AN OPEN LETTER TO DALE MYERS
Robert Harris
Dear Mr. Myers,
I think your decision to censor my criticism of one of your videos, by
telling Youtube that this was a copyright violation, was a bad choice.
Since you allow your fellow conspiracy deniers to post your presentation
on Youtube in it's entirety, while censoring my usage of a small
portion, you make it obvious, that the problem is not about the
copyright. It's about you trying to censor criticism and being caught
deliberately misrepresenting one of the most important events of the
20th century.
You had every opportunity to respond to my video and defend your work,
and with much better resources than I have. But you can't do that, can
you Mr. Myers? There is no presentation you can create using those phony
frames which would convince anyone who has become aware of your tactics.
Your attempt at heavy-handed censorship is both cowardly and dishonest.
You proved to everyone that you are incapable of defending the theory
you've been pitching all these years, and you demonstrate exactly what
kind of integrity you possess, by censoring my video on totally false
pretenses.
In short, Mr. Myers, you have confirmed that you are exactly what I have
been claiming you were, all along.
Robert Harris
Chuck Schuyler
Boo Hoo
David Von Pein
>>> "In short, Mr. Myers, you have confirmed that you are exactly what I have been claiming you were, all along." <<<
And what would that be, Bob?
Could it be that Dale Myers is a person who worked for ten years on a
detailed, painstaking 3D animation project, and proved beyond all
reasonable doubt (to reasonable people) via that detailed computer
animation project that the Single-Bullet Theory is a fact, who doesn't
feel like having his hard work soiled and dragged through the YouTube
mud by the likes of Robert Harris by having Harris distort and
misrepresent and mangle the specifics of Mr. Myers' animation work in
a homemade video....a video that was produced by a person who doesn't
have the slightest idea what he's talking about when it comes to the
specifics of 3D computer animation and photogrammetry?
Could that be the type of person Dale K. Myers is?
Bud
Robert Harris wrote:
> Dear Mr. Myers,
>
> I think your decision to censor my criticism of one of your videos, by
> telling Youtube that this was a copyright violation, was a bad choice.
Lets hope he sues you, so you can clear your good name in court.
> Since you allow your fellow conspiracy deniers to post your presentation
> on Youtube in it's entirety, while censoring my usage of a small
> portion, you make it obvious, that the problem is not about the
> copyright.
Since the US arms the Iraqi army, you think it`s only fair we
should arm the insurgents also?
> It's about you trying to censor criticism and being caught
> deliberately misrepresenting one of the most important events of the
> 20th century.
Whether Kennedy was killed by a lone gunman or a conspiracy is
unimportant. Both possibilities bring us to the same present reality.
> You had every opportunity to respond to my video and defend your work,
He did write a long rebuttal letter. How much effort do you think
he needs to expend on you?
> and with much better resources than I have. But you can't do that, can
> you Mr. Myers? There is no presentation you can create using those phony
> frames which would convince anyone who has become aware of your tactics.
>
> Your attempt at heavy-handed censorship is both cowardly and dishonest.
You want to attack him, and you are pissed that he doesn`t provide
you with the tools to do it?
> You proved to everyone that you are incapable of defending the theory
> you've been pitching all these years,
Quite the opposite. I suspect by denying your usage, he does harm
to your your attacks, an excellent means of defense.
> and you demonstrate exactly what
> kind of integrity you possess, by censoring my video on totally false
> pretenses.
If you think YouTube sided with Myers under false pretenses, your
dispute is with YouTube.
> In short, Mr. Myers, you have confirmed that you are exactly what I have
> been claiming you were, all along.
Bob, would you be a guy and provide me with all the personal
information about you that you can? I want to make some personal
attacks against you. Thanks.
>
>
>
>
>
> Robert Harris
David Von Pein
>>> "Copyright violation? It's called FAIR USE. Quoting someone's own work to criticize it." <<<
Robert Harris wasn't merely "quoting" Dale Myers' work. Mr. Harris was
using the actual imagery of Myers' "Secrets Of A Homicide" animation
project that was aired in 2004 on The Discovery Channel. And Harris
did so without permission of the copyright owner (Myers), of course.
So Dale certainly has every right to file a complaint with YouTube.
I wouldn't want my work being mangled and misrepresented by a person
who is bent on a JFK conspiracy and then have that CTer prop up this
blatant misrepresentation about my work on a popular public website
for the gullible masses to swallow. I, too, would be upset about that
kind of thing.
A word of advice -- Don't mess around with Dale Myers' copyrighted
material in order to spread the kind of misrepresentations about his
work that Bob Harris has recently done....because Dale WILL take
notice of it. He's very protective of his work....as he has every
right to be. I can't blame him for that one little bit.
Heck, his website is one of the very few sites I've ever visited that
has all "right-click" mouse options disabled. You can't even copy-and-
paste any text from his site. But, again, that's his privilege. And I
respect him for that decision to fully protect the work that is
rightfully his.
aeffects
David should we really care what the fuck you think about Dale Myers
cartoon and his website.... IMHO, its a farce son, just like you!
Herbert Blenner
Anyone with a PrtScrn key can copy text and graphics from Myers' web
site. I posted the following text and graphics from "Secrets of a
Homicide" to point out errors in Myers' velocity curves.
http://mysite.verizon.net/a1eah71/temps/velocitycurves.jpg
Apparently someone noticed my criticism and replaced the erroneous
plots.
http://mysite.verizon.net/a1eah71/temps/mistakes.jpg
Unfortunately they omit labels for the dependent axes. However, the
plotted curves would now agree with the text if we assume that the
omitted labels are distances. Now the unchanging slope of the linear
curve represents a constant speed. For the spline curve the initial
slope of zero represents an object as rest. The increasing slope
corresponds to an increasing speed and followed by a decreasing slope
of the slowing object. Finally the zero slope at the final point shows
an object at rest.
In summary the plots have two outstanding errors. First the dependent
axes need labels and the titles of the graphics must be changed from
"velocity curves" to distance curves.
Herbert
David Von Pein
>>> "Unfortunately they omit labels for the dependent axes. However, the plotted curves would now agree with the text if we assume that the omitted labels are distances. Now the unchanging slope of the linear curve represents a constant speed. For the spline curve the initial slope of zero represents an object as rest. The increasing slope corresponds to an increasing speed and followed by a decreasing slope of the slowing object. Finally the zero slope at the final point shows an object at rest. In summary the plots have two outstanding errors. First the dependent axes need labels and the titles of the graphics must be changed from "velocity curves" to distance curves." <<<
What a load.
Is all of that sophisticated mumbo-jumbo supposed to somehow prove
that Dale Myers is full of shit?
To repeat.....
What a load [of crappola].
muc...@gmail.com
Here's a link to the image itself:
http://www.jfkfiles.com/jfk/images/motion3_pic.gif
And here's a link to the page it appears on:
http://www.jfkfiles.com/jfk/html/motion.htm
In Microsoft's Internet Explorer, the balloon text "velocity curves"
appears when the mouse is hovered over the image. I sure hope that
Myers will change the offending content of the IMG element's ALT
attribute next time he updates his site. In the meantime, I'll
recommend using another browser than IE.
-Mark
Robert Harris
<8e0fc9df-a9df-40c2...@w7g2000hsa.googlegroups.com>,
David, my video proved that he was full of shit. If it hadn't he
wouldn't have had to stoop to censoring me.
Can you imagine all the howling there would have been around here, if I
had done the same thing to mag21, who was using parts of my videos to
try to refute me??
Be honest David - how many of you would have been claiming I did that
because I couldn't handle his brilliant rebuttal?
Of course to be fair, Myers' problem was a thousand times more difficult
than mine:-)
Robert Harris
David Von Pein
>>> "David, my video proved that he [Dale K. Myers] was full of shit." <<<
You've "proved" nothing, you pompous moron.
Dale Myers wrote a fairly-extensive rebuttal to your YouTube
silliness, but the problem is: you just flat-out don't believe a
single thing Dale has to say (no matter WHAT it is). And you'll never
ever believe anything he says.
You still think you can do direct comparisons of 2D and 3D images
within 2D space. But Dale has repeatedly said you cannot do this
accurately. But you insist you can take such measurements anyway.
As Dale said.....
"The only game players in this case are the conspiracy diehards
like Mr. Harris who refuse to accept the reality of what happened in
Dealey Plaza and prefer instead to prey on the young and naive who are
more than happy to follow any video pied piper willing to tell them
whatever they want to hear about the Kennedy assassination--truth be
damned." -- Dale K. Myers; 08/18/2008
http://jfkfiles.blogspot.com/2008/08/youtube-pied-pipers.html
aeffects
son, when its over your head, you panic.... chill
aeffects
hide behind Davey, Dale.... You both look good in pink...
> http://jfkfiles.blogspot.com/2008/08/youtube-pied-pipers.html
Robert Harris
<e63ccf69-22c8-4a63...@t54g2000hsg.googlegroups.com>,
David Von Pein <davev...@aol.com> wrote:
> >>> "David, my video proved that he [Dale K. Myers] was full of shit." <<<
>
> You've "proved" nothing, you pompous moron.
Im sorry you have to resort to pre-adolescent name calling when you are
cornered, David. When you do that you are tacitly admitting that you are
floundering.
>
> Dale Myers wrote a fairly-extensive rebuttal to your YouTube
> silliness,
He did?
I only heard him insulting me (see above) and claim that people who
watch Youtube have short attention spans.
But maybe I overlooked something. Could you cite the part where he dealt
with the fact that the HSCA produced a drastically different drawing,
showing the two victims much further apart?
And could you tell me what his answer was to the fact that his own
trajectory line, which he chopped off after returning to an accurate
image, was much too steep and would have struck the back of Connally's
car seat - exactly as the shot from the Discovery channel simulation
was??
> but the problem is: you just flat-out don't believe a
> single thing Dale has to say
More nonsense - I have no doubt whatsoever, that a single bullet passed
through both victims. And if I had to place a bet I would say that
Oswald was involved in the attack and very likely, fired the fatal shot
at 312-313.
The truth is David, that I believe a great deal of what Myers and you
believe. In fact, I agree with you on everything that is properly
supported by the evidence.
But the difference between you and I is, that I form my conclusions on
that evidence while you and Mr. Myers do exactly the opposite.
Robert Harris
David Von Pein
www.google.com/group/alt.assassination.jfk/msg/a8b90feee205d953
>>> "It's called cover-up..." <<<
Oh, great...so now "YouTube" is apparently involved in the JFK "cover
up" too.
Can "MySpace" and "Google" be far behind?
LOL.
So, evidently, Dale Myers and YouTube got together (as part of the
never-ending 45-year "cover-up" associated with the death of JFK) and
decided to wrongly pull the plug on Robert Harris' anti-Myers and anti-
SBT video.
Is that about the size of the situation, Tony?
Or does YouTube merely have a general, built-in policy of "covering
up" when it comes to ANY videos dealing with the assassination of
President Kennedy?
But if that were the case, why are there so many PRO-conspiracy videos
still available to watch (and boldly laugh at) at YouTube.com?
In short, Anthony Marsh is talking out his ass (again).
>>> "YouTube is violating the rights of everyone by restricting free speech and political discourse." <<<
Oh, for Pete's sake.
More silliness being uttered by Mr. Marsh.
David Von Pein
www.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/msg/b6c744e5b47f8b94
DVP SAID:
>>> "You've "proved" nothing, you pompous moron." <<<
ROBERT HARRIS SAID:
>>> "I'm sorry you have to resort to pre-adolescent name calling when you are cornered, David." <<<
DVP NOW SAYS:
Yes, sometimes I let my anger and frustration at the conspiracy
theorists get the better of me, and many times I start to vent those
feelings through my keyboard. But I'm human (although some CTers might
disagree with me there). So sue me. Shit happens.
But I do want to apologize to you for the "moron" remark in my last
post. I probably went overboard (just a tad bit) with that comment.
Sorry.
ROBERT HARRIS SAID:
>>> "I only heard him [Dale Myers] insulting me and claim that people who watch YouTube have short attention spans. But maybe I overlooked something. Could you cite the part where he dealt with the fact that the HSCA produced a drastically different drawing, showing the two victims much further apart? And could you tell me what his answer was to the fact that his own trajectory line, which he chopped off after returning to an accurate image, was much too steep and would have struck the back of Connally's car seat--exactly as the shot from the Discovery channel simulation was??" <<<
DVP NOW SAYS:
Bob, you're incredible. Just incredible. It's as if Dale Myers' words
in his rebuttal to you were never even written! They've sailed right
past Mr. Harris, with no hint of their existence resonating with Mr.
Harris at all! Amazing.
Here's a portion of what Mr. Myers wrote on his website concerning the
unwarranted allegations made by Mr. Harris (and, once again, these
words will undoubtedly fly into Mr. Harris' left ear and then zoom
straight out the right one, with nothing sinking into the gray matter
that resides in-between those two locations):
"Apparently Mr. Harris never heard of (or understands) the
underlying principle of photogrammetry, which in essence shows that it
is impossible to project three dimensional lines in space onto two
dimensional photographs without taking into account the location and
angle of both known vantage points. By some wizardry unknown to human
science, Mr. Harris is able to do both. ....
"What is the evidence for the charge that I manipulated the
dimensions of the limousine to better serve the single bullet theory?
Mr. Harris offers nothing more that his own self-proclaimed expertise
at visually aligning two different photographs made from two
completely different angles in three dimensional space--a virtual
impossibility--along with an unsupported declarative statement: 'There
is no way JFK's legs could have been up against the back of Connally’s
car seat.' ....
"What Mr. Harris doesn't know is that the two renderings
(wireframe and solid form) depict the SAME MODEL. That's right folks,
the wireframe model that he claims has been "jammed together" in order
to mislead the American public and perpetuate the cover-up, is the
EXACT SAME MODEL (and in the same position) as the solid form model
which Mr. Harris says depicts Kennedy and Connally correctly." -- DALE
MYERS; 08/18/2008
========================
In addition to the above remarks by Myers in his main article/
rebuttal, Dale wrote these lengthy follow-up comments two days later:
"Mr. Harris cannot seem to let well enough alone, posting a
response to my article on one of the newsgroups dedicated to
assassination discussion, in an effort to redeem his false and poorly
conceived charge that I manipulated geometry in my computer
reconstruction of the Kennedy murder in order to hide the truth about
the trajectory of the single bullet theory.
"Normally I wouldn’t respond to Mr. Harris’ retort because he
has proven in the past (and again in his latest response) to be
incapable of grasping even the simplest of scientific concepts. I’m
going to make an exception this time in order to demonstrate in living
color why I don’t bother to spend any valuable time debating such
nincompoopery.
"Since Mr. Harris has deemed it necessary to serve up his rosey
bottom for a thorough spanking on this issue, I will be happy to
oblige him -- this one time. I promise this will not be a habit.
"In a newsgroup thread title[d] “Myers Responds!”, Mr. Harris
repeats his unfounded and false contention that I “reduced the
distance between JFK and Connally, in the first part of his
presentation, using what was obviously a hastily thrown together
wireframe of the limousine, and that he switched back to an accurate
rendering of the two victims after finishing his ‘analysis’.”
"This charge was made after Mr. Harris was informed that the
wireframe version of the limousine and the solid form version (which
Mr. Harris refers to as “an accurate rendering”) were one and the same
model rendered with two different rendering shaders -- a fact Mr.
Harris fails to even mention in his response, and with good reason: it
shows him to be completely ignorant of the process involved in
constructing the model and destroys the foundation of his entire
argument.
"What evidence of deception does Mr. Harris offer in the face of
the true facts about my work that show his claims to be false at their
very core? Get this -- Mr. Harris writes: “…my argument was that he
shrunk the distance between the two men, a fact which is quite
obvious, and requires no extrapolation whatsoever…” Mr. Harris
explains that “…But what is really great about debates on graphics is
that you don't have to rely on the *words* of either Mr. Myers or
myself. Look at the images, pause the video, and hold a ruler up to
your screen. Decide for yourself, who is full of crap here…” [End
Harris quote.]
"For Mr. Harris, proof of deception is as simple as holding a
ruler up to a computer monitor. Even a child of five could accomplish
this task, right?
"Yet, Mr. Harris has conveniently and methodically avoided the
central scientific principle pointed out in my original response --
the principle of photogrammetry -- which effectively proves (to anyone
of even the simplest mindset) the fallacy of “holding a ruler up to
your screen” to prove anything.
"I pointed out that Jack White, a leading conspiracy advocate,
made the same mistake thirty years ago (as revealed in testimony
before the House Select Committee on Assassinations). Mr. Harris not
only ignores this fact, but continues to make false and malicious
statements about my work base[d] on the same false methodology used
[by] White three decades ago.
"I don’t know how many ways to say it, but let me try it this
way -- no one can deduce a three dimensional angle in space by holding
a ruler or protractor against a two dimensional photograph or computer
monitor. The principles of photogrammetry explain why this methodology
leads to false results.
"Mr. Harris claims to be able to do what is scientifically
impossible using images of my computer work as broadcast on the
Discovery Channel. It has already been pointed out to Mr. Harris and
others that the Discovery Channel sequences were filmed from a
computer monitor that was situated at a considerable angle to the
camera (this can clearly [be] seen by looking at the images
themselves).
"These filmed sequences were mixed with other sequences which
originated directly from the computer renderings. Consequently, there
are multiple compound angles present in the broadcast sequences which
prevent anyone -- especially Mr. Harris -- from holding a ruler or
protractor up to a computer monitor and gleening [sic] anything that
remotely resembles the truth.
"Mr. Harris has proven in this latest outrage to be incapable of
dealing with the truth. The best he can hope to do is play the martyr
to an audience largely ignorant of basic scientific principles. None
of this is new. ....
"Finally, Mr. Harris is wrong about the trajectory line in the
original rendering terminating at the inshoot point of Kennedy’s back
wound. The line does extend through Kennedy and into Connally’s back.
Mr. Harris makes the mistake of using compressed imagery from
secondary sources which effectively hides the rendered trajectory line
to draw his fatally flawed conclusions.
"One final note, in a thread entitled, “Dale Myers,” Mr. Harris
writes: “…Dale and I go way back, to when I emailed him in 1995 in
response to his article in Toaster magazine. To this day, I am still
waiting for him to reveal the angles he used to conclude that a line
through the known wounds in JFK and Connally pointed directly back at
Oswald….” [End Harris quote.]
"The angles that Mr. Harris is “still waiting for” were
published long ago on my website detailing the results of my computer
work (see, www.jfkfiles.com). The relevant passage reads: “The result
shows the bullet moving at a 10 degree angle, right to left, relative
to the midline of the limousine. The angle of declination is about
20.5 degrees below true horizontal. Accounting for the three degree
slope in the road, the bullet is moving downward at an angle of about
17.5 degrees relative to the limousine. These figures are comparable
to those determined in previous trajectory analysis conducted by the
FBI in 1964 (WR106) and the HSCA's Photographic Panel in 1978.
(6HSCA46)”
"I don’t for a minute believe that Mr. Harris will stop his
malicious and disparaging remarks about myself or my work on this
case. His record of ad hominem attacks and personal insults is long
and easily accessible to anyone willing to indulge in a search of the
newsgroups.
"My refusal to engage him and his ilk over the years has, I’m
sure, emboldened him to some degree. However, I believe that most
people are smart enough to realize that the loudest voices aren’t
necessarily the ones worth listening to.
"Frankly, if Mr. Harris had any bullocks, he’d yank his latest
video voodoo off YouTube and apologize for being such a dope for so
many years." -- DALE MYERS; 08/20/2008
Full article by Myers linked here:
http://jfkfiles.blogspot.com/2008/08/youtube-pied-pipers.html
ROBERT HARRIS SAID:
>>> "I have no doubt whatsoever that a single bullet passed through both victims." <<<
DVP NOW SAYS:
But you just can't take that extra small (and logical) step toward
believing the only "official SBT" that's on the table right now (i.e.,
the one involving bullet CE399 from Lee Oswald's gun going through the
two victims). Right, Bob?
In other words, folks, Mr. Harris can get to within shouting distance
of the Warren Commission's version of the SBT, but he just can't quite
bring himself to endorse it entirely. So, he'll place a non-existent
gunman in a different building and he'll invent a new version of the
"SBT" -- the "Harris Version".
The only problem for Mr. Harris' version, however, is that it's not
really supported by ANY evidence at all! None. Nothing. It's only
supported by the mind of Robert Harris himself! And nothing more than
that.
ROBERT HARRIS SAID:
>>> "And if I had to place a bet, I would say that Oswald was involved in the attack and very likely fired the fatal shot at 312-313." <<<
DVP NOW SAYS:
Gee, I wonder how Bob could ever come to a wild and fantastic
conclusion like that one?
Could it be the fact that every scrap of evidence in the whole case
points to ONLY OSWALD as the culprit?
(Duh.)
ROBERT HARRIS SAID (INCREDIBLY):
>>> "The truth is, David, that I believe a great deal of what Myers and you believe. In fact, I agree with you on everything that is properly supported by the evidence. But the difference between you and I is, that I form my conclusions on that evidence while you and Mr. Myers do exactly the opposite." <<<
DVP NOW SAYS:
~LOL Break~
Yeah, Myers and I (AND the Warren Commission AND the House Select
Committee) formed our opinions about the Single-Bullet Theory on
nothing but pure 100% guesswork and conjecture and NON-
evidence....right?
Such as:
1.) CE399 being the ONLY bullet connected to this murder case that was
found inside Parkland Hospital (and on a stretcher that was most
certainly occupied by Governor Connally, NOT President Kennedy's
stretcher, which is a key and critical fact that many CTers want to
ignore, mangle, or misrepresent).
2.) CE399 was positively a bullet fired from Lee Oswald's rifle.
3.) The gun which fired CE399 was found on the 6th Floor of the Book
Depository.
4.) Governor John B. Connally was struck by just ONE BULLET on
November 22, 1963.
5.) The wound on Connally's back was almost certainly caused by a
bullet that HIT SOMETHING ELSE BEFORE IT STRUCK THE GOVERNOR OF TEXAS
(per almost all of the expert witnesses who testified about this
particular matter). And the ONLY object that that "something else"
could have possibly been was the body of President John F. Kennedy.
Also -- For the benefit of other anti-SBT CTers, I'll offer up the
following audio clip featuring Warren Commission assistant counsel
member Albert Jenner. This clip, which relates directly to my #5 point
above, isn't really meant for Robert Harris' benefit, however, since
Bob does believe that one bullet did travel through both Kennedy and
Connally via his unique (but totally evidence-empty) alternate version
of the SBT:
www.youtube.com/watch?v=1GN-LG8uZcs
"At that angle, no matter WHERE [the bullet] came from [that hit
Connally], it HAD TO PASS THROUGH THE PRESIDENT'S BODY FIRST!" --
ALBERT E. JENNER, JR.; 02/11/1967
6.) JFK had no bullets remaining inside his body when he was autopsied
on the night of 11/22/63.
7.) JFK's upper-back wound and throat wound line up very nicely to
form a DOWNWARD (back-to-front) path, perfectly consistent with the
WC's version of the SBT. And this is true even if JFK had been sitting
RAMROD STRAIGHT in his limo seat at the time when Oswald's CE399
bullet struck him in the upper back, as we can easily see via the
turned-sideways autopsy photo linked below (the crazy HSCA
determination re. an "11-degree upward bullet trajectory" through
Kennedy's body notwithstanding):
Addendum: CE903 is also worth another look at this time too (and take
notice of the "SBT"-like perfection of everything exhibited in this
photograph, right down to Arlen Specter's pointer being placed in the
bullet hole in John Connally's jacket; and yes, the man portraying JBC
in CE903 was, indeed, wearing the same jacket that Connally was
wearing when he was shot on 11/22/63):
www.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/msg/c65419db537d4abf
The above seven points of fact provide a good short lesson as to the
main reasons why the SBT is an ironclad fact, instead of just a mere
possibility (or a mere "theory" that isn't based on any "evidence" at
all, as many conspiracy theorists seem to want to believe).
Fact #8 (for good measure):
Both the Warren Commission in 1964 and the HSCA in 1978 concluded that
ONE BULLET (bullet #CE399 from Lee Harvey Oswald's C2766 Mannlicher-
Carcano bolt-action rifle to be specific) passed through both victims
in Dallas' Dealey Plaza on 11/22/63, with that bullet entering
President Kennedy's upper back and exiting the front of his throat,
and then proceeding to cause all of Governor Connally's injuries.
In short -- The official record in the JFK murder case TWICE fully
supports the validity and workability of the Single-Bullet Theory (via
the conclusions of both U.S. Government investigative bodies who
looked into the assassination -- the WC and the HSCA).
And yet Mr. Harris has the Kong-sized gonads to utter these words to
me about the SBT:
"I agree with you on everything that is properly supported by
the evidence. ... I form my conclusions on that evidence while you and
Mr. Myers do exactly the opposite." -- Robert Harris; 08/24/2008
Unbelievable, Bob.
So, apparently then, Robert Harris is of the odd opinion that BOTH the
Warren Commission and the House Select Committee on Assassinations
(which were separate Government entities entirely, and were formed 14
years apart) actually reached their conclusions regarding the validity
of the SBT based NOT on the evidence in the case, but based on
something else entirely.
Maybe a voice from heaven was heard by ALL of those members of BOTH
the WC and the HSCA who favored the likelihood of the SBT being the
correct explanation for the double-man wounding on Elm Street in '63.
And this voice said the following to both Government entities --
"Believe The SBT! Believe The SBT! Don't Follow The Real Evidence In
The Case To Where It Leads You! Believe The SBT Instead!"
Because if BOTH the WC and the HSCA based their pro-SBT conclusions on
something OTHER than the actual "evidence" in the JFK case....what was
this "other" thing that the SBT was being based on?? A gut feeling? A
hunch? Tea leaves? Tarot cards? What?
What was it that persuaded TWO Government panels to endorse a theory
that almost all CTers say is a pack of lies? And what kind of arm-
twisting devices could have possibly been used on so many different
investigators who looked into this matter in '64 and '78, so that
virtually all of these people would be willing to swallow WHOLE a
theory that the CT community thinks belongs in a book written by
Aesop?
You're amazing, Bob. A work of CT art.
Robert Harris
<225065b6-72b5-4076...@25g2000hsx.googlegroups.com>,
David Von Pein <davev...@aol.com> wrote:
> www.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/msg/b6c744e5b47f8b94
>
>
>
>
> DVP SAID:
>
>
> >>> "You've "proved" nothing, you pompous moron." <<<
>
>
> ROBERT HARRIS SAID:
>
> >>> "I'm sorry you have to resort to pre-adolescent name calling when you are
> >>> cornered, David." <<<
>
>
> DVP NOW SAYS:
>
>
> Yes, sometimes I let my anger and frustration at the conspiracy
> theorists get the better of me, and many times I start to vent those
> feelings through my keyboard. But I'm human (although some CTers might
> disagree with me there). So sue me. Shit happens.
>
> But I do want to apologize to you for the "moron" remark in my last
> post. I probably went overboard (just a tad bit) with that comment.
> Sorry.
No you aren't David. You totally rely on ad hominem attacks, which
appear in almost every one of your postings. THAT David, is the
trademark of what I would call a genuine "moron". Sadly, it is not
reserved for only nutters.
>
>
> ROBERT HARRIS SAID:
>
> >>> "I only heard him [Dale Myers] insulting me and claim that people who
> >>> watch YouTube have short attention spans. But maybe I overlooked
> >>> something. Could you cite the part where he dealt with the fact that the
> >>> HSCA produced a drastically different drawing, showing the two victims
> >>> much further apart? And could you tell me what his answer was to the fact
> >>> that his own trajectory line, which he chopped off after returning to an
> >>> accurate image, was much too steep and would have struck the back of
> >>> Connally's car seat--exactly as the shot from the Discovery channel
> >>> simulation was??" <<<
>
>
>
> DVP NOW SAYS:
>
>
> Bob, you're incredible. Just incredible.
Thank you David. I will savor your words since they are the last honest
ones you guys will utter in this article:-)
> It's as if Dale Myers' words
> in his rebuttal to you were never even written! They've sailed right
> past Mr. Harris, with no hint of their existence resonating with Mr.
> Harris at all! Amazing.
On the contrary, David - I read everything he said.
>
> Here's a portion of what Mr. Myers wrote on his website concerning the
> unwarranted allegations made by Mr. Harris (and, once again, these
> words will undoubtedly fly into Mr. Harris' left ear and then zoom
> straight out the right one, with nothing sinking into the gray matter
> that resides in-between those two locations):
>
>
> "Apparently Mr. Harris never heard of (or understands) the
> underlying principle of photogrammetry, which in essence shows that it
> is impossible to project three dimensional lines in space onto two
> dimensional photographs without taking into account the location and
> angle of both known vantage points. By some wizardry unknown to human
> science, Mr. Harris is able to do both. ....
This is just babblage and more insults.
The problem is, that Dale wants to substitute words for reality. He has
to do that because the actual images put the lie to everything he is
saying.
Notice that he makes zero effort to PROVE any of his assertions. That's
because he can't.
>
> "What is the evidence for the charge that I manipulated the
> dimensions of the limousine to better serve the single bullet theory?
Oh Gosh! Where did that evidence go???
Oh I remember now! Dale ran crying to Youtube to get it censored.
But tell me Dale, if there was no "evidence" in my video then why did
you need to get it removed, under the false pretense that this was a
copyright violation???
> Mr. Harris offers nothing more that his own self-proclaimed expertise
ROFLMAO!! I am the ONLY one of us who is NOT pretending to be an
"expert". Sorry, Dale but one 6 minute kiddy cartoon and a pair of
dancing M&M's doth not an expert make.
But we are ALL experts on spatial distances in a 3D environment. We have
to be or we would be running into walls all the time.
And the difference in the correct distance between JFK and Connally and
your phony wireframe video is not even a close call. It is outrageously
obvious, to the point that not even one of the nutters on Youtube
disagreed with my conclusion.
That's why neither you nor any of your followers will post a video
rebuttal. Your volumes of words ONLY sound good to people who have not
seen the relevant images.
And THAT is why I have practically begged you and yours to post a video
response. But you will NEVER do that, will you Dale:-)
> at visually aligning two different photographs made from two
> completely different angles in three dimensional space--a virtual
> impossibility--along with an unsupported declarative statement: 'There
> is no way JFK's legs could have been up against the back of Connallyąs
> car seat.' ....
And there is not.
That's why you would NEVER make that statement while holding up a
real-world image of the victims that day. Pictures speak for themselves,
Dale. They don't NEED you and I, or an endless stream of babblage.
>
> "What Mr. Harris doesn't know is that the two renderings
> (wireframe and solid form) depict the SAME MODEL. That's right folks,
> the wireframe model that he claims has been "jammed together" in order
> to mislead the American public and perpetuate the cover-up, is the
> EXACT SAME MODEL (and in the same position) as the solid form model
> which Mr. Harris says depicts Kennedy and Connally correctly." -- DALE
> MYERS; 08/18/2008
Cross your heart Dale?
Why can't you say that while pointing to the relevant images from our
videos??
And why do you demand that people trust you, when you have already
proven that you are only capable of handling criticism through heavy
handed censorship??
Why don't you SHOW us where I went wrong, rather than posting endless
insults?
>
> ========================
>
> In addition to the above remarks by Myers in his main article/
> rebuttal, Dale wrote these lengthy follow-up comments two days later:
>
>
> "Mr. Harris cannot seem to let well enough alone, posting a
> response to my article on one of the newsgroups dedicated to
> assassination discussion, in an effort to redeem his false and poorly
> conceived charge that I manipulated geometry in my computer
> reconstruction of the Kennedy murder in order to hide the truth about
> the trajectory of the single bullet theory.
zero content. only insults.
>
> "Normally I wouldnąt respond to Mr. Harrisą retort because he
> has proven in the past (and again in his latest response) to be
> incapable of grasping even the simplest of scientific concepts. Iąm
> going to make an exception this time in order to demonstrate in living
> color why I donąt bother to spend any valuable time debating such
> nincompoopery.
zero content. only insults.
>
> "Since Mr. Harris has deemed it necessary to serve up his rosey
> bottom for a thorough spanking on this issue, I will be happy to
> oblige him -- this one time. I promise this will not be a habit.
zero content. only insults.
>
> "In a newsgroup thread title[d] łMyers Responds!˛, Mr. Harris
> repeats his unfounded and false contention that I łreduced the
> distance between JFK and Connally, in the first part of his
> presentation, using what was obviously a hastily thrown together
> wireframe of the limousine, and that he switched back to an accurate
> rendering of the two victims after finishing his Śanalysisą.˛
Totally unsupported assertions.
Dale, you need to claim that my assertions are "false and unfounded",
only AFTER you prove it.
Sadly, you are about to demonstrate that you cannot even try to do such
a thing.
>
> "This charge was made after Mr. Harris was informed that the
> wireframe version of the limousine and the solid form version (which
> Mr. Harris refers to as łan accurate rendering˛) were one and the same
> model rendered with two different rendering shaders
Another unsupported assertion, and one he will NEVER make while showing
us the relevant images.
> -- a fact Mr.
> Harris fails to even mention in his response, and with good reason: it
> shows him to be completely ignorant of the process involved in
> constructing the model and destroys the foundation of his entire
> argument.
ROFLMAO!! Let's see if I have this right.
Harris has no right to question Myers images because Myers claims his
images are honest.
>
> "What evidence of deception does Mr. Harris offer in the face of
> the true facts about my work that show his claims to be false at their
> very core?
Great god!! What a convoluted, redundante and prejudicial statement!?
BTW, what other kind of "facts" are there, than true ones:-)
Dale, you do not speak the language of a researcher. You talk like a
propagandist.
> Get this -- Mr. Harris writes: łŠmy argument was that he
> shrunk the distance between the two men, a fact which is quite
> obvious, and requires no extrapolation whatsoeverŠ˛ Mr. Harris
> explains that łŠBut what is really great about debates on graphics is
> that you don't have to rely on the *words* of either Mr. Myers or
> myself. Look at the images, pause the video, and hold a ruler up to
> your screen. Decide for yourself, who is full of crap hereŠ˛ [End
> Harris quote.]
>
> "For Mr. Harris, proof of deception is as simple as holding a
> ruler up to a computer monitor. Even a child of five could accomplish
> this task, right?
Judging spatial distances is not a complex act, Mr. Myers. Yes, there
can be optical illusions, but not when it comes to such a simple task as
determining whether Kennedy's legs were almost up against the back of
Connally's car seat, as you portrayed him.
That fact is confirmed by NUMEROUS photos taken from a wide range of
angles and distances, as well as the illustrations by the HSCA.
And YOUR illustration, from the wireframe version was from a
straight-ahead, 90 degree profile. The ONLY distortion we could expect
from that position was a WIDENING of the spacing between the two men,
who were closer to your virtual camera than the background.
But this is what you won't talk about isn't it, Dale?
You only want to talk in generalities and insults, because you know the
specifics of the issue will put the lie to all your ranting.
>
> "Yet, Mr. Harris has conveniently and methodically avoided the
> central scientific principle pointed out in my original response --
> the principle of photogrammetry -- which effectively proves (to anyone
> of even the simplest mindset) the fallacy of łholding a ruler up to
> your screen˛ to prove anything.
Then why the censorship, Dale?
If only those with the "simplest mindsets" are going to fall for my
duplicity, then what is the concern??
Funny, isn't it, that every one of the following eleven paragraphs
contain personal insults, but not even one of them suggests a verifiable
piece of evidence.
My suggestion Dale, is to simply let people look at your videos and then
look at mine, and make their own call. I have faith that at least the
brighter folks will get it. So, I don't need to rant and spew out
endless insults and unproven assertions.
The very fact that you NEED to squelch dissent through censorship and
threats, puts the lie to everything you said, Dale.
Robert Harris
>
> "I pointed out that Jack White, a leading conspiracy advocate,
> made the same mistake thirty years ago (as revealed in testimony
> before the House Select Committee on Assassinations). Mr. Harris not
> only ignores this fact, but continues to make false and malicious
> statements about my work base[d] on the same false methodology used
> [by] White three decades ago.
>
> "I donąt know how many ways to say it, but let me try it this
> way -- no one can deduce a three dimensional angle in space by holding
> a ruler or protractor against a two dimensional photograph or computer
> monitor. The principles of photogrammetry explain why this methodology
> leads to false results.
>
> "Mr. Harris claims to be able to do what is scientifically
> impossible using images of my computer work as broadcast on the
> Discovery Channel. It has already been pointed out to Mr. Harris and
> others that the Discovery Channel sequences were filmed from a
> computer monitor that was situated at a considerable angle to the
> camera (this can clearly [be] seen by looking at the images
> themselves).
>
> "These filmed sequences were mixed with other sequences which
> originated directly from the computer renderings. Consequently, there
> are multiple compound angles present in the broadcast sequences which
> prevent anyone -- especially Mr. Harris -- from holding a ruler or
> protractor up to a computer monitor and gleening [sic] anything that
> remotely resembles the truth.
>
> "Mr. Harris has proven in this latest outrage to be incapable of
> dealing with the truth. The best he can hope to do is play the martyr
> to an audience largely ignorant of basic scientific principles. None
> of this is new. ....
>
> "Finally, Mr. Harris is wrong about the trajectory line in the
> original rendering terminating at the inshoot point of Kennedyąs back
> wound. The line does extend through Kennedy and into Connallyąs back.
> Mr. Harris makes the mistake of using compressed imagery from
> secondary sources which effectively hides the rendered trajectory line
> to draw his fatally flawed conclusions.
>
> "One final note, in a thread entitled, łDale Myers,˛ Mr. Harris
> writes: łŠDale and I go way back, to when I emailed him in 1995 in
> response to his article in Toaster magazine. To this day, I am still
> waiting for him to reveal the angles he used to conclude that a line
> through the known wounds in JFK and Connally pointed directly back at
> OswaldŠ.˛ [End Harris quote.]
>
> "The angles that Mr. Harris is łstill waiting for˛ were
> published long ago on my website detailing the results of my computer
> work (see, www.jfkfiles.com). The relevant passage reads: łThe result
> shows the bullet moving at a 10 degree angle, right to left, relative
> to the midline of the limousine. The angle of declination is about
> 20.5 degrees below true horizontal. Accounting for the three degree
> slope in the road, the bullet is moving downward at an angle of about
> 17.5 degrees relative to the limousine. These figures are comparable
> to those determined in previous trajectory analysis conducted by the
> FBI in 1964 (WR106) and the HSCA's Photographic Panel in 1978.
> (6HSCA46)˛
>
> "I donąt for a minute believe that Mr. Harris will stop his
> malicious and disparaging remarks about myself or my work on this
> case. His record of ad hominem attacks and personal insults is long
> and easily accessible to anyone willing to indulge in a search of the
> newsgroups.
>
> "My refusal to engage him and his ilk over the years has, Iąm
> sure, emboldened him to some degree. However, I believe that most
> people are smart enough to realize that the loudest voices arenąt
> necessarily the ones worth listening to.
>
> "Frankly, if Mr. Harris had any bullocks, heąd yank his latest
David Von Pein
I retract my earlier apology. Robert Harris is, indeed, a moron.
David Von Pein
The anti-SBT and anti-Myers bullshit never seems to stop flowing.
Here's another video for Dale Myers to have removed:
www.youtube.com/watch?v=CQtLsFdjqmU
These conspiracy-happy kooks are like mosquitos -- you swat one down
and another one is on you in a matter of seconds.
David Von Pein
Addendum: I wouldn't be surprised if "phicklephred" at YouTube is
really someone named "Harris"......
"phicklephred" (YouTube data):
Joined YouTube: August 23, 2008
No. of Videos uploaded: 1 (the re-posting of Harris' kookshit-filled
video re. Dale Myers)
Age: 72
Country: United States
aeffects
know WHAT would you know of aliases? ROTFLMFAO -- you're a troll son,
pure and simple!
Robert Harris
<da0393ed-a60c-47d8...@m3g2000hsc.googlegroups.com>,
David Von Pein <davev...@aol.com> wrote:
> The anti-SBT and anti-Myers bullshit never seems to stop flowing.
>
>
>
> Here's another video for Dale Myers to have removed:
>
>
>
> www.youtube.com/watch?v=CQtLsFdjqmU
It seems that David is also in favor of censoring disagreeable videos.
But looking at this one, it's easy to see why:-)
Robert Harris
Gil Jesus
> It seems that David is also in favor of censoring disagreeable videos.
> But looking at this one, it's easy to see why:-)
>
> Robert Harris
Ever see his Reclaiming History "group" on Google ?
You can join, but only DVP can post.
That's not moderation, that's censorship.
They did the same thing in the Soviet Union during the Cold War.
P-R-O-P-A-G-A-N-D-A
Check it out, Bob:
http://groups.google.com/group/Reclaiming-History/topics?tsc=1
David Von Pein
>>> "It seems that David is also in favor of censoring disagreeable videos." <<<
Censorship really has nothing to do with it in this particular
instance regarding the foul things you've done to Mr. Myers' material.
You (Bob Harris) have mangled and skewed and misrepresented Dale
Myers' work while utilizing a portion of his own copyrighted material
on YouTube. It's as simple as that. And Dale has rebutted your crap on
his website's news blog, but you refuse to believe him (naturally).
So, it's really a matter of not wanting to see terribly wrong
information being propped up as if it is the gospel truth (which is
exactly what Bob Harris, and "phicklephred", have done on YouTube).
And if Mr. Myers has a way to combat such blatantly-incorrect
assessments regarding his work (by filing a complaint about copyright
issues with YouTube to get Harris' piece-of-shit video removed from
that website)....more power to him!
Cheers to Dale Myers! He won a small battle for the truth by keeping a
kook named Harris from foisting more lies about Dale down the throats
of YouTubers.
Of course, as Dale has himself said, Harris isn't about to stop his
unwarranted attacks. Not a chance. In fact, Harris has already posted
another "talking head" video (sans the use of Dale's copyrighted
material this time) wherein he attempts to push the same lies about
Myers yet again.
So, as Sonny Bono said....the (kooky) beat goes on.
David Von Pein
>>> "You can join, but only DVP can post." <<<
As I've said previously, Mr. Mega-Kook --- it's meant as a RH
"bulletin board".
Duh.
cdddraftsman
Gil Jesus's 178 video's :
All Ratings have been disabled along with all comments !
Hypocrte !
tl
Dan McGrath
> unwarranted attacks. Not a chance. In fact, Harris has already posted
> another "talking head" video (sansthe use of Dale's copyrighted
> material this time) wherein he attempts to push the same lies about
> Myers yet again.
Why did you say "sans"?
- Dan
--
Daniel G. McGrath
Binghamton, New York
David Von Pein
>>> "Why did you say "sans"?" <<<
Good heavens, what is this? Dictionary Day at the Conspiracy Kook
Ranch??
(LOL.)
"Sans" = "Without":
Ben Holmes
Dan McGrath says...
>
>On Aug 28, 5:18 pm, David Von Pein <davevonp...@aol.com> wrote:
>
>> unwarranted attacks. Not a chance. In fact, Harris has already posted
>> another "talking head" video (sansthe use of Dale's copyrighted
>> material this time) wherein he attempts to push the same lies about
>> Myers yet again.
>
>Why did you say "sans"?
Presumably (I've not seen the latest Harris video), because Harris is no longer
using the copyrighted material - although I suspect that the fair use doctrine
would have kept Harris entirely safe legally speaking.
But the troll is simply a liar when he tries to claim that Harris is lying ... I
saw the first video - and it's explicit and clear what Myers did. Harris nailed
him to the wall on the distance issue.
And the troll can't defend it.
>- Dan
Prai Jei
continuum:
> On Aug 28, 5:18 pm, David Von Pein <davevonp...@aol.com> wrote:
>
>> unwarranted attacks. Not a chance. In fact, Harris has already posted
>> another "talking head" video (sansthe use of Dale's copyrighted
>> material this time) wherein he attempts to push the same lies about
>> Myers yet again.
>
> Why did you say "sans"?
Because "rare" wouldn't make sense :)
--
ξ:) Proud to be curly
Interchange the alphabetic letter groups to reply
Harry
Well, it just may be, IDIOT, that he got tired of dealing with
idiotic, mindless, stewpid TROLLS like yourself. Ever stop and think
about THAT? Hypocrite!!