Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.
Dismiss
David Von Pein??
2 views
Skip to first unread message
Robert Harris
Dec 28, 2011, 9:46:49 AM12/28/11
to
I recently tried to post the following message in mcadams newsgroup, in
regard to your ridiculous theory that the limo passengers were startled
by a gunshot almost 4 seconds prior to their reactions. Your claim
contradicts every expert on the planet who has ever studied this
phenomenon.
But it was promptly censored by mcadams, undoubtedly at your request.
Please note that this is the ONLY such message I tried to post. This was
NOT harassment. This is the entire post that was censored:
(quote)
David, do you believe it is possible for a gunshot to provoke startle
reactions by human beings, beginning more than 3 seconds after they hear
it?
And David, after you finish the obligatory trashtalk, could you just
provide a simple yes or no answer?
Robert Harris
(unquote)
And THIS is mcadams's email notice, refusing to permit me to challenge
you.
(quote)
"Reject.
You are simply going to have to limit your attempts to badger other
posters, Box.
.John"
(unquote)
These are the reactions David - they began at frame 290. Every surviving
passenger in the limo reacted within the same 1/6th of a second. And
they did NOT react to a shot at 224. STARTLE REACTIONS MUST BEGIN WITHIN
1/3RD OF A SECOND, OR 6 ZAPRUDER FRAMES.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7GH5pGQy6yI
You can't hide behind mcadams David. You post in too many other forums.
Robert Harris
Sam McClung
Dec 28, 2011, 10:07:48 AM12/28/11
to
"Robert Harris" concluded his post with:
And David, after you finish the obligatory trashtalk...
vvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvv
making "boss paulie" look good 101
this is a 3 semester hour course which will explore group interaction with
reality, delving into the value of consensus reality within our fascist
movement above and in spite of reality, and establishment of a university
pecking order, otherwise you little peckerwoods from near and far sitting in
my supreme presence will make this subject rather impossible to teach, so
sit back, shut up, do as I say and not as I do, this piece of white paper is
not white, it's not even a piece of paper, jump this high (holding hand
about 3 feet off ground), don't sleep in my classroom, i wear combat boots
when doing the wild thing, there will be a 10 page term paper, roman font
size 8, eating and drinking are not allowed in my classroom, unless you
brought my giant fat self some too, welcome and enjoy your sentence here,
sig heil! (hitler salute, returned by the class in unison, now standing
after clicking heels)
<<<<ain't it funny, a civilian formation and drill instructor pushing the
new trainees?
And David, after you finish the obligatory trashtalk...
vvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvv
making "boss paulie" look good 101
this is a 3 semester hour course which will explore group interaction with
reality, delving into the value of consensus reality within our fascist
movement above and in spite of reality, and establishment of a university
pecking order, otherwise you little peckerwoods from near and far sitting in
my supreme presence will make this subject rather impossible to teach, so
sit back, shut up, do as I say and not as I do, this piece of white paper is
not white, it's not even a piece of paper, jump this high (holding hand
about 3 feet off ground), don't sleep in my classroom, i wear combat boots
when doing the wild thing, there will be a 10 page term paper, roman font
size 8, eating and drinking are not allowed in my classroom, unless you
brought my giant fat self some too, welcome and enjoy your sentence here,
sig heil! (hitler salute, returned by the class in unison, now standing
after clicking heels)
<<<<ain't it funny, a civilian formation and drill instructor pushing the
new trainees?
Sam McClung
Dec 28, 2011, 10:12:43 AM12/28/11
to
John McAdams
Dec 28, 2011, 10:58:38 AM12/28/11
to
post, asking David to respond.
And he did respond, simply reiterating an earlier post that responded
to your points.
But you don't have an unlimited right to badger and harass people,
demanding that they agree with you about your wacky 285 shot theory.
You have to accept that people aren't going to agree with you.
.John
--------------
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/home.htm
Robert Harris
Dec 28, 2011, 11:33:51 AM12/28/11
to
In article <81fmf7tn7ser5ac9o...@4ax.com>,
Ahh yes, the rule you just made up yesterday:-)
You and your friends posted roughly 9000 messages attacking the La
Fontaines - mostly smears and deliberate lies, such as your accusation
that they were involved in the Ricky White hoax.
And there have been countless thousands of attacks and demands for
evidence against Judyth, and numerous other conspiracy people.
So, yesterday, you decided to limit me to ONE posting to debunk the crap
that Von Pein posts???
Do you actually think that people are too stupid to see through the fact
that you need to shut me up because I'm making you and Von Pein look
like idiots???
>
> And he did respond
Bullshit!!
You censored my question that I had never asked him before in my life.
And he has never attempted to reply to it.
> simply reiterating an earlier post that responded
> to your points.
But his "response" was that people were startled by a gunshot 67 frames
prior to their reactions, when you know as well as I do that startle
reactions MUST begin within 6 frames.
That's not a trivial detail John, because that gunshot could not have
been fired earlier than frame 285, and Oswald could not have fired it
and the shot that followed 1.5 seconds later.
You've evaded this issue for 16 years, but after I pressed you to
respond, you decided you couldn't run any more, so now you're trying to
shut me up.
>
> But you don't have an unlimited right to badger and harass people,
> demanding that they agree with you about your wacky 285 shot theory.
And you're a liar.
You don't think for a millisecond that this is "wacky". If you did, you
wouldn't have had to run from it for all these years and censor me.
Alvarez confirmed that there was a loud noise at 285 and the
overwhelming consensus of the DP witnesses was that the final shots were
"closely bunched", which is EXACTLY what the shots at 285 and 312 were.
But it's the visible reactions that have you running for a dry pair of
pants. Only an idiot could fail to realize that these people are
reacting to a gunshot.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7GH5pGQy6yI
Robert Harris
You and your friends posted roughly 9000 messages attacking the La
Fontaines - mostly smears and deliberate lies, such as your accusation
that they were involved in the Ricky White hoax.
And there have been countless thousands of attacks and demands for
evidence against Judyth, and numerous other conspiracy people.
So, yesterday, you decided to limit me to ONE posting to debunk the crap
that Von Pein posts???
Do you actually think that people are too stupid to see through the fact
that you need to shut me up because I'm making you and Von Pein look
like idiots???
>
> And he did respond
Bullshit!!
You censored my question that I had never asked him before in my life.
And he has never attempted to reply to it.
> simply reiterating an earlier post that responded
> to your points.
prior to their reactions, when you know as well as I do that startle
reactions MUST begin within 6 frames.
That's not a trivial detail John, because that gunshot could not have
been fired earlier than frame 285, and Oswald could not have fired it
and the shot that followed 1.5 seconds later.
You've evaded this issue for 16 years, but after I pressed you to
respond, you decided you couldn't run any more, so now you're trying to
shut me up.
>
> But you don't have an unlimited right to badger and harass people,
> demanding that they agree with you about your wacky 285 shot theory.
You don't think for a millisecond that this is "wacky". If you did, you
wouldn't have had to run from it for all these years and censor me.
Alvarez confirmed that there was a loud noise at 285 and the
overwhelming consensus of the DP witnesses was that the final shots were
"closely bunched", which is EXACTLY what the shots at 285 and 312 were.
But it's the visible reactions that have you running for a dry pair of
pants. Only an idiot could fail to realize that these people are
reacting to a gunshot.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7GH5pGQy6yI
Robert Harris
David Von Pein
Dec 28, 2011, 11:41:14 AM12/28/11
to
>>> "These are the reactions David - they began at frame 290. Every surviving passenger in the limo reacted within the same 1/6th of a second." <<<
think they are leaning in toward their husbands because of them being
"startled" by a gunshot at Z285. But I doubt very much that any
reasonable person would think that the SMOOTH and NON-JERKY movements
of both Nellie and Jackie were due to a gunshot at Z285. They were
merely leaning in to tend to their respective husbands....and you
cannot possibly prove otherwise. Plus, my explanation is much more
reasonable than yours. (IMO, that is.)
And when I said this 2 years ago....
"Anything [Bob Harris] attributes to a missed shot at precisely
Z285 can just as easily be attributed to Oswald's real second shot at
Z224. The difference in real time is negligible. But to Bob "Z285"
Harris, 3.3 seconds is an amount of time that can be dissected and
sliced to absolute perfection in the minds and testimony of EVERY
SINGLE LIMO OCCUPANT."
....I wasn't referring to "startle" reactions. I was referring to the
movements of the limo occupants which were perfectly reasonable
"movements" in light of those limo occupants reacting to Oswald's shot
that had just hit JFK & JBC a little more than 3 seconds earlier at
Z224.
Nellie & Jackie react in perfectly reasonable ways shortly after they
each noticed that something was wrong with their husbands. And Greer
and Kellerman reacted in normal human ways too--they each turned to
look into the back seat to see what was going on.
No "startle" reactions at all. Just ordinary and logical voluntary
"movements" by the four people in the car who weren't hit by gunfire
at Z224.
http://www.box.com/shared/7n9bertqjo
Robert Harris
Dec 28, 2011, 12:17:01 PM12/28/11
to
David, I'm not interested in preaching to the choir. I want the nutters
to hear this.
Why don't you tell mcadams that it's OK for me to respond in his forum?
Robert Harris
In article
<af6c3c73-80ec-4ee8...@x19g2000yqf.googlegroups.com>,
aeffects
Dec 28, 2011, 2:53:26 PM12/28/11
to
TOP POST
Perhaps there is something to John Mcadams being DVP, eh? So there is
MORE posting rules for the alt.assassination.jfk looney bin, what-a-
surprise.... tsk-tsk
On Dec 28, 8:33 am, Robert Harris <bobharri...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> In article <81fmf7tn7ser5ac9op0i93i7h590odu...@4ax.com>,
Perhaps there is something to John Mcadams being DVP, eh? So there is
MORE posting rules for the alt.assassination.jfk looney bin, what-a-
surprise.... tsk-tsk
On Dec 28, 8:33 am, Robert Harris <bobharri...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> In article <81fmf7tn7ser5ac9op0i93i7h590odu...@4ax.com>,
Robert Harris
Dec 28, 2011, 3:20:38 PM12/28/11
to
In article
<df423bf2-5741-44a5...@t8g2000yqg.googlegroups.com>,
Robert Harris
<df423bf2-5741-44a5...@t8g2000yqg.googlegroups.com>,
aeffects <aeffe...@gmail.com> wrote:
> TOP POST
>
> Perhaps there is something to John Mcadams being DVP, eh?
No, they are not the same person, but they might as well be.
> TOP POST
>
> Perhaps there is something to John Mcadams being DVP, eh?
Robert Harris
Jason Burke
Dec 28, 2011, 4:55:22 PM12/28/11
to
On 12/28/2011 9:17 AM, Robert Harris wrote:
> David, I'm not interested in preaching to the choir. I want the nutters
> to hear this.
>
> Why don't you tell mcadams that it's OK for me to respond in his forum?
>
>
>
>
>
> Robert Harris
>
>
>
>
> In article
> <af6c3c73-80ec-4ee8...@x19g2000yqf.googlegroups.com>,
> David Von Pein<davev...@aol.com> wrote:
>
>>>>> "These are the reactions David - they began at frame 290. Every surviving
>>>>> passenger in the limo reacted within the same 1/6th of a second."<<<
>>
>> I explained the so-called "reactions" regarding Jackie& Nellie. You
> David, I'm not interested in preaching to the choir. I want the nutters
> to hear this.
>
> Why don't you tell mcadams that it's OK for me to respond in his forum?
>
>
>
>
>
> Robert Harris
>
>
>
>
> In article
> <af6c3c73-80ec-4ee8...@x19g2000yqf.googlegroups.com>,
> David Von Pein<davev...@aol.com> wrote:
>
>>>>> "These are the reactions David - they began at frame 290. Every surviving
>>>>> passenger in the limo reacted within the same 1/6th of a second."<<<
>>
>> think they are leaning in toward their husbands because of them being
>> "startled" by a gunshot at Z285. But I doubt very much that any
>> reasonable person would think that the SMOOTH and NON-JERKY movements
>> of both Nellie and Jackie were due to a gunshot at Z285. They were
>> merely leaning in to tend to their respective husbands....and you
>> cannot possibly prove otherwise. Plus, my explanation is much more
>> reasonable than yours. (IMO, that is.)
>>
>> And when I said this 2 years ago....
>>
>> "Anything [Bob Harris] attributes to a missed shot at precisely
>> Z285 can just as easily be attributed to Oswald's real second shot at
>> Z224. The difference in real time is negligible. But to Bob "Z285"
>> Harris, 3.3 seconds is an amount of time that can be dissected and
>> sliced to absolute perfection in the minds and testimony of EVERY
>> SINGLE LIMO OCCUPANT."
>>
>> ....I wasn't referring to "startle" reactions. I was referring to the
>> movements of the limo occupants which were perfectly reasonable
>> "movements" in light of those limo occupants reacting to Oswald's shot
>> that had just hit JFK& JBC a little more than 3 seconds earlier at
>> "startled" by a gunshot at Z285. But I doubt very much that any
>> reasonable person would think that the SMOOTH and NON-JERKY movements
>> of both Nellie and Jackie were due to a gunshot at Z285. They were
>> merely leaning in to tend to their respective husbands....and you
>> cannot possibly prove otherwise. Plus, my explanation is much more
>> reasonable than yours. (IMO, that is.)
>>
>> And when I said this 2 years ago....
>>
>> "Anything [Bob Harris] attributes to a missed shot at precisely
>> Z285 can just as easily be attributed to Oswald's real second shot at
>> Z224. The difference in real time is negligible. But to Bob "Z285"
>> Harris, 3.3 seconds is an amount of time that can be dissected and
>> sliced to absolute perfection in the minds and testimony of EVERY
>> SINGLE LIMO OCCUPANT."
>>
>> ....I wasn't referring to "startle" reactions. I was referring to the
>> movements of the limo occupants which were perfectly reasonable
>> "movements" in light of those limo occupants reacting to Oswald's shot
>> Z224.
>>
>> Nellie& Jackie react in perfectly reasonable ways shortly after they
>> each noticed that something was wrong with their husbands. And Greer
>> and Kellerman reacted in normal human ways too--they each turned to
>> look into the back seat to see what was going on.
>>
>> No "startle" reactions at all. Just ordinary and logical voluntary
>> "movements" by the four people in the car who weren't hit by gunfire
>> at Z224.
>>
>> http://www.box.com/shared/7n9bertqjo
Nice to know that Mr. Von Pein controls Mr. McAdams. I never knew that
>> and Kellerman reacted in normal human ways too--they each turned to
>> look into the back seat to see what was going on.
>>
>> No "startle" reactions at all. Just ordinary and logical voluntary
>> "movements" by the four people in the car who weren't hit by gunfire
>> at Z224.
>>
>> http://www.box.com/shared/7n9bertqjo
before.
aeffects
Dec 28, 2011, 5:57:05 PM12/28/11
to
On Dec 28, 1:55 pm, Jason Burke <Burke_Ja...@comcast.net> wrote:
> On 12/28/2011 9:17 AM, Robert Harris wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > David, I'm not interested in preaching to the choir. I want the nutters
> > to hear this.
>
> > Why don't you tell mcadams that it's OK for me to respond in his forum?
>
> > Robert Harris
>
> > In article
> > <af6c3c73-80ec-4ee8-8d08-d1c824a3a...@x19g2000yqf.googlegroups.com>,
> On 12/28/2011 9:17 AM, Robert Harris wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > David, I'm not interested in preaching to the choir. I want the nutters
> > to hear this.
>
> > Why don't you tell mcadams that it's OK for me to respond in his forum?
>
> > Robert Harris
>
> > In article
> > David Von Pein<davevonp...@aol.com> wrote:
hope for you yet! LMFAO! ! ! !
Bud
Jan 1, 2012, 5:28:58 PM1/1/12
to
On Dec 28 2011, 11:33 am, Robert Harris <bobharri...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> In article <81fmf7tn7ser5ac9op0i93i7h590odu...@4ax.com>,
> In article <81fmf7tn7ser5ac9op0i93i7h590odu...@4ax.com>,
Bud
Jan 1, 2012, 5:26:39 PM1/1/12
to
On Dec 28 2011, 12:17 pm, Robert Harris <bobharri...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> David, I'm not interested in preaching to the choir.
How many other CTers are buying into your ideas about a shot a
> David, I'm not interested in preaching to the choir.
z285?
> I want the nutters
> to hear this.
> Why don't you tell mcadams that it's OK for me to respond in his forum?
that board? David didn`t ask McAdams to make that call. I doubt very
much if he feels he benefits in any way from it. These are all your
crazy ideas, Harris, they have no basis in reality.
> Robert Harris
>
> In article
> <af6c3c73-80ec-4ee8-8d08-d1c824a3a...@x19g2000yqf.googlegroups.com>,
0 new messages