David's Question
Robert Harris
<ff29ac16-b63c-4b07...@m33g2000vbi.googlegroups.com>,
David Von Pein <davev...@aol.com> wrote:
> >>> "What about when we can see them in the film, confirming the sequence
> of events they described in their testimonies, right down to their
> simultaneous reactions, David. Can we trust them then[?]" <<<
>
> Only if you can prove that all of them were reacting to the sound of a
> gunshot (which you cannot come close to PROVING, even though you're
> arrogant enough to think you can prove it).
David, I'm sure you realize that technically, it is impossible to prove
what they reacted to. But let me ask you this.
If I can demonstrate a high probability that it was a gunshot, would you
agree that there is a high probability that this crime was a conspiracy?
Robert Harris
David Von Pein
>>> "If I can demonstrate a high probability that it was a gunshot, would you agree that there is a high probability that this crime was a conspiracy?" <<<
Yes. (With the key words from Bob Harris above being: "high
probability".)
I said 'yes' to your question, of course, because it is highly
unlikely that Lee Oswald could have fired shots at both Z285 and at
Z313 with his Carcano rifle. That's only 1.53 seconds apart (and only
1.48 seconds apart, if we use Z312 as the precise frame when JFK was
actually struck in the head).
But, Bob, as you also said above, "It is impossible to prove what they
[the limo occupants] reacted to."
John Blubaugh
> In article
> <ff29ac16-b63c-4b07-9538-609d4f5cb...@m33g2000vbi.googlegroups.com>,
> David Von Pein <davevonp...@aol.com> wrote:
>
> > >>> "What about when we can see them in the film, confirming the sequence
> > of events they described in their testimonies, right down to their
> > simultaneous reactions, David. Can we trust them then[?]" <<<
>
> > Only if you can prove that all of them were reacting to the sound of a
> > gunshot (which you cannot come close to PROVING, even though you're
> > arrogant enough to think you can prove it).
>
> David, I'm sure you realize that technically, it is impossible to prove
> what they reacted to. But let me ask you this.
>
> If I can demonstrate a high probability that it was a gunshot, would you
> agree that there is a high probability that this crime was a conspiracy?
>
> Robert Harris
It doesn't matter what he says to this. Von Pain (spelled exactly the
way I meant to) would not admit there was a conspiracy if a new film
showed a close-up of someone shooting from the grassy knoll.
JB
Robert Harris
<44171c8e-99ae-4ef0...@o10g2000yqa.googlegroups.com>,
David Von Pein <davev...@aol.com> wrote:
Yes David. It is also impossible to "prove" it was really JFK in that
car, rather than his secret twin brother.
But I think it's highly probable that it was:-)
Now, let me give you the reasons why I think it is probable that they
were reacting to a gunshot then and you post the reasons why it was not.
We can then weigh the evidence and see which is more likely. Fair enough?
1. They were being shot at, at the time.
2. Everyone who was reacting, said they heard a gunshot then.
3. Gunshots are the ONLY plausible event that could have provoked sound
levels that were high enough to provoke such dramatic reactions.
4. A gunshot at 285 suggests a trajectory that aligns perfectly with a
missed shot causing Tague's minor wound.
5. James Tague testified that the "second" shot caused his wound. The
shot at 285 was the second audible shot for most people, who ONLY
recalled one shot prior to that.
6. Most witnesses recalled two closely spaced shots at the end of the
attack. Z285 was closely spaced with 312.
7. Charles Brehm heard the first of three shots as the President was
"15-20" feet from him. JFK was about 18 feet from Brehm at frame 285.
8. Clint Hill was scanning a small group to his left when he heard the
shot that provoked him to leap from the running board. We can see that
he did not look to the left prior to frame 255, and that he was in the
process of turning rapidly to his left at 255. He therefore, did not
hear that shot until after he had completed that turn.
9. Both Mrs. Kennedy and Mrs. Connally believed their respective spouses
were wounded by a shot that had to have been after 223 and before the
fatal headwound.
10. A shot at 285 is consistent with most witness recollections. The LN
scenario is inconsistent with most witnesses and totally inconsistent
with ALL law enforcement professionals who reported the spacing of the
shots.
11. SS agent Hickey stated that he heard a noise and looked to the rear.
He said he then turned to the front and heard two more shots. Hickey can
be easily seen in the Altgens photo taken at 285, STILL looking to the
rear.
12. SS agent Warren Taylor testified that he heard one noise and then
stepped out of the car, and heard two more shots. Taylor can be seen in
the Altgens photo with the door open. But he has yet to step out, and is
yet to hear those other two shots.
14. NO WITNESSES can be visually verified that way, in support of the LN
scenario.
15. The Secret Service, verified that no shots were fired prior to 285,
which were loud enough to provoke them to take action or to even draw
their weapons. And we KNOW that Clint Hill only reacted after 285, and
not 312, because he was already on the ground by 312.
Now it's your turn David.
I do hope you will display the maturity to leave out the parts about me
being a conspiracy buff on drugs, or any comments about my mother's work
in Tijuana.
Do what any good cop or honest investigator would do, and talk about the
evidence, specifically and without all the bullshit.
Robert Harris
Bud
> David Von Pein <davevonp...@aol.com> wrote:
>
> > >>> "If I can demonstrate a high probability that it was a gunshot, would you
> > >>> agree that there is a high probability that this crime was a conspiracy?"
> > >>> <<<
>
> > Yes. (With the key words from Bob Harris above being: "high
> > probability".)
>
> > I said 'yes' to your question, of course, because it is highly
> > unlikely that Lee Oswald could have fired shots at both Z285 and at
> > Z313 with his Carcano rifle. That's only 1.53 seconds apart (and only
> > 1.48 seconds apart, if we use Z312 as the precise frame when JFK was
> > actually struck in the head).
>
> > But, Bob, as you also said above, "It is impossible to prove what they
> > [the limo occupants] reacted to."
>
> Yes David. It is also impossible to "prove" it was really JFK in that
> car, rather than his secret twin brother.
>
> But I think it's highly probable that it was:-)
>
> Now, let me give you the reasons why I think it is probable that they
> were reacting to a gunshot then and you post the reasons why it was not.
>
> We can then weigh the evidence and see which is more likely. Fair enough?
>
> 1. They were being shot at, at the time.
>
> 2. Everyone who was reacting, said they heard a gunshot then.
There was someone shooting at them and they reacted to the effects
of that shooting.
> 3. Gunshots are the ONLY plausible event that could have provoked sound
> levels that were high enough to provoke such dramatic reactions.
Bullshit. They may have been reacting to each other. They may have
been reacting to the fact that they were under attack.
> 4. A gunshot at 285 suggests a trajectory that aligns perfectly with a
> missed shot causing Tague's minor wound.
No use plotting trajectories to Tague since it`s unknown what hit
him.
> 5. James Tague testified that the "second" shot caused his wound.
What he testified to was that he wasn`t sure.
> The
> shot at 285 was the second audible shot for most people, who ONLY
> recalled one shot prior to that.
When did the first audible shot occur, Harris? z-224?
> 6. Most witnesses recalled two closely spaced shots at the end of the
> attack. Z285 was closely spaced with 312.
>
> 7. Charles Brehm heard the first of three shots as the President was
> "15-20" feet from him. JFK was about 18 feet from Brehm at frame 285.
>
> 8. Clint Hill was scanning a small group to his left when he heard the
> shot that provoked him to leap from the running board. We can see that
> he did not look to the left prior to frame 255, and that he was in the
> process of turning rapidly to his left at 255. He therefore, did not
> hear that shot until after he had completed that turn.
>
> 9. Both Mrs. Kennedy and Mrs. Connally believed their respective spouses
> were wounded by a shot that had to have been after 223 and before the
> fatal headwound.
Both testified that they weren`t looking at their husbands at the
time.
> 10. A shot at 285 is consistent with most witness recollections. The LN
> scenario is inconsistent with most witnesses and totally inconsistent
> with ALL law enforcement professionals who reported the spacing of the
> shots.
> 11. SS agent Hickey stated that he heard a noise and looked to the rear.
> He said he then turned to the front and heard two more shots. Hickey can
> be easily seen in the Altgens photo taken at 285, STILL looking to the
> rear.
>
> 12. SS agent Warren Taylor testified that he heard one noise and then
> stepped out of the car, and heard two more shots. Taylor can be seen in
> the Altgens photo with the door open. But he has yet to step out, and is
> yet to hear those other two shots.
>
> 14. NO WITNESSES can be visually verified that way, in support of the LN
> scenario.
Kennedy can clearly be seen reaching towards his neck in the z-film. How
many witnesses describe this action?
> 15. The Secret Service, verified that no shots were fired prior to 285,
> which were loud enough to provoke them to take action or to even draw
> their weapons. And we KNOW that Clint Hill only reacted after 285, and
> not 312, because he was already on the ground by 312.
And we know Kennedy clearly is reacting to being shot at z-224. So
either most of the witnesses are missing the very clear event of JFK being
shot at z-224, or they saw him get shot without hearing a gunshot, and
neglected to mention it.
Robert Harris
<reharris1-0C6F9...@70-3-168-216.pools.spcsdns.net>,
Robert Harris <reha...@yahoo.com> wrote:
Correction: after 255
David Von Pein
>>> "It is also impossible to "prove" it was really JFK in that car, rather than his secret twin brother." <<<
Wrong (again).
It most certainly is possible to "prove" that it was "really JFK in
that car". Anthropologists and the President's dental records "prove"
that for us, without any doubt. And even identical twins have
different dental patterns. (Or would you like to theorize that maybe
the "JFK" who was shot in the head on Elm St. was not the same "JFK"
who was autopsied [with a big hole in his head too] that very same
night?)
The rest of your laundry list of subjectiveness are things that I've
already responded to several times in the past (see the links in my
next post). Plus, Bud did his usual fine job at destroying your
theories in his 12/4/09 post here:
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/msg/61668871bae01250
And Bud has a terrific knack of doing something I have yet to master
-- he has a way of destroying a conspiracy theorist's arguments in
only a bare minimum number of words, which is quite a remarkable
ability, IMO.
David Von Pein
Cutting down a conspiracy theorist named Bob H.:
These links below will work now:
[FOOTNOTE OF OUTRAGE!! --- Why oh WHY has Google ruined every link
that previously worked with just a "www" as a preface by insisting
upon adding a needless redirect link in front of all URLs as of
12/1/09?!! Does anyone know why Google has performed this very
annoying and useless piece of aggravating maintenance? If somebody
knows, I'd very much like to hear from them, because those redirect
links are awful. Thank you. /s/DVP].....
Example:
Link that won't work without subtracting the Goddamn redirect code:
www.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/msg/8b7ebb42d9f5d0c6
The same link, in working order this time (by adding "http://"):
http://www.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/msg/8b7ebb42d9f5d0c6
http://www.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/msg/a1b7257f83d3570f
http://www.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/msg/9e32a8d6550ab3b5
http://www.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/msg/26bb6edba1209122
http://www.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/msg/c35b8c60d20fe979
http://www.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/msg/560f8f0ea1ab8734
http://www.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/msg/543ea326391b456a
http://www.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/msg/2483ba7a867f2f98
http://www.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/msg/0a581746c27b7a2f
http://www.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/msg/bc0feb08c150532f
Robert Harris
Bud, I will be happy to answer all of your questions as soon as you
answer the one that you have been evading.
When do you see Mrs. Connally reacting to the shot that that she
believed, struck her husband.
Would you mind posting a frame number or a very short range of frame
numbers?
Thanks in advance,
Robert Harris
In article
<73b0b091-d09c-4451...@j14g2000yqm.googlegroups.com>,
Bud
> Bud, I will be happy to answer all of your questions as soon as you
> answer the one that you have been evading.
>
> When do you see Mrs. Connally reacting to the shot that that she
> believed, struck her husband.
<snicker> You are one devious, sneaky bastard Harris. Every time I
answer, you subtlety change the question. Here you insert "see", which
wasn`t present in any of the earlier incarnations of your inquiries to
me. I`ve never said I could see Nellie reacting to her husband being
shot in the z-film, I`ve never taken note of such a thing. I think for
a good deal of the time she is out of the picture. I was using
testimony to make the points I was making, not the z-film. John
Connally said he was hit, and that is when he said "No, no, no."
Nellie`s testimony has John saying "No, no, no" and then being hit.
Seems possible that John was hit before Nellie realized it, and he
wasn`t shot when she thought he was.
> Would you mind posting a frame number or a very short range of frame
> numbers?
The only way I could know what z-frame Nellie thought here husband
was hit would be if they showed her the film and had her designate
where she thought her husband had been hit. Reconstructions from
testimony is tricky, since there is so much contradictory information.
For example, Nellie said her husband said "No, no, no" before he was
shot, but her husband says it was after. Jackie says when she looked
at her husband she saw skull, and she is looking at him at z-224. Do
you think Kennedy was shot in the head at z-224?
> Thanks in advance,
> Robert Harris
>
> In article
> <73b0b091-d09c-4451-a1b8-8876b6c61...@j14g2000yqm.googlegroups.com>,
Robert Harris
David, you have once again deleted all the tough questions. Do you
really think you are going to convince people to buy your theory when
you are forever running, and evading the facts and evidence??
Let's put it back in for you and give you another chance:
In article
<44171c8e-99ae-4ef0...@o10g2000yqa.googlegroups.com>,
David Von Pein <davev...@aol.com> wrote:
> >>> "If I can demonstrate a high probability that it was a gunshot, would you
> >>> agree that there is a high probability that this crime was a conspiracy?"
> >>> <<<
>
> Yes. (With the key words from Bob Harris above being: "high
> probability".)
>
> I said 'yes' to your question, of course, because it is highly
> unlikely that Lee Oswald could have fired shots at both Z285 and at
> Z313 with his Carcano rifle. That's only 1.53 seconds apart (and only
> 1.48 seconds apart, if we use Z312 as the precise frame when JFK was
> actually struck in the head).
>
> But, Bob, as you also said above, "It is impossible to prove what they
> [the limo occupants] reacted to."
Yes David. It is also impossible to "prove" it was really JFK in that
car, rather than his secret twin brother.
But I think it's highly probable that it was:-)
Robert Harris
<8923d605-2f00-4571...@m38g2000yqd.googlegroups.com>,
Bud <sirs...@fast.net> wrote:
> On Dec 4, 4:26 pm, Robert Harris <reharr...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > Bud, I will be happy to answer all of your questions as soon as you
> > answer the one that you have been evading.
> >
> > When do you see Mrs. Connally reacting to the shot that that she
> > believed, struck her husband.
>
> <snicker> You are one devious, sneaky bastard Harris. Every time I
> answer, you subtlety change the question. Here you insert "see", which
> wasn`t present in any of the earlier incarnations of your inquiries to
> me.
Well gosh, Bud. Maybe you would prefer to smell it then.
How the fuck do you intend to look at what she said and when she
reacted, without looking?????
Bud, you need to stop pretending to be offended. Do you think there is a
single soul in the newsgroup who doesn't realize that you are making up
one phony excuse after another, to dodge the question??
She said that when she heard that shot, she turned to her hubby and
pulled him back to her.
Any idiot can see when that happened.
Or if that's too complicated for you, she said she never looked to the
rear again after she heard that shot.
Can you figure out when she last looked to the rear???
And she said she heard that shot AFTER he started yelling. I'll bet you
can figure that one out too.
Do you need more help, Bud?
It doesn't take a genius to figure out when she believed she heard that
shot. And you know damned good and well when it happened.
Now be a good little nutter and do what your cronies do, and pretend
that she was suffering from an hallucination, at exactly the same
instant that four other people did.
We expect you to be a liar. But do you have act like a babbling idiot
too??
Robert Harris
Bud
>
> Bud <sirsl...@fast.net> wrote:
> > On Dec 4, 4:26 pm, Robert Harris <reharr...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > > Bud, I will be happy to answer all of your questions as soon as you
> > > answer the one that you have been evading.
>
> > > When do you see Mrs. Connally reacting to the shot that that she
> > > believed, struck her husband.
>
> > <snicker> You are one devious, sneaky bastard Harris. Every time I
> > answer, you subtlety change the question. Here you insert "see", which
> > wasn`t present in any of the earlier incarnations of your inquiries to
> > me.
>
> Well gosh, Bud. Maybe you would prefer to smell it then.
>
> How the fuck do you intend to look at what she said and when she
> reacted, without looking?????
Looking at what, retard? This started when I said "she said the
second shot she heard hit her husband". Now, can anything she said be
determined from the z-film? Obviously, I was referring to her
testimony, her reconstruction of the event from memory in her words.
What can I "see" in her testimony, Harris?
> Bud, you need to stop pretending to be offended.
<snicker> i`m not offended, I think its funny how you think of
yourself as an honest man, when you actually just a self-deluded
zealot. You are so awestruck by the beauty of your creation that the
issues I bring up don`t even enter your consciousness.
>Do you think there is a
> single soul in the newsgroup who doesn't realize that you are making up
> one phony excuse after another, to dodge the question??
The question changes every time you ask it. Heres some of the ways
you posed it...
"When do you think she heard the second shot?" I was trying to use
her testimony to determine this. I used John Connally`s "No, no, no",
because it is something Jackie, Nellie and John all included in their
narratives. You didn`t consider this an answer.
Then it became...
"When do you think she heard the shot, which she mistakenly
believed, hit her husband?" (DVP is right, you use a lot of
unnecessary commas).
I`m not even sure what you mean when you put "mistakenly" in there,
it had nothing to do with anything I presented. If you ask me what I
think, I say she didn`t know precisely when her husband was hit.
The latest way you posed the question was ...
"When do you see Mrs Connally reacting to the shot she believed
struck her husband?"
Now, nobody could mistake this for your previous questions, yet even
though you continue to modify it, you represent it as being the same
question. To your mind it might be, but I think anyone else can see it
is markedly different. I built my original case on testimony, and you
found my approach so unacceptable, you pretended I hadn`t answered at
all.
> She said that when she heard that shot, she turned to her hubby and
> pulled him back to her.
>
> Any idiot can see when that happened.
>
> Or if that's too complicated for you, she said she never looked to the
> rear again after she heard that shot.
>
> Can you figure out when she last looked to the rear???
>
> And she said she heard that shot AFTER he started yelling. I'll bet you
> can figure that one out too.
Can you figure out that her husband said he didn`t start yelling
until after he was hit? Let me spell it out to you. John has it "I was
hit, I started saying "No, no, no". Nellie had it "John was saying
"No, no, no", and then he was hit". Which seems more likely? By using
the "no, no,no", you can see that John was hit before Nellie realized
he was. John was the first to know.
> Do you need more help, Bud?
>
> It doesn't take a genius to figure out when she believed she heard that
> shot. And you know damned good and well when it happened.
You`re nuts, Harris. You don`t want to discuss the merits of your
ideas, you want to preach the righteousness of your ideas. You`re a
garden variety fanatic.
> Now be a good little nutter and do what your cronies do, and pretend
> that she was suffering from an hallucination, at exactly the same
> instant that four other people did.
Notice your reaction when confronted with information that goes
against your precious beliefs? You ignore any contrary points made and
go running back to your preconceived notions.
> We expect you to be a liar. But do you have act like a babbling idiot
> too??
Man, you really need this, don`t you? I`m just scratching the
surface and you are getting hysterical. Don`t worry, Harris, I`m not
out to steal your blankie.
Robert Harris
<ce4040ad-d903-4030...@l13g2000yqb.googlegroups.com>,
Bud <sirs...@fast.net> wrote:
> On Dec 4, 8:29 pm, Robert Harris <reharr...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > In article
> > <8923d605-2f00-4571-a082-7dd9198e6...@m38g2000yqd.googlegroups.com>,
> >
> > Bud <sirsl...@fast.net> wrote:
> > > On Dec 4, 4:26 pm, Robert Harris <reharr...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > > > Bud, I will be happy to answer all of your questions as soon as you
> > > > answer the one that you have been evading.
> >
> > > > When do you see Mrs. Connally reacting to the shot that that she
> > > > believed, struck her husband.
> >
> > > <snicker> You are one devious, sneaky bastard Harris. Every time I
> > > answer, you subtlety change the question. Here you insert "see", which
> > > wasn`t present in any of the earlier incarnations of your inquiries to
> > > me.
> >
> > Well gosh, Bud. Maybe you would prefer to smell it then.
> >
> > How the fuck do you intend to look at what she said and when she
> > reacted, without looking?????
>
> Looking at what, retard?
LOL!! Poor Bud, going into name-calling mode.
I'm sorry, David. I was obviously being evil and malicious to actually
ask you to SEE Mrs. Connally's reaction, in order to answer the question
that you you've been dodging.
> This started when I said "she said the
> second shot she heard hit her husband". Now, can anything she said be
> determined from the z-film? Obviously, I was referring to her
> testimony, her reconstruction of the event from memory in her words.
> What can I "see" in her testimony, Harris?
OIC, so your recent fury was the result of my asking you to watch Mrs.
Connally react, when you thought you would only have to consider what
she said??
I understand, Bud. I didn't mean to confuse you and provoke this
hysterical response. Let's just forget about my sleezy, underhanded
request that you look at Mrs. Kennedy, and focus on what she said.
Would that make you feel a little better?
>
> > Bud, you need to stop pretending to be offended.
>
> <snicker> i`m not offended, I think its funny how you think of
> yourself as an honest man, when you actually just a self-deluded
> zealot. You are so awestruck by the beauty of your creation that the
> issues I bring up don`t even enter your consciousness.
Well, nobody's perfect Bud.
I've just never developed a taste for meaningless drivel, served up as a
substitute for honest answers.
>
> >Do you think there is a
> > single soul in the newsgroup who doesn't realize that you are making up
> > one phony excuse after another, to dodge the question??
>
> The question changes every time you ask it. Heres some of the ways
> you posed it...
>
> "When do you think she heard the second shot?" I was trying to use
> her testimony to determine this. I used John Connally`s "No, no, no",
> because it is something Jackie, Nellie and John all included in their
> narratives. You didn`t consider this an answer.
I'm sorry Bud, but I was looking for an answer. I'm sure that others
will be fascinated by your "thought" processes, but I didn't ask for
that. I asked for a very simple answer.
>
> Then it became...
>
> "When do you think she heard the shot, which she mistakenly
> believed, hit her husband?" (DVP is right, you use a lot of
> unnecessary commas).
The commas are for clarification, something you and David seem to be in
desperate need of.
>
> I`m not even sure what you mean when you put "mistakenly" in there,
Yes you are Bud. You yourself, have stated that she was mistaken in
believing that her husband was hit by a later shot than the one that hit
JFK.
> it had nothing to do with anything I presented. If you ask me what I
> think, I say she didn`t know precisely when her husband was hit.
>
> The latest way you posed the question was ...
>
> "When do you see Mrs Connally reacting to the shot she believed
> struck her husband?"
>
> Now, nobody could mistake this for your previous questions, yet even
> though you continue to modify it, you represent it as being the same
> question.
I'm sorry David. I made the mistaken presumption that you would look at
Mrs. Connally in order to determine when she reacted to that shot.
But let's make it easy on ya.
Just tell us when you think she believed her husband was hit. A frame
number would be fine.
> To your mind it might be, but I think anyone else can see it
> is markedly different. I built my original case on testimony, and you
> found my approach so unacceptable, you pretended I hadn`t answered at
> all.
No, you didn't answer.
Answering is not the same as replying Bud. The differentiating factor is
the uh.. answer.
>
> > She said that when she heard that shot, she turned to her hubby and
> > pulled him back to her.
> >
> > Any idiot can see when that happened.
Bud, I am trying to help you here. Surely, you want to consider this
factor, do you not????
Why would you ignore this? She was defining the instant when she heard
that shot.
How much more definitive can things get??
> >
> > Or if that's too complicated for you, she said she never looked to the
> > rear again after she heard that shot.
> >
> > Can you figure out when she last looked to the rear???
Bud, are you OK??
This is another great opportunity to resolve this issue. Why don't you
care?
> >
> > And she said she heard that shot AFTER he started yelling. I'll bet you
> > can figure that one out too.
>
> Can you figure out that her husband said he didn`t start yelling
> until after he was hit?
Well, um yes. I have only stated that for 14 years.
> Let me spell it out to you. John has it "I was
> hit, I started saying "No, no, no". Nellie had it "John was saying
> "No, no, no", and then he was hit". Which seems more likely?
John Connally's statement was not "more" likely. It was the truth on a
stone tablet.
Nellie was dead wrong.
> By using
> the "no, no,no", you can see that John was hit before Nellie realized
> he was. John was the first to know.
Of course, Bud.
And hey! I think you did a great job pretending that you didn't realize
I had been saying that since dirt was invented.
John Connally and JFK were hit at 223, as we both know.
But as you just pointed out, Nellie thought he was wounded by the NEXT
shot.
So, my very simple question is, when did she think she heard the shot
that hit him?
Robert Harris
Bud
>
> Bud <sirsl...@fast.net> wrote:
> > On Dec 4, 8:29 pm, Robert Harris <reharr...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > > In article
> > > <8923d605-2f00-4571-a082-7dd9198e6...@m38g2000yqd.googlegroups.com>,
>
> > > Bud <sirsl...@fast.net> wrote:
> > > > On Dec 4, 4:26 pm, Robert Harris <reharr...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > > > > Bud, I will be happy to answer all of your questions as soon as you
> > > > > answer the one that you have been evading.
>
> > > > > When do you see Mrs. Connally reacting to the shot that that she
> > > > > believed, struck her husband.
>
> > > > <snicker> You are one devious, sneaky bastard Harris. Every time I
> > > > answer, you subtlety change the question. Here you insert "see", which
> > > > wasn`t present in any of the earlier incarnations of your inquiries to
> > > > me.
>
> > > Well gosh, Bud. Maybe you would prefer to smell it then.
>
> > > How the fuck do you intend to look at what she said and when she
> > > reacted, without looking?????
>
> > Looking at what, retard?
>
> LOL!! Poor Bud, going into name-calling mode.
>
> I'm sorry, David.
Check the header or your meds, I`m not David.
> I was obviously being evil and malicious to actually
> ask you to SEE Mrs. Connally's reaction, in order to answer the question
> that you you've been dodging.
<snicker> i`m not dodging it, you keep rephrasing it and claiming I
haven`t answered. Your original question had nothing about looking at
the z-film, and using this to determine when she heard a shot. To do
this, I need Nellie to look at the z-film, and inform me when she
thinks the shot occurred. This isn`t in evidence, so stop pretending
your interpretations of her movements and Nellie`s opinion of when the
shot occurred are both the same thing. This is always the problem
with you retards, you can`t tell your opinions from facts.
> > This started when I said "she said the
> > second shot she heard hit her husband". Now, can anything she said be
> > determined from the z-film? Obviously, I was referring to her
> > testimony, her reconstruction of the event from memory in her words.
> > What can I "see" in her testimony, Harris?
>
> OIC, so your recent fury was the result of my asking you to watch Mrs.
> Connally react, when you thought you would only have to consider what
> she said??
That wasn`t what you orginally asked. You should have said "Look at
the z-film and tell me when you think Nellie thought her husband was
shot". Then I would have looked at the z-film, to see if her thoughts
appeared in a cartoon balloon over her head. Failing that, I would
have to turn to her words that are in evidence relating the event,
like I did when I answered the question a few days back. Like a lot of
kooks, if you don`t like the answer you are given, you claim your
question hasn`t been answered.
> I understand, Bud. I didn't mean to confuse you and provoke this
> hysterical response. Let's just forget about my sleezy, underhanded
> request that you look at Mrs. Kennedy, and focus on what she said.
>
> Would that make you feel a little better?
Do what you do, Harris, I don`t give a fuck. You keep changing the
parameters of the question (like here where you`ve put Jackie, when we
were discussing Nellie), and ignore my answers.
> > > Bud, you need to stop pretending to be offended.
>
> > <snicker> i`m not offended, I think its funny how you think of
> > yourself as an honest man, when you actually just a self-deluded
> > zealot. You are so awestruck by the beauty of your creation that the
> > issues I bring up don`t even enter your consciousness.
>
> Well, nobody's perfect Bud.
>
> I've just never developed a taste for meaningless drivel, served up as a
> substitute for honest answers.
See, you dismiss out of hand anything that doesn`t fit your
preconceived notions. I`m speaking directly to your points, but you
can`t even tell, because I`m not giving the answers Bob Harris, the
world`s only honest man has come up with.
> > >Do you think there is a
> > > single soul in the newsgroup who doesn't realize that you are making up
> > > one phony excuse after another, to dodge the question??
>
> > The question changes every time you ask it. Heres some of the ways
> > you posed it...
>
> > "When do you think she heard the second shot?" I was trying to use
> > her testimony to determine this. I used John Connally`s "No, no, no",
> > because it is something Jackie, Nellie and John all included in their
> > narratives. You didn`t consider this an answer.
>
> I'm sorry Bud, but I was looking for an answer. I'm sure that others
> will be fascinated by your "thought" processes, but I didn't ask for
> that. I asked for a very simple answer.
The answer was given in that response. If I just give a z-frame
number, you are of course going to ask how I came up with that number.
So I use a few line outlining the support for my conclusion, and your
mind wanders off. You aren`t the least bit interested in my response,
it is just a platform to launch into why you think what you do.
> > Then it became...
>
> > "When do you think she heard the shot, which she mistakenly
> > believed, hit her husband?" (DVP is right, you use a lot of
> > unnecessary commas).
>
> The commas are for clarification, something you and David seem to be in
> desperate need of.
>
>
>
> > I`m not even sure what you mean when you put "mistakenly" in there,
>
> Yes you are Bud. You yourself, have stated that she was mistaken in
> believing that her husband was hit by a later shot than the one that hit
> JFK.
That isn`t what I said. I said that she was mistaken about when the
bullet entered her husband. Her version of the event conflicts with
her husbands. Her husband said he was shot, and then said "No, no,
no". Her version has him saying "No, no, no" before he was hit. This
indicates that she was unaware when her husband was hit, and if she is
uanaware of when her husband was hit, she is a poor candidate to use
to determine whether he was shot at the same time Kennedy was.
Part of the problem is you ask compound questions. The first part is
"When do you think she heard the shot". My answer to that portion is
around z-224. When did she think her husband was hit? I think around
z-240. She said her husband turned to the right, and John turned
quickly to the right around z240. I think she mistook this sudden
movement by her husband for him being struck.
> > it had nothing to do with anything I presented. If you ask me what I
> > think, I say she didn`t know precisely when her husband was hit.
>
> > The latest way you posed the question was ...
>
> > "When do you see Mrs Connally reacting to the shot she believed
> > struck her husband?"
>
> > Now, nobody could mistake this for your previous questions, yet even
> > though you continue to modify it, you represent it as being the same
> > question.
>
> I'm sorry David.
Who?
>I made the mistaken presumption that you would look at
> Mrs. Connally in order to determine when she reacted to that shot.
Without her narrative, what would be the point?
> But let's make it easy on ya.
>
> Just tell us when you think she believed her husband was hit. A frame
> number would be fine.
Around z-242, I would guess. She said "Then there came a second
shot, and it hit John, and he recoiled to the right..." John Connally
jerks to the right around z-242. That doesn`t make this action when he
was shot, only when Nellie thought he was struck.
> > To your mind it might be, but I think anyone else can see it
> > is markedly different. I built my original case on testimony, and you
> > found my approach so unacceptable, you pretended I hadn`t answered at
> > all.
>
> No, you didn't answer.
You lie Harris, there is no other word for it. I clearly said
"around z-224, or shortly thereafter". I can`t help if my answer did
not appear on your radar. Now, my answer has changed because the
question has changed. The answer changes depending on whether you are
asking me what I think, or Nellie thought.
> Answering is not the same as replying Bud. The differentiating factor is
> the uh.. answer.
You asked for a three digit frame number right after I had supplied
a three digit frame number. It`s not my problem, Harris, you see the
points other people make like a dog sees color.
> > > She said that when she heard that shot, she turned to her hubby and
> > > pulled him back to her.
>
> > > Any idiot can see when that happened.
>
> Bud, I am trying to help you here. Surely, you want to consider this
> factor, do you not????
>
> Why would you ignore this? She was defining the instant when she heard
> that shot.
>
> How much more definitive can things get??
"Then there was a second shot, and it hit John, and as he recoiled
to the right..."
To the right is away from her, Harris. When does John turn to the
right away from her, Harris? How much more definitive can things get?
> > > Or if that's too complicated for you, she said she never looked to the
> > > rear again after she heard that shot.
>
> > > Can you figure out when she last looked to the rear???
>
> Bud, are you OK??
>
> This is another great opportunity to resolve this issue. Why don't you
> care?
Why do I need to keep addressing the issues you raise, you haven`t
addressed a single issue I`ve raised since I started engaging you on
these things a week ago.
Like I said, there is no discussing this with you, you will always
misdirect to the issues you think favor your opinions, and the issues
that don`t favor your opinions are treated as if they don`t exist.
> > > And she said she heard that shot AFTER he started yelling. I'll bet you
> > > can figure that one out too.
>
> > Can you figure out that her husband said he didn`t start yelling
> > until after he was hit?
>
> Well, um yes. I have only stated that for 14 years.
>
> > Let me spell it out to you. John has it "I was
> > hit, I started saying "No, no, no". Nellie had it "John was saying
> > "No, no, no", and then he was hit". Which seems more likely?
>
> John Connally's statement was not "more" likely. It was the truth on a
> stone tablet.
>
> Nellie was dead wrong.
>
> > By using
> > the "no, no,no", you can see that John was hit before Nellie realized
> > he was. John was the first to know.
>
> Of course, Bud.
>
> And hey! I think you did a great job pretending that you didn't realize
> I had been saying that since dirt was invented.
You are nuts if you think I track your opinions about all the
different aspects of this case, Harris. Of course, you are a nut who
thinks his opinions are paramount.
> John Connally and JFK were hit at 223, as we both know.
>
> But as you just pointed out, Nellie thought he was wounded by the NEXT
> shot.
Yah, the one where he recoils to the right. When does this occur,
Harris?
> So, my very simple question is, when did she think she heard the shot
> that hit him?
If she idicated a z-frame, I don`t know where to find it.
David Von Pein
Sometimes Bob thinks Bud is Bud....sometimes he thinks Bud is "David".
<chuckle>
Bob doesn't know who he's talking to evidently. Maybe that's a side
effect from continually ignoring the best evidence in the case and
relying instead on purely subjective silliness.
Robert Harris
Bud, when do you think Mrs. Connally heard the shot that she believed,
wounded her husband?
Robert Harris
Bud
> Bud, when do you think Mrs. Connally heard the shot that she believed,
> wounded her husband?
I answered this. You admonish DVP for removing and not addressing
content, why is it any different when you do this?
She said when her husband was shot he recoiled to the right. He is
turning to his right away from her here...
http://www.vidiars.com/jfkwatergate/zapruder237.jpg
Since this seems to be where she thought her husband was shot this
must be where she thought a shot was fired.
Now quit embarrassing yourself with claims that I haven`t answered.
> Robert Harris
Robert Harris
<32370095-afdc-41db...@j9g2000vbp.googlegroups.com>,
Bud <sirs...@fast.net> wrote:
> On Dec 5, 2:07 pm, Robert Harris <reharr...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > Bud, when do you think Mrs. Connally heard the shot that she believed,
> > wounded her husband?
>
> I answered this.
Sorry, Bud. I guess I overlooked your answer. What frame number was that
again?
Robert Harris
Bud
> In article
> <32370095-afdc-41db-8323-69baa55bd...@j9g2000vbp.googlegroups.com>,
>
> Bud<sirsl...@fast.net> wrote:
> > On Dec 5, 2:07 pm, Robert Harris <reharr...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > >Bud, when do you think Mrs. Connally heard the shot that she believed,
> > > wounded her husband?
>
> > I answered this.
>
> again?
You remove the answer to your question, then you ask me to repeat
the answer to your question. You are fucking retarded, Harris.
> Robert Harris