris. Gil thinks Kennedy was coughing up a
bullet.
> Robert Harris
Robert Harris
<c2d098b2-3ce5-404e...@31g2000vbf.googlegroups.com>,
Bud <sirs...@fast.net> wrote:
Are you the Dutchman, Bud?
Robert Harris
Robert Harris
Anthony Marsh <anthon...@comcast.net> wrote:
> On 12/1/2009 6:07 PM, Robert Harris wrote:
> > In article
> > <2096b9ca-6aed-4499...@g26g2000yqe.googlegroups.com>,
> > David Von Pein<davev...@aol.com> wrote:
> >
> >> [GRAMMAR NOTE -- All of Robert Harris' needless commas have been
> >> removed by DVP in the post below.]
> >>
> >>>>> "David, why is it that in the Altgens photo, taken at the equivalent
> >> [Zapruder Film frame #] 255, after at least two shots have been fired, we
> >> see so many smiling faces, with no-one screaming or diving to the ground?"
> >> <<<
> >>
> >> Why would there necessarily have to be mass hysteria in Dealey Plaza
> >> at that time (circa Z255)?
> >
> > Because if Oswald had fired the early shots, they would have been
> > excrutiatingly loud David.
> >
>
> And SO WHAT?
> You can't tell people what they MUST do.
I believe I can Tony. They don't have to do it, but I can certainly tell
them to.
>
> > Now, I realize that you're trying to claim this is a subjective issue,
> > but the HSCA confirmed the sound levels that the limo passengers would
> > have been subjected to, and they were many times higher than the point
> > at which reactions become involuntary.
> >
>
> So what?
Well um, I was just thinking that if the shots were loud enough to
provoke involuntary reactions, then people would probably react to them.
>
> > The limo passengers proved that, by reacting dramatically and in perfect
> > unison with one another following 285 and 312.
> >
>
> Wrong. They didn't.
Well, it's hard to argue against such a profound rebuttal.
What frame numbers did you come up with?
>
> > Those early shots SHOULD have been louder than the later ones, if they
> > had all come from Oswald.
> >
>
> Ridiculous.
Tony, the muzzle blasts dissipated, er.. got less loud with distance.
So, the closer the limo was to the sniper's nest, the louder they would
have seemed, to the limo passengers.
Do you understand what I mean, Tony?
>
> >
> >>
> >> At that point in the James Altgens picture, it's been only 5.2 seconds
> >> since Lee Harvey Oswald fired his first shot.
> >
> > Oswald could not have fired the early shots, David. The reactions to it
> > by the people close to JFK and in the followup car would have been
> > INVOLUNTARY.
> >
>
> So maybe someone else was firing Oswald's rifle.
Perhaps, but I suspect the rifle would have been just as loud,
regardless of who was firing it, Tony.
>
> > They had no say in the matter, David, just as they had no say in whether
> > they reacted following 285 and 312.
> >
> >
> >
> >> Not exactly a long time,
> >> right Robert?
> >
> > By definition, startle reactions will begin within 1/3rd of a second
> > following the stimulus.
> >
> > No-one fired a high powered rifle that day, prior to frame 285.
> >
>
> No one fired a HIGH powered rifle at all.
Well, that certainly is interesting. I will make a note of that for my
next video. If you can direct me to a photo of yourself, I will be sure
to give you credit for this amazing discovery:-)
Robert Harris
> > left and toward Brehm& co.
Robert Harris
Bud, you need to answer my question first, because I asked it first.
When do you think she heard that shot, which she mistakenly believed,
hit her husband?
Robert Harris
Bud
Look for my answer in the content you removed, retard.
> Robert Harris
Bud
Your inability to weigh information on it`s merits is what takes
you to the places you end up.
> Robert Harris
tomnln
Beating I gave him HERE>>>
SEE>>> http://whokilledjfk.net/todd_vaughan.htm
"Bud" <sirs...@fast.net> wrote in message
news:d836606d-4221-467c...@g12g2000yqa.googlegroups.com...
Robert Harris
<6266d2af-f92d-4672...@v30g2000yqm.googlegroups.com>,
Bud <sirs...@fast.net> wrote:
Bud, is it that hard to type a single syllable answer??
Robert Harri
>
>
> > Robert Harris
Bud
It would be simple. But why come to me to answer for something a
retard asserted? Go to Gil, and ask him what he has to support his
claim.
Instead of qrilling me about whether Gil is right about something,
maybe you should first ask yourself whether it is possible for Gil to
be right about something.
> Robert Harri
>
>
>
> > > Robert Harris
Robert Harris
<db5dcd8b-b36b-4687...@31g2000vbf.googlegroups.com>,
Bud <sirs...@fast.net> wrote:
Gil already stated his opinion. And outside of his religious beliefs, he
is certainly correct a lot more often than you are.
Are you the Dutchman, Bud?
Robert Harris
>
Robert Harris
<2f03864f-e5b0-4e6a...@9g2000yqa.googlegroups.com>,
David Von Pein <davev...@aol.com> wrote:
> >>> "You [Robert Harris] are touting something that is nothing but a
> figment of your imagination, and no one's buying it." <<<
>
> Indeed.
>
> Bob Harris is one of those conspiracy promoters who seems to think that
> the evidence that POSITIVELY EXISTS (e.g., the THREE bullet shells in the
> Sniper's Nest and bullet fragments CE567/569) is evidence that is far LESS
> reliable and valid than the evidence that DOES NOT exist at all (e.g., ANY
> credible signs at all that THREE silenced shots were fired from the
> Dal-Tex Building plus a shot from a sewer on Elm St., as Robert Harris
> purports as the absolute truth).
David, you cannot accept as valid evidence, ANYTHING that the perps had
control over.
The other shooter on the sixth floor may have been using the same kind
of rifle, which required the same ammunition.
Of the three shells, one of them was probably in the chamber before the
attack, and was ejected in the depository.
And Oswald might have had a shell or two, in his pocket and decided that
if he was stopped and searched, it would incriminate him. So, he tossed
them on the floor before he left.
Or they might have been placed there by the other shooter, hoping to
make it appear that Oswald fired all the shots.
But whatever happened, it cannot trump the conclusive evidence which
proves that shots were too close together to have all come from Oswald
and that early shots from his rifle could not have gone unnoticed at the
time they were fired.
I'm sorry this makes you go into another ad hominem tirade, totally
misrepresenting my position. This is NOT how reasonable men figure
things out David.
But it says a LOT about how you came to believe as you do:-)
Robert Harris
>
> But we must always remember that Harris (according to Harris) knows WAY
> MORE than those bums who were part of the WC, HSCA, Clark, and Rockefeller
> panels.
>
> Harris also doesn't even seem to realize that his theory about JFK's
> head-wound locations is not at all in-sync with the Parkland witnesses.
> Harris seems to think that his "TOP OF THE HEAD WAS DAMAGED AND HINGED"
> theory corroborates and buttresses all of the Parkland witnesses, even
> though those witnesses said that the FAR-RIGHT-REAR of Kennedy's head was
> blown open, not the VERY TOP of his head.
>
> Somehow, to Harris, the TOP equals the RIGHT-REAR-OCCIPITAL. Most curious.
>
> Harris also thinks he's an expert on the precise angles in Dealey Plaza,
> such as his exacting "2 degrees" declaration with respect to his
> make-believe Dal-Tex shooter. Apparently Harris has gone to Dealey Plaza
> and used surveyor's equipment to officially measure the angles from the
> third floor of the Dal-Tex to the location of JFK's car at certain Z-Film
> frames. Otherwise, how does Harris know these precise angles?
>
> He might be able to get somewhat close by guessing at the angles, but as
Robert Harris
<72db0211-c662-4507...@p35g2000yqh.googlegroups.com>,
David Von Pein <davev...@aol.com> wrote:
> >>> "Dealey Plaza is a pretty small place David. If someone went there on a
> >>> busy day, say on the anniversary and fired high powered rifle shots down
> >>> in to the crowd, do you REALLY think everyone would stand around
> >>> smiling??" <<<
>
> Regardless of your opinions as to the source of all the gunshots,
> SOMEBODY most certainly DID fire THREE shots from Lee Oswald's C2766
> Mannlicher-Carcano rifle from the 6th Floor of the Depository during
> the assassination of JFK on 11/22/63.
>
> How do we know this for a fact?
>
> CE510 (that's how)(plus Harold Norman too, of course):
>
> http://reclaiming-history.googlegroups.com/web/074a.+THREE+BULLET+SHELLS+FOUND
> +IN+TSBD+SNIPER%27S+NEST?gda=wy5qN2kAAADaPnAtlvPjxRWfhTgppBLhRx8gNKc_V8BQMcQTN
> Rrutub4nxXGSepDGQKscLxMDR5-SFN4DNGB16sScKia7Zks-hEblyNrtl_F7CWyFgZ_lI5mdpvIvJW
> 3QPcvTrj7Q2aECKgQbmraGdxlZulaYnsh&gsc=Q-3dpwsAAADG4fxsPtPq_PWF2YBzW38r
Norman changed his story from the time the FBI interviewed him, to the
time he testified before the WC. Why don't you listen to what the much
more reliable witness who was with him, said??
Representative FORD - Where did you think the sound of the first shot
came from? Do you have a distinct impression of that?
Mr. JARMAN - Well, it sounded, I thought at first it had came from
below. That is what I thought.
Representative FORD - As you looked out the window and you were looking
at the President's car.
Mr. JARMAN - Yes, sir.
Representative FORD - Did you have a distinct impression as to whether
the sound came from your left or from your right?
Mr. JARMAN - I am sure it came from the left.
David, where do you suppose a shot might have come from that was below
Jarman and to his left?
I asked you this question before David. Why do you continue to dodge it?
Robert Harris
Bud
And you have chosen to give credence to that opinion, which makes
the problem yours, not mine.
>And outside of his religious beliefs, he
> is certainly correct a lot more often than you are.
You also think JFK is coughing up a bullet?
> Are you the Dutchman,Bud?
You figure it out, Harris.
Robert Harris
<d41c3640-67d0-4665...@g1g2000vbr.googlegroups.com>,
Bud <sirs...@fast.net> wrote:
I did no such thing.
Are you the Dutchman, Bud?
Robert Harris
>
Bud
Then what prompted you to ask me this question, if not Gil`s
retarded assertion?
> Are you the Dutchman, Bud?
A question such as this should be child`s play for the man who
cracked the Kennedy case.
Robert Harris
<615185ab-9e6c-45c7...@o31g2000vbi.googlegroups.com>,
Bud <sirs...@fast.net> wrote:
Of course it did.
Is it true?
Robert Harris
>
David Von Pein
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/msg/be5ca7efd482723d
[NOTE --- ROBERT HARRIS' ANNOYING MISUSE OF COMMAS ONCE AGAIN
CORRECTED BY DVP BELOW.]
>>> "David, you cannot accept as valid evidence ANYTHING that the perps had control over." <<<
And, of course, Mr. Robert Harris gets to decide who the "perps" [aka:
plotters/conspirators] were. Right, Bob?
LOL.
>>> "The other shooter on the sixth floor may have been using the same kind of rifle, which required the same ammunition." <<<
Of course, there was only one shooter on the sixth floor, which makes
your above comment kinda moot and meaningless, doesn't it Bob?
Bob Harris, though, has decided for HIMSELF that there were TWO gunmen
on the sixth floor of the Depository. And Bob has made that
determination without a single scrap of reliable/useful/provable
evidence to support such an assertion. But will that stop Bob Harris
from purporting such a fantasy about 2 TSBD shooters? Take a guess.
>>> "Of the three shells, one of them was probably in the chamber before the attack and was ejected in the depository." <<<
Notice how Bob attempts to maneuver the known evidence to suit his
needs. Those needs (in this instance) being an attempt to support this
theory: Lee Oswald only fired ONE single shot from the Sniper's Nest
on 11/22/63, with that shot being a DELIBERATE MISS at precisely Z-
Film frame #285, a shot that Harris claims sailed 15 feet over the top
of the limousine and struck a manhole cover on Elm Street.
Such fantasies (sans one single ounce of proof) are worthy of Aesop,
but are not worthy of serious consideration when discussing the JFK
murder case.
>>> "And Oswald might have had a shell or two in his pocket and decided that if he was stopped and searched, it would incriminate him. So, he tossed them on the floor before he left." <<<
Did I just read what I think I did?!
[~lifts jaw from floor~]
[~racing to restroom, due to status of weak urinary bladder~]
This one's a REALLY BIG howl, Bob!
So, per this theory, Oswald was carrying around ("in his pocket") some
USED/SPENT BULLET SHELLS, eh?
We're not talking about NEW/UNFIRED/WHOLE BULLETS. We're talking about
SPENT shells that had positively already been fired in and ejected
from Oswald's Mannlicher-Carcano weapon!
Why on Earth would Lee Oswald have been carrying around USED, SPENT,
AND WORTHLESS bullet shells "in his pocket" on the morning of November
22, 1963 (the very same day that he was planning to shoot the
President with the gun that could be linked to those shells)?!
Let's enjoy that last brilliant piece of investigative poppycockery
that was just dished up by Mr. Robert Harris (after all, a gut-busting
theory like this one deserves a lot of airtime on these forums):
"OSWALD MIGHT HAVE HAD A SHELL OR TWO IN HIS POCKET AND DECIDED
THAT IF HE WAS STOPPED AND SEARCHED, IT WOULD INCRIMINATE HIM. SO, HE
TOSSED THEM ON THE FLOOR BEFORE HE LEFT." -- Robert Harris; 12/3/09
You see, this is what happens whenever a conspiracy kook tries to put
forth a bunch of nonsensical, piecemeal theories concerning the way
John Kennedy died in Dealey Plaza -- we are invariably treated to
silliness like the above ridiculous theory purported by Bob Harris
about Oswald carrying around spent bullet hulls in his pocket for no
reason whatsoever.
But when conspiracists are cornered with hard evidence that they don't
like at all (i.e., evidence which doesn't fit their individual
conspiracy theories regarding the JFK case, such as the evidence I
pointed out to Mr. Harris in a recent Internet message, repeated
below), those conspiracists are then inevitably forced to twist logic
into a great-big Misty Salty pretzel (just as Bob Harris has done via
his theory about Oswald possibly carrying around useless spent rifle
cartridges in his pocket on the day of the assassination).
"So, as usual, Robert Harris' subjective theories fall flat,
especially when weighed against the BEST PHYSICAL EVIDENCE in the JFK
case -- i.e., THREE spent bullet shells FROM OSWALD'S MANNLICHER-
CARCANO RIFLE being found in the TEXAS SCHOOL BOOK DEPOSITORY (not in
the Dal-Tex Building), coupled with the important corroborating "THREE
SHOTS" fact that more than NINETY PERCENT of the earwitnesses heard
THREE SHOTS OR FEWER during the assassination in Dallas' Dealey
Plaza." -- DVP; 11/30/09
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/msg/2483ba7a867f2f98
>>> "Or they [the 3 bullet shells in the TSBD] might have been placed there by the other shooter, hoping to make it appear that Oswald fired all the shots." <<<
Yeah, it's always a good idea to ignore the "ordinary" and most-likely
version of events (i.e., Oswald fired three shots at JFK and that's
why three shells from his gun were found in the Sniper's Nest) and
instead invent an "extraordinary" version of events to explain the
evidence away (i.e., Bob's make-believe "other shooter" in the
Depository, who planted the shells in the Sniper's Nest).
William of Occam would just love Bob Harris (and all other JFK
conspiracy nuts). Not!
>>> "But whatever happened, it cannot trump the conclusive evidence which proves that shots were too close together to have all come from Oswald and that early shots from his rifle could not have gone unnoticed at the time they were fired." <<<
Here we are treated to another distinctive trait of conspiracy
theorists -- they get to DECIDE FOR THEMSELVES exactly what certain
people would (or should) have done at a particular point in time. In
this instance, Bob has decided that the Dealey Plaza witnesses would
have had NO CHOICE but to have reacted quite noticeably to Oswald's
"early shots" (shots prior to Z285).
Bob evidently thinks that all of those witnesses were standing right
next to Lee Oswald on the sixth floor of the TSBD (vs. those witnesses
being located a considerable distance, relatively speaking, from the
muzzle of Oswald's Carcano rifle).
In any event, Bob insists that the witnesses HAD to react in a certain
way after hearing the concussion of Lee Harvey Oswald's "early" pre-
Z285 rifle blasts.
In short, folks, Bob Harris is nuts to think such a thing. Simple as
that.
But, we must remember that we're dealing with a conspiracy monger
(Robert Harris) who could also be labelled: "The King Of Subjective
Thinking".
And when you've got that badge pinned to your chest, then ANYTHING is
possible when it comes to evaluating the events that occurred in
Dallas on November 22, 1963.
>>> "I'm sorry this makes you go into another ad hominem tirade, totally misrepresenting my position. This is NOT how reasonable men figure things out David." <<<
"Mr. Subjective" now considers himself to be a "reasonable" man when
it comes to his analysis of the JFK assassination.
Unbelievable, isn't it?
>>> "But it says a LOT about how you came to believe as you do. :-)" <<<
It does? How so?
~shrug~
I will say this -- Bob Harris, in just the last several days alone,
has provided more laughs and more totally-subjective and unprovable
analysis regarding John F. Kennedy's assassination than I have seen
around these parts from one single person in quite a long time.
I even e-mailed Vincent Bugliosi's secretary about Harris' recent
barrage of conspiracy-flavored silliness (knowing full well that
Vince's secretary, Rosemary, would fax my e-mail to Mr. Bugliosi, so
that Vince, too, could get as big a chuckle out of Mr. Harris'
subjectivism as I have been getting recently).
And, sure enough, Rosemary faxed my e-mail to VB. The mail (reprinted
below) contains some stuff about Vincent Palamara too, in addition to
the recent kooky stuff concerning Robert Harris):
==================================================
Subject: JFK Articles
Date: 12/2/2009 3:37:28 AM Eastern Standard Time
From: David Von Pein
To: Rosemary Newton
------------------------
Hi Rosemary,
How are you, my friend?
I'm writing today in order to provide you links to a couple of recent
online articles I've written concerning the never-ending battle with
the conspiracy kooks concerning JFK's murder.
These are articles that I thought Vince Bugliosi (and you) might enjoy
reading (as I attempt to destroy a particular conspiracy theorist's
crazy theories; the theorist's name is Robert Harris, who has been
posting conspiracy-oriented junk online for many years).
In one of the articles I mention Vincent Palamara's name. It seems
that Palamara has now decided to stab Mr. Bugliosi in the gut (so to
speak) via his admission that he still believes in a conspiracy in the
JFK case (despite his apparent total switch to "LNism" in 2007 after
reading Mr. Bugliosi's book).
To tell you the truth, Rosemary, I always knew that Palamara wasn't
really ever completely "converted" into a lone-assassin believer. This
became obvious to me when I saw that Palamara was continuing to write
5-star reviews at Amazon.com for pro-conspiracy books many months
after he went on record endorsing Bugliosi's book (such as Palamara's
glowing review in 2008 of Jim Douglass' book).
It's just a shame that Mr. Bugliosi placed so much faith in Palamara's
supposed "turnaround" into an LNer. I winced when I saw Palamara's
positive review for "Reclaiming History" appear in VB's 2008 follow-up
volume, "Four Days In November". Because now, as of late 2009, that
pro-LN blurb for "RH" appears to be totally phony.
I've known for several years now that Palamara (in my own opinion)
appears to be a person who seemingly doesn't know which side of the
JFK fence he wants to reside on. His #1 goal, it seems, is to have his
name show up in as many JFK books as possible. And I fear that was his
main motivation for vigorously supporting Mr. Bugliosi's "Reclaiming
History" in 2007. That's kind of sad, but probably true.
Again, that's just my own personal opinion about Mr. Palamara's
possible motivations. I admit, I could be 100% wrong about that. But
that's the feeling I get from reading his non-stop self-promoting
articles and blurbs that appear at many Internet locations.
Anyway, I just wanted to share these articles with you and Vince B.
(as I recall, you told me a couple of years ago that Vince B. wanted
me to "keep him informed" on anything new that might come up on the
JFK-related Internet forums, so I'm doing that now).
Thanks. And Happy Holidays to both you and Mr. B.
Here are the links (plus a video made by Vincent Palamara, in which he
declares himself to be a conspiracy believer once again):
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/msg/0a581746c27b7a2f
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/msg/bc0feb08c150532f
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bE8b2CCDPqw
Best wishes,
David Von Pein
P.S. -- One more link....this is a blog I recently created, devoted
exclusively to Vincent Bugliosi's June 2007 radio debate with Dr.
Cyril Wecht:
http://www.Bugliosi-Vs-Wecht.blogspot.com
==================================================
ROSEMARY'S REPLY:
Subject: JFK
Date: 12/2/2009 4:24:32 PM Eastern Standard Time
From: Rosemary Newton
To: David Von Pein
------------------------
Hi Dave,
It was great hearing from you again. I faxed Vince your e-mail which
I'm sure he'll find interesting. Vince, as you may know has been busy
with the documentary that has been made of his latest book.* It's due
out sometime in February. I'm sure there'll be a great debate, pro and
con, regarding the subject matter.
Please keep in touch and have a great holiday season (even though the
mood of the country seems to be Bah Humbug).
Regards, Rosemary
* = "The Prosecution Of George W. Bush For Murder" [Vanguard Press
©2008]
http://www.Amazon.com/review/R29B7NYHLKV3SH
http://www.ProsecutionOfBush.com
==================================================
Bud
You gave no credence to Gil`s claim, yet it prompted you to badger
me?
> Is it true?
You figure it out.
Robert Harris
<d97c4156-d1b6-4ff4...@u20g2000vbq.googlegroups.com>,
Bud <sirs...@fast.net> wrote:
> On Dec 3, 11:59 pm, Robert Harris <reharr...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > In article
> > <615185ab-9e6c-45c7-a75b-60e15db14...@o31g2000vbi.googlegroups.com>,
> >
> >
> >
> > Bud <sirsl...@fast.net> wrote:
> > > On Dec 3, 7:19 pm, Robert Harris <reharr...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > > > In article
> > > > <d41c3640-67d0-4665-818b-9a609b67b...@g1g2000vbr.googlegroups.com>,
> >
> > > > Bud <sirsl...@fast.net> wrote:
> > > > > On Dec 3, 9:57 am, Robert Harris <reharr...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > > > > > In article
> > > > > > <db5dcd8b-b36b-4687-bb57-2e65b154c...@31g2000vbf.googlegroups.com>,
> >
> > > > > > Bud<sirsl...@fast.net> wrote:
> > > > > > > On Dec 2, 10:15 pm, Robert Harris <reharr...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > > > > > > > In article
> > > > > > > > <6266d2af-f92d-4672-a8a3-714d1340d...@v30g2000yqm.googlegroups.c
A question is not the same as "credence" Bud. If I accepted his claim, I
wouldn't have needed to ask you, would I?
You should be flattered that I would trust your answer more than his!
But by repeatedly dodging the question, you make that increasingly
difficult to do.
I am truly open minded, Bud. And I realize that more than one person on
this planet tends to babble on incoherently, saying nothing at all of
substance.
So, I want to be fair.
Are you the Dutchman, Bud?
Robert Harris
Robert Harris
<7aba0a1a-2dee-4694...@c34g2000yqn.googlegroups.com>,
David Von Pein <davev...@aol.com> wrote:
> [GRAMMAR NOTE -- All of Robert Harris' needless commas have been
> removed by DVP in the post below.]
David, why do you repeat the same posting you made yesterday??
I fully responded to you and you then deleted everything I said, in your
reply.
Were you just hoping that some people didn't see my reply and would
think it was I who dodged your message??
David, if you were right about this stuff, you wouldn't need to use
tactics like this.
Let's put my reply back in and give you another chance to respond:
In article
<2096b9ca-6aed-4499...@g26g2000yqe.googlegroups.com>,
David Von Pein <davev...@aol.com> wrote:
> [GRAMMAR NOTE -- All of Robert Harris' needless commas have been
> removed by DVP in the post below.]
>
> >>> "David, why is it that in the Altgens photo, taken at the equivalent
> [Zapruder Film frame #] 255, after at least two shots have been fired, we
> see so many smiling faces, with no-one screaming or diving to the ground?"
> <<<
>
> Why would there necessarily have to be mass hysteria in Dealey Plaza
> at that time (circa Z255)?
Because if Oswald had fired the early shots, they would have been
excrutiatingly loud David.
Now, I realize that you're trying to claim this is a subjective issue,
but the HSCA confirmed the sound levels that the limo passengers would
have been subjected to, and they were many times higher than the point
at which reactions become involuntary.
The limo passengers proved that, by reacting dramatically and in perfect
unison with one another following 285 and 312.
Those early shots SHOULD have been louder than the later ones, if they
had all come from Oswald.
>
> At that point in the James Altgens picture, it's been only 5.2 seconds
> since Lee Harvey Oswald fired his first shot.
Oswald could not have fired the early shots, David. The reactions to it
by the people close to JFK and in the followup car would have been
INVOLUNTARY.
They had no say in the matter, David, just as they had no say in whether
they reacted following 285 and 312.
> Not exactly a long time,
> right Robert?
By definition, startle reactions will begin within 1/3rd of a second
following the stimulus.
No-one fired a high powered rifle that day, prior to frame 285.
> And two Secret Service agents are, indeed, reacting to the
> sound of the gunfire by looking over their right shoulders.
They were undoubtedly reacting to gunfire, but they didn't know it at
the time. They heard some kind of a noise and suspected it was a
firecracker or a backfire. But as numerous witnesses confirmed, it
didn't sound at all like the rifle shots that were fired later.
>
> But it's only been 1.7 seconds since anyone in the limousine was HIT by a
> bullet, which is hardly enough to time for people to start reacting to the
> EFFECTS of the shots being fired (i.e., the wounding of people in Dealey
> Plaza).
Nonsense.
Look at a video of the Reagan attempt. People who were looking away from
the shooter, were on the ground, or ducking instantly.
You just don't seem to grasp the concept of how a 120-130 decibel noise
affects people, David. There have been quite a few studies on the
subject. Have you read some of those papers??
>
> BTW, Bob, how can you determine if anyone is "screaming" or not, via
> the silent Altgens photograph? (Just curious.)
NWR
>
>
> >>> "Why do we ONLY see such things after frame 285?" <<<
>
> Because it was only after Z285 (and after Z313 actually)
Why are you saying "after 313"??
Are you actually going to try to deny the reactions beginning at 291?
Do you think Alvarez was FOS?? What are your credentials, David? Won any
Nobel prizes lately?
Why do you think Greer slowed the limo?? Was he "in on it", or did he
just decide that if he slowed waaay down, it might confuse the
assassins??
Do you deny that Clint Hill jumped from the running board in direct
reaction to a gunshot??
Oh and btw, in his testimony, Hill told the WC that he thought JFK,
FIRST reacted to being hit, at the same time he jumped. How could he
have thought such a thing, David?
Even people like Larry Sturdevan have confirmed the simultaneous nature
of the reactions. Are you still in denial that they happened, exactly as
I claim they happened???
> that the
> spectators realized what was truly happening in the Plaza
"realized" is the wrong verb, David. These were INVOLUNTARY reactions.
There was no time to "realize" anything at that instant. You need to
understand that, if you ever hope to understand what happened during the
attack.
>-- i.e.,
> that the President was being shot at.
>
> Duh!
>
>
> >>> "Why did none of the Secret Service agents pull out a gun until after
> frame 285?" <<<
>
> The Secret Service men reacted somewhat slowly, yes.
Bullshit!
They reacted almost instantly, after hearing the first noise that really
sounded like a gunshot.
Read their own testimonies, David! Like numerous other witnesses, most
of them said the first noise was much different than the shots at the
end of the attack.
> No denying that fact.
> But I don't really see how this inquiry bolsters your pet "Z285" theory
> though.
It doesn't. I doubt that you can grasp this concept, but it is not my
agenda to "bolster" anything. My research is for the singular purpose of
finding out what happened that day. I form my conclusions from the
evidence and let the proverbial chips fall where they may.
The fact that the early shots came from a much different weapon than the
one used to fire the later shots, is ridiculously obvious. You can see
it in the reactions and lack of reactions by the bystanders and you can
read it in the statements of those same people.
>
>
>
> >>> "Why did Clint Hill wait until after frame 285 to leap from the limo
> and state that he did so in direct reaction to a gunshot?" <<<
>
> I'm sure his leaping from the running board of the SS car was, indeed, "in
left and toward Brehm & co.
He had 30 frames to complete that turn David. He could easily have been
looking at Brehm in a third of that time.
How much more perfect does the timing need to be, David??
>
> But to state categorically that Clint Hill was "reacting" to a specific
> gunshot fired at precisely Z285 (as you theorize) is just plain silly and
> impossible to pin down with spot-on accuracy
Actually, thanks to Hill's very specific and detailed testimony, you are
wrong on that one too, David.
We CAN in fact, pin these things down. You just have to spend a bit more
time researching than you do attacking your adversaries.
> (as is the case with pretty
> much everything you purport with regard to your totally-subjective
> analysis of the Zapruder Film and the witness statements in relation to
> your pet Z285 theory).
I'm sorry you have to resort to personal insults David.
It really is a poor substitute for reason.
>
> Time for another one of these -- Duh!
>
>
>
> >>> "Why did Bill Greer wait until just after 285 to slow the limo and
> spin around so fast that some critics thought his turns were humanly
> impossible?" <<<
>
>
And more ad hominem.
And more...
>
> Go figure.
"Why did Bill Greer wait until just after 285 to slow the limo and
> spin around so fast that some critics thought his turns were humanly
> impossible?"
David, why are you evading that question?
Dr. Luis Alvarez determined that Greer was startled by a loud noise at
frame 285. Now this is a guy who not only won a Nobel prize, but he was
the youngest scientist on the Manhattan Project, invented numerous,
patented gizmos and in his spare time, figured out why the dinosaurs
went extinct.
And if he was wrong, then why DID Greer slow the limo, David??
David, do you remember that 130 decibel shock wave the HSCA measured??
Do you realize that it was not only loud as hell, but it generated a
considerable force that could blow out a candle or move a piece of
paper??
Do you think such a thing just might have startled Greer and caused him
to feel the "concussion" of the shot on his face?
>
>
> >>> "Why did Greer say he felt the "concussion" of the second shot, as he
> was turned to the rear? And how do you explain why he didn't turn to the
> rear until well after 223??" <<<
>
Nonsense.
More ad hominem...
>
>
>
> >>> "Why did both Mrs. Kennedy and Mrs. Connally believe that their
> husbands were hit by a shot that came after Gov Connally began to shout,
> but before the explosive headwound?" <<<
>
>
> http://groups.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/msg/9871273b0f35f000
Yes David, that was a fine rebuttal to the notion that Nellie refuted
the SBT. In fact, it sounds in places, quite similar to what I have been
saying for a very long time.
But you evade one very important question.
You don't tell us how Nellie heard the shot that she mistakenly believed
wounded the governor. And she was very specific, that she HEARD the
shot, David.
Nor do you address the fact that she began to turn toward her husband at
frame 291, which is exactly when four other people began to react, and
when Dr. Alvarez said Zapruder and Greer began to react.
Do you think that was just a coincidence, David?
>
>
>
> >>> "And why did they both visibly react to that shot in perfect unison
> with Zapruder's, Greer's and Kellerman's reactions?" <<<
>
>
> Coincidence. And as I mentioned above, the coincidence is fully
> explainable and understandable and reasonable in the case of Nellie's and
> Jackie's in-unison head movements (which Harris thinks is "ducking" from
> the sound of a gunshot, but it isn't).
LOL! I just love these absolute, SUBJECTIVE declarations.
Tell me something David, what are the odds that JUST Kellerman would be
riding along in the car and duck while he was twisting his head to the
right and raising his hand to shield his left ear.
Oh wait! I almost forgot. He stuck the radio in his ear so that he could
have a 1/6th of a second conversation. Isn't that your "explanation"
David:-)
And do you also have an explanation for why he recalled a "flurry of
shells" coming into the car then?
Hehe, I'll bet you do.
>
>
> >>> "Why did Kellerman duck and simultaneously shield his ear at exactly
> the same instant that the others reacted?" <<<
>
>
> Your "shield his ear" comment is pure speculation. And Kellerman's
> movements can easily be explained this way:
>
> He was reaching for the radio microphone in front of him.
And why exactly, did he stick a microphone in his ear, David?
And why did he need to twist his head to the right as he was ducking?
>
>
> >>> "Why did Brehm, J. Hill and Mary Moorman all remember multiple shots,
> beginning just as the limo passed in front of them?" <<<
>
> Maybe because there WERE multiple shots being fired at just about that
> time. Oswald fired two shots between Z224 and Z313, and all three of those
> witnesses were pretty close to the limo during that timespan.
Brehm told the FBI that the limo travelled "10-12 feet" as three shots
were fired - the last of which was after the fatal headshot.
And why did he say that JFK was "15-20 feet" from him when the first of
those shots were fired?
By my measurements, JFK was 18 feet from him at frame 285.
What do you get David?
>
>
>
> >>> "Why did Greer say that the last shots were nearly simultaneous and
> Kellerman say they were like a "flurry"?" <<<
>
>
Really?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HKwqhf0MYio
>
>
> >>> "Why did most witnesses recall that the final shots were closely
> bunched?" <<<
>
>
> And there were several who didn't recall such a thing, as I document
> here:
>
> http://groups.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/msg/a77dff325e995531
Of course there were some who did not. But you haven't answered the
question.
>
>
>
>
>
> >>> "Why is it that not even one law enforcement professional recalled the
> early shots being closer together than the final shots??" <<<
>
Think about it David.
> >>> "Why did Gov Connally not hear the shot that hit him?" <<<
>
>
Utter nonsense.
> >>> "Why did no-one else in the limo hear that shot either? (ask me to
>
>
> >>> "Why did his [John Connally's] wife only recall hearing ONE noise
> prior to him beginning to shout?" <<<
>
>
Interesting:-)
LOL!!
Robert Harris
>
> >>> "David, why is it that in the Altgens photo, taken at the equivalent of
> >>> [Zapruder Film frame #] 255, after at least two shots have been fired, we
> >>> see so many smiling faces, with no-one screaming or diving to the
> >>> ground?" <<<
>
> Why would there necessarily have to be mass hysteria in Dealey Plaza
> at that time (circa Z255)?
>
> At that point in the James Altgens picture, it's been only 5.2 seconds
> since Lee Harvey Oswald fired his first shot. Not exactly a long time,
> right Robert? And two Secret Service agents are, indeed, reacting to
> the sound of the gunfire by looking over their right shoulders.
>
> But it's only been 1.7 seconds since anyone in the limousine was HIT
> by a bullet, which is hardly enough to time for people to start
> reacting to the EFFECTS of the shots being fired (i.e., the wounding
> of people in Dealey Plaza).
>
> BTW, Bob, how can you determine if anyone is "screaming" or not, via
> the silent Altgens photograph? (Just curious.)
>
>
> >>> "Why do we ONLY see such things after frame 285?" <<<
>
> Because it was only after Z285 (and after Z313 actually) that the
> spectators realized what was truly happening in the Plaza -- i.e.,
> that the President was being shot at.
>
> Duh!
>
>
> >>> "Why did none of the Secret Service agents pull out a gun until after
> >>> frame 285?" <<<
>
> The Secret Service men reacted somewhat slowly, yes. No denying that
> fact. But I don't really see how this inquiry bolsters your pet "Z285"
> theory though.
>
>
>
> >>> "Why did Clint Hill wait until after frame 285 to leap from the limo and
> >>> state that he did so in direct reaction to a gunshot?" <<<
>
> I'm sure his leaping from the running board of the SS car was, indeed,
> "in direct reaction to a gunshot". Obviously Hill's running toward the
> President's car was "in direct reaction to a gunshot", for Pete sake.
> What ELSE would have been the reason for his dramatic action that day?
>
> But to state categorically that Clint Hill was "reacting" to a
> specific gunshot fired at precisely Z285 (as you theorize) is just
> plain silly and impossible to pin down with spot-on accuracy (as is
> the case with pretty much everything you purport with regard to your
> totally-subjective analysis of the Zapruder Film and the witness
> statements in relation to your pet Z285 theory).
>
> Time for another one of these -- Duh!
>
>
>
> >>> "Why did Bill Greer wait until just after 285 to slow the limo and spin
> >>> around so fast that some critics thought his turns were humanly
> >>> impossible?" <<<
>
>
> Once more we're treated to Bob Harris' unique subjective look at
> things. In Harris' world, everything seems to revolve around his
> fictitious missed shot at exactly Z285 of the Zapruder Film.
>
> In Bob's one-sided "Z285 world", there isn't even the slightest
> possibility that what we're seeing in the Z-Film just after frame #285
> could be the limousine's occupants behaving in ways that might NOT
> indicate that they were each hearing a gunshot at precisely Z285.
>
> In Bob's "Z285" world, the movements of Nellie Connally and Jacqueline
> Kennedy couldn't POSSIBLY be the movements and actions of two women
> who, just 3.33 seconds prior to Z285, heard a gunshot being fired from
> Lee Oswald's gun on the sixth floor of the Book Depository....with
> that single gunshot resulting in the husbands of both of those women
> being wounded by the same bullet....with the two women then reacting
> in a perfectly normal fashion by LEANING IN toward their respective
> wounded spouses.
>
> The above scenario is simply IMPOSSIBLE in the Z285 world of Robert
> Harris.
>
> Go figure.
>
>
> >>> "Why did Greer say he felt the "concussion" of the second shot as he was
> >>> turned to the rear? And how do you explain why he didn't turn to the rear
> >>> until well after 223??" <<<
>
> Once again, Mr. Harris is assigning ludicrous levels of ASSUMED AND
> PRESUMED SPOT-ON ACCURACY to the statements of certain Dealey Plaza
> witnesses.
>
> We're only talking about a fraction more than THREE SECONDS IN REAL
> TIME between the time of the actual second shot fired (by Oswald at
> Z224) and Bob Harris' make-believe missed shot at Z285.
>
> 3.3 seconds, Bob!! That's all.
>
> Anything you attribute to a missed shot at precisely Z285 can just as
> easily be attributed to Oswald's real second shot at Z224. The
> difference in real time is negligible.
>
> But to Bob "Z285" Harris, 3.3 seconds is an amount of time that can be
> dissected and sliced to absolute perfection in the minds and testimony
> of EVERY SINGLE LIMO OCCUPANT.
>
> Can you say "That's ridiculous"? I sure can when talking about this
> silly "Z285" subject that Bob Harris loves so much.
>
>
>
> >>> "Why did both Mrs. Kennedy and Mrs. Connally believe that their husbands
> >>> were hit by a shot that came after Gov Connally began to shout, but
> >>> before the explosive headwound?" <<<
>
>
> http://groups.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/msg/9871273b0f35f000
>
>
>
> >>> "And why did they both visibly react to that shot in perfect unison with
> >>> Zapruder's, Greer's and Kellerman's reactions?" <<<
>
>
> Coincidence. And as I mentioned above, the coincidence is fully
> explainable and understandable and reasonable in the case of Nellie's
> and Jackie's in-unison head movements (which Harris thinks is
> "ducking" from the sound of a gunshot, but it isn't).
>
>
> >>> "Why did Kellerman duck and simultaneously shield his ear at exactly the
> >>> same instant that the others reacted?" <<<
>
>
> Your "shield his ear" comment is pure speculation. And Kellerman's
> movements can easily be explained this way:
>
> He was reaching for the radio microphone in front of him.
>
>
> >>> "Why did Brehm, J. Hill and Mary Moorman all remember multiple shots,
> >>> beginning just as the limo passed in front of them?" <<<
>
> Maybe because there WERE multiple shots being fired at just about that
> time. Oswald fired two shots after Z160 (at Z224 and Z313), and all
> three of those witnesses were pretty close to the limo during that
> Z224-Z313 timespan.
>
>
>
> >>> "Why did Greer say that the last shots were nearly simultaneous and
> >>> Kellerman say they were like a "flurry"?" <<<
>
>
> Kellerman's "flurry of shells/shots coming into the car" testimony is
> very easily explained:
>
> He heard the effects of the head-shot bullet fragments striking the
> windshield and the chrome molding very near his seated position in the
> limousine. That is almost certainly the best explanation for Roy
> Kellerman's "flurry" testimony.
>
> BTW, how did bullet fragments from Lee Oswald's gun (CE567 and CE569)
> get into the front seat area of the limo if, as you suggest, Lee
> Oswald didn't actually HIT any victims (or the car's interior) with
> any of his Mannlicher-Carcano bullets on November 22nd?
>
> Were CE567/569 planted in the limo by evil cover-up agents after the
> assassination, Bob?
>
>
> >>> "Why did most witnesses recall that the final shots were closely
> >>> bunched?" <<<
>
>
> And there were several who didn't recall such a thing, as I discuss
> here:
>
> http://groups.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/msg/a77dff325e995531
>
>
>
>
>
> >>> "Why is it that not even one law enforcement professional recalled the
> >>> early shots being closer together than the final shots??" <<<
>
> What difference does it really make?
>
> Oh, I know to a person who loves the idea of a JFK conspiracy (like
> Robert Harris, for example) something like this makes a world of
> difference.
>
> But the answers to the important questions "HOW MANY SHOTS WERE
> FIRED?" and "WHERE DID THE SHOTS COME FROM?" can be found by looking
> at the BEST EVIDENCE in the case when it comes to trying to answer
> those two inquiries.
>
> And the following links (in tandem) contain that "Best Evidence", IMO:
>
> http://reclaiming-history.googlegroups.com/web/074a.+THREE+BULLET+SHELLS+FOUND
> +IN+TSBD+SNIPER%27S+NEST?gda=UPFKeWkAAADaPnAtlvPjxRWfhTgppBLhA_i0Gxqm3a_rn6Mkz
> ehCm-b4nxXGSepDGQKscLxMDR5-SFN4DNGB16sScKia7Zks-hEblyNrtl_F7CWyFgZ_lI5mdpvIvJW
> 3QPcvTrj7Q2aECKgQbmraGdxlZulaYnsh
>
>
> http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/images/shots3.jpg
>
> http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/images/shots4.jpg
>
>
>
>
> >>> "Why did Gov Connally not hear the shot that hit him?" <<<
>
>
> Simple: Because that shot ACTUALLY HIT HIM. And he was no doubt
> physically struck by that bullet (CE399, of course) before the sound
> of that shot reached his ears. I think you'll find that it is not
> uncommon for a victim of a gunshot wound to not physically hear the
> shot that wounded him.
>
> Connally Addendum --
>
> Keep in mind that the totality of John Connally's testimony perfectly
> buttresses the single-assassin scenario and the Single-Bullet Theory
> particularly (whether JBC himself believed in the SBT or not).
>
> John Connally, in 1967, even went so far as to admit that the SBT was
> certainly "possible" in his mind:
>
> http://groups.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/msg/741a872f58796bfe
>
>
>
> >>> "Why did no-one else in the limo hear that shot either?" <<<
>
>
> You're so entrenched in your belief of your made-up "Z285" missed shot
> that you will never ever be able to see that your theory rests solely
> on subjective and unprovable analysis of the Zapruder Film.
>
> Of course people in the limo heard the shot that hit Governor
> Connally....that was Shot #2 from Lee Oswald's gun at Z224. But you,
> Bob Harris, have convinced yourself that those limo occupants were
> talking about some OTHER shot (your make-believe Z285 shot, I guess).
>
> But, yes, of course the limo witnesses heard the shot that hit John
> Connally (except Mr. Connally himself, of course, as mentioned
> earlier).
>
>
> >>> "Why did his [John Connally's] wife only recall hearing ONE noise prior
> >>> to him beginning to shout?" <<<
>
>
> If you fine-tune your analysis any further, you'll probably be able to
> convince yourself that Nellie Connally blinked her eyes exactly 17
> times after hearing the first shot but before she heard her husband
> shout "No, no, no".
>
>
> >>> "Why did no-one in the limo recall more than one early shot and why did
> >>> they exhibit no startle reactions prior to frame 285?" <<<
>
>
> If they had been standing right next to Oswald in the Sniper's Nest,
> perhaps they would have exhibited some "startle" reactions.
>
> As a comparison here, do you think that every limo occupant should be
> exhibiting "startle" reactions whenever one of the nearby motorcycles
> backfired (which, by all accounts, is something that happened
> frequently during Presidential motorcades)?
>
>
> Food for thought.
>
>
> >>> "And why DID they exhibit simultaneous startle reacts beginning a third
> >>> of a second AFTER 285?" <<<
>
>
> They didn't. That's only your singularly subjective look at things. I
> doubt that one other person on the planet would evaluate the movements
> of the limo occupants the exact same way that Robert "Z285" Harris has
> done.
>
>
> >>> "Why did Dr. Luis Alvarez conclude that Zapruder and Greer were startled
> >>> by a loud noise at precisely frame 285?" <<<
>
>
> I'll take this opportunity to quote the author of the JFK Bible:
>
>
> "The CBS experiment [in 1967] proves that a gunshot will
> normally cause a cameraman�s neuromuscular system to go into, as Dr.
> [Luis] Alvarez put it, �a temporary spasm.�
>
> "So the three gunshots that day [November 22, 1963] would have
> almost assuredly caused a startled reaction in Zapruder and, hence, a
> blur on his film. And we find blurs around Z160 (the first shot),
> around Z220�228 (which clearly coincides with Kennedy�s and Connally�s
> reactions to the second shot), and Z313 (the third shot).
>
> "The demonstrable defect in blur or jiggle analysis is that
> although a gunshot will produce a blur (and hence, the absence of a
> blur is very strong circumstantial evidence of the absence of a
> gunshot), a blur obviously does not necessarily have to be caused by a
> gunshot.
>
> "Any number of other things--a cough, an unintentional nudge
> (Zapruder�s secretary was right next to him), a gust of wind, movement
> of Zapruder�s feet, even his efforts to keep an object in frame--could
> also cause a blur.
>
> "Zapruder himself testified before the Warren Commission that
> his images weren�t very clear for the simple reason that his camera
> movements were magnified by the telephoto lens setting he was using.
> �Did you ever have binoculars,� he asked, �and every time you move,
> everything is exaggerated in the move? That�s one reason why they�re
> kind of blurred, the movement� (7 H 572).
>
> "Further, the emotional reaction of what one sees through the
> viewfinder could also easily cause a startled reaction. Indeed,
> Zapruder testified how he reacted to the sight of the impact of the
> bullet on Kennedy�s head (�I started...yelling, �They�ve killed
> him.��) (7 H 571�572).
>
> "This would explain the fact that Alvarez, Hartmann, and Scott
> all detected blurs in the Zapruder film not only around the time of
> the head shot at Z313, but also around Z330�334, a second later, when
> he was fully absorbing the horrific sight of the president�s head
> having exploded in front of him.
>
> "In fact, though the overwhelming weight of the evidence shows
> that only three shots were fired in Dealey Plaza, the two experts from
> the HSCA photographic panel saw six blurs on the Zapruder film, the
> weakest of which was around Z290�292, a time when there is no evidence
> at all that a shot was fired (6 HSCA 30).
>
> "Because of all of the above variables and imponderables, and
> because there is no known way to distinguish a blur or jiggle caused
> by an involuntary reaction from one caused by, for instance, a
> voluntary pan/search movement, blur or jiggle analysis can never be
> conclusive on the number or timing of the shots fired in Dealey Plaza
> and should not be given great weight." -- Vincent Bugliosi; Pages
> 335-336 of Reclaiming History: The Assassination Of President John F.
> Kennedy" (c.2007)
>
> http://www.ReclaimingHistory.blogspot.com
>
>
>
> >>> "Why did DMN reporter Mary Woodward recall two closely bunched shots as
> >>> the limo approached her, that she described as "ear shattering", David?
> >>> How could some shots be ear shattering while others were not heard at
> >>> all??" <<<
>
> Possibly due to Oswald's first (missed) shot at Z160 being something
> akin to a misfire (but not a complete misfire, since the bullet
> certainly was fired from the gun, as indicated by the number of shells
> [3] found on the floor in the Sniper's Nest).
>
> That first shot could have had a different (and quieter) sound to it.
> In fact, many/most witnesses reported that the first sound they heard
> sounded more like a firecracker than it did a rifle shot.
>
>
>
> >>> "And why did so many other witnesses state that the first noise they
> >>> heard sounded much different than the ones at the end?" <<<
>
>
> See my last comment.
>
>
> In the final analysis, we're left with these things:
>
> 1.) THREE shells being found in the TSBD Sniper's Nest.
>
> 2.) Lee Oswald's rifle (with his prints on it) being found on the same
> floor as the shells.
>
> 3.) Bullet fragments CE567 and CE569 (fired conclusively from Oswald's
> rifle) being found in the limousine.
>
> 4.) Bullet CE399 being determined by both the Warren Commission and
> the HSCA to be the bullet that injured both Kennedy and Connally in
> Dealey Plaza (like it or not).
>
> 5.) And this previously-linked witness statistic:
>
> http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/images/shots3.jpg
>
>
> When looking at the above list (plus many other items of physical and
> circumstantial evidence that I didn't mention), you don't have to be
> an A+ student in mathematics to figure out the most-reasonable and
> most-likely answer to the basic questions concerning the assassination
> of John F. Kennedy.
>
> But, for some odd reason, the obvious answers to those questions keep
> eluding conspiracy theorists the world over.
>
> ~shrug~
>
> David Von Pein
> December 1, 2009
>
>
> http://www.Oswald-Is-Guilty.blogspot.com
>
> http://www.DavidVonPein.blogspot.com
>
> http://www.YouTube-Playlists.blogspot.com
>
> http://www.YouTube.com/BobHarris77
Bud
You gave weight to Gil assertion or you wouldn`t have asked me. On
what grounds did you give weight to Gil`s assertion?
> You should be flattered that I would trust your answer more than his!
I don`t hold your opinions in the same high regard that you do.
> But by repeatedly dodging the question, you make that increasingly
> difficult to do.
If you were really curious you`d go to the source and stop pestering
me.
> I am truly open minded, Bud. And I realize that more than one person on
> this planet tends to babble on incoherently, saying nothing at all of
> substance.
>
> So, I want to be fair.
>
> Are you the Dutchman, Bud?
Gil said I was, but as we all know CTers are notorious retards and
liars.
Robert Harris
Anthony Marsh <anthon...@comcast.net> wrote:
> On 12/2/2009 11:49 PM, Robert Harris wrote:
> > In article<4b16e289$1...@mcadams.posc.mu.edu>,
> > Anthony Marsh<anthon...@comcast.net> wrote:
> >>>>> left and toward Brehm& co.
> >>>>> read more ?
> >>>>
> >>>> I have one word for your Z 285 shot theory:
> >>>>
> >>>> BUNK.
> >>>
> >>> It must be very frustrating for you to be totally unable to refute
> >>> this.
> >>>
> >>> But there's a reason why you can't do it. This not a conjectural
> >>> theory. This is what really happened.
> >>>
> >>>
> >>
> >> So, you have a theory which you can't prove and instead you just claim it
> >> is an absolute truth. Which is exactly the same thing that the WC
> >> defenders do.
> >
> >
> > LOL! If I was wrong, you would be able to post a rebuttal. You've had 14
> > years and you can't do it.
> >
>
> I do it every day. You just ignore it and repeat the same fiction.
Ok, repost your verbatim rebuttal which proved me wrong.
If you can do that, I will immediately remove all my videos on that
subject and shut up about it forevermore.
Please don't disappoint us like you did the last couple dozen times you
claimed to have posted rebuttals that never existed.
Come on Tony! Show me I'm wrong:-)
Show us all that HARRIS is the one who is the chronic liar here:-)
Robert Harris
Robert Harris
wrote:
>
David, why do you delete almost everything I said in direct response
to that argument and then pretend that I just evaded you?
Do you REALLY think your readers are so stupid that they can't read my
original posting???
Robert Harris
Robert Harris
Funny, isn't it that "the Dutchman" doesn't want to weigh in on this
discussion.
I mean, if someone accused me of being Bud, I would be torn between
having him killed or just maimed.
Robert Harris
In article
<82162fc5-985b-4354...@a32g2000yqm.googlegroups.com>,
Bud <sirs...@fast.net> wrote:
> On Dec 4, 3:01 pm, Robert Harris <reharr...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > In article
> > <d97c4156-d1b6-4ff4-8be4-474921339...@u20g2000vbq.googlegroups.com>,
> >
> >
> >
> > Bud <sirsl...@fast.net> wrote:
> > > On Dec 3, 11:59 pm, Robert Harris <reharr...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > > > In article
> > > > <615185ab-9e6c-45c7-a75b-60e15db14...@o31g2000vbi.googlegroups.com>,
> >
> > > > Bud <sirsl...@fast.net> wrote:
> > > > > On Dec 3, 7:19 pm, Robert Harris <reharr...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > > > > > In article
> > > > > > <d41c3640-67d0-4665-818b-9a609b67b...@g1g2000vbr.googlegroups.com>,
> >
> > > > > > Bud <sirsl...@fast.net> wrote:
> > > > > > > On Dec 3, 9:57 am, Robert Harris <reharr...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > > > > > > > In article
> > > > > > > > <db5dcd8b-b36b-4687-bb57-2e65b154c...@31g2000vbf.googlegroups.co
> > > > > > > > m>,
> >
> > > > > > > > Bud<sirsl...@fast.net> wrote:
> > > > > > > > > On Dec 2, 10:15 pm, Robert Harris <reharr...@yahoo.com>
> > > > > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > In article
> > > > > > > > > > <6266d2af-f92d-4672-a8a3-714d1340d...@v30g2000yqm.googlegrou
David Von Pein
>>> "David, why do you delete almost everything I said in direct response to that argument and then pretend that I just evaded you?" <<<
Oh, you mean like your theory about how Oswald had some bullet shells
in his pocket prior to the assassination? (Which I did not ignore, of
course. But you seem to think I did.)
Here's my response to that LOL moment (this is definitely worth
multiple re-postings...just for the belly-laughs):
=============================================
-- DVP; 12/4/09
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/msg/890d66744fd8dcfa
=================================================
Robert Harris
<reharris1-52A8B...@70-3-168-216.pools.spcsdns.net>,
Robert Harris <reha...@yahoo.com> wrote:
Tony, are you OK????
All you have to do is post just one of your "daily" rebuttals. The
nutters around here are undoubtedly, on pins and needles, waiting for
you to shut me up!
And to be honest with you, I would like to move on to more interesting
things.
Why is it taking you so long???
Robert Harris