info
Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.
Dismiss
Re: Question for Mr. Von Pein
3 views
Skip to first unread message
Robert Harris
Dec 28, 2011, 3:48:05 PM12/28/11
to
In article
<96997f41-9a82-4de8...@v24g2000yqk.googlegroups.com>,
David Von Pein <davev...@aol.com> wrote:
> >>> "I've been trying to get him [DVP] to offer reasonable answers to my
> >>> questions re. the entry location (for the bullet that hit JFK in the BOH)
> >>> for a few years now and his silence has been deafening...and telling."
> >>> <<<
>
> I haven't been silent at all. In fact, I've got a 16-part series on
> "JFK's Head Wounds" at one of my websites, right here:
But we aren't discussing "head wounds", are we David?
Why are you presenting this as though you were actually addressing the
questions I asked about your attempts to refute the shot at 285?
>
> http://JFK-Archives.blogspot.com/2011/04/index.html#JFK-Head-Wounds
>
> And one of the biggest reasons I have archived most of my Internet
> posts over the last 5 to 8 years is for just this very reason--so that
> I can then link directly to a previous post (or a series of articles)
> where I have addressed the topic in question--instead of having to
> write the whole response out again in a brand-new post.
Bullshit!!
You post links because you are unable to address the issues at hand.
Your links almost NEVER address the issue and questions and when they
do, I have already refuted them.
And now you and mcadams have teamed up to prevent me from responding.
Why is it that you are permitted to repeat these same, lame arguments
that you posted twice before, when I am not permitted to reply to you,
even ONCE??
Isn't David "badgering" me John?
Isn't this harassment??
>
> And such previous links come in very handy whenever I hear someone
> like Bob Harris claiming that I have never seriously discussed his
> "Z285" theory in the past....
And you haven't. That's why you had to post a link about "head shots",
isn't it David?
I asked you some very specific questions which apparently, I am forever
forbidden from repeating. Why can't you address them instead of
pretending that you did so in your head shot articles??
> or when someone like Mr. Canal wants to
> pretend that I have not offered any "reasonable answers" to his "BOH"
> questions in the past. Because I know I have provided such answers. At
> least they are "reasonable" to me.
I have no idea what that is about, but I haven't the slightest doubt
that you evaded him, just like you are doing with me. These are the
reactions David,
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7GH5pGQy6yI
Your argument that it was a just a "coincidence" that they all began in
the same 1/6th of a second, makes Fetzer looniest theory look rock solid
by comparison.
Those people reacted to what they SAID they reacted to. Your claim that
this fact is "silly" or "wacky" sounds like a member of the flat Earth
society scoffing at those silly satellite photos that prove them wrong.
Since mcadams will probably continue to shield you by censoring this
post, I will repost it in ACJ.
Robert Harris
>
> My answers, of course, are not reasonable to John Canal. And that's
> the rub right there. But I certainly have addressed the BOH topics
> brought up by John C. and I have addressed the "Z285" theory of Robert
> Harris'. And my long-winded 12/1/09 response to Bob (linked recently
> on these forums) proves that I have taken a great deal of time to
> address his theory.
>
> And my (thus far) 16-part "BOH" series certainly indicates that there
> is no "deafening silence" emanating from DVP's computer when it comes
> to debating Mr. Canal about his theories either.
>
> Some people sure have short memories, don't they?
<96997f41-9a82-4de8...@v24g2000yqk.googlegroups.com>,
David Von Pein <davev...@aol.com> wrote:
> >>> "I've been trying to get him [DVP] to offer reasonable answers to my
> >>> questions re. the entry location (for the bullet that hit JFK in the BOH)
> >>> for a few years now and his silence has been deafening...and telling."
> >>> <<<
>
> I haven't been silent at all. In fact, I've got a 16-part series on
> "JFK's Head Wounds" at one of my websites, right here:
But we aren't discussing "head wounds", are we David?
Why are you presenting this as though you were actually addressing the
questions I asked about your attempts to refute the shot at 285?
>
> http://JFK-Archives.blogspot.com/2011/04/index.html#JFK-Head-Wounds
>
> And one of the biggest reasons I have archived most of my Internet
> posts over the last 5 to 8 years is for just this very reason--so that
> I can then link directly to a previous post (or a series of articles)
> where I have addressed the topic in question--instead of having to
> write the whole response out again in a brand-new post.
Bullshit!!
You post links because you are unable to address the issues at hand.
Your links almost NEVER address the issue and questions and when they
do, I have already refuted them.
And now you and mcadams have teamed up to prevent me from responding.
Why is it that you are permitted to repeat these same, lame arguments
that you posted twice before, when I am not permitted to reply to you,
even ONCE??
Isn't David "badgering" me John?
Isn't this harassment??
>
> And such previous links come in very handy whenever I hear someone
> like Bob Harris claiming that I have never seriously discussed his
> "Z285" theory in the past....
And you haven't. That's why you had to post a link about "head shots",
isn't it David?
I asked you some very specific questions which apparently, I am forever
forbidden from repeating. Why can't you address them instead of
pretending that you did so in your head shot articles??
> or when someone like Mr. Canal wants to
> pretend that I have not offered any "reasonable answers" to his "BOH"
> questions in the past. Because I know I have provided such answers. At
> least they are "reasonable" to me.
I have no idea what that is about, but I haven't the slightest doubt
that you evaded him, just like you are doing with me. These are the
reactions David,
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7GH5pGQy6yI
Your argument that it was a just a "coincidence" that they all began in
the same 1/6th of a second, makes Fetzer looniest theory look rock solid
by comparison.
Those people reacted to what they SAID they reacted to. Your claim that
this fact is "silly" or "wacky" sounds like a member of the flat Earth
society scoffing at those silly satellite photos that prove them wrong.
Since mcadams will probably continue to shield you by censoring this
post, I will repost it in ACJ.
Robert Harris
>
> My answers, of course, are not reasonable to John Canal. And that's
> the rub right there. But I certainly have addressed the BOH topics
> brought up by John C. and I have addressed the "Z285" theory of Robert
> Harris'. And my long-winded 12/1/09 response to Bob (linked recently
> on these forums) proves that I have taken a great deal of time to
> address his theory.
>
> And my (thus far) 16-part "BOH" series certainly indicates that there
> is no "deafening silence" emanating from DVP's computer when it comes
> to debating Mr. Canal about his theories either.
>
> Some people sure have short memories, don't they?
David Von Pein
Dec 28, 2011, 9:55:20 PM12/28/11
to
>>> "But we aren't discussing "head wounds", are we David?" <<<
Canal.
>>> "Why are you presenting this as though you were actually addressing the questions I asked about your attempts to refute the shot at 285?" <<<
was talking to John Canal. Can't you tell the difference?
(Has Harris plunged off the deep end or something?)
Robert Harris
Jan 1, 2012, 3:44:58 PM1/1/12
to
In article
<5964e082-7bd1-4fed...@z25g2000vbs.googlegroups.com>,
Pamela Brown <pamel...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Dec 26, 11:28?pm, John McAdams <john.mcad...@marquette.edu> wrote:
> > On 27 Dec 2011 00:25:59 -0500, David Von Pein <davevonp...@aol.com>
> > wrote:
> >
> >
> >
> > >>>> "Have you noticed that even the other nutters have not tried to defend
> > >any of your arguments, or deny mine." <<<
> >
> > >Yeah, nobody cares, Bob. Nobody.
> >
> > >Anyway, my lengthy 12/1/09 post speaks for itself. It says all that needs
> > >to be said about your silliness:
> >
> > >http://groups.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/msg/0a581746c27b7a2f
> >
> > Bob seems to think that if he just badgers people enough, they will
> > agree with him.
>
> Where on earth could that idea have come from?
>
> >
> > We moderators decided to let him get in one more post demanding a
> > response from you.
> >
>
> Will posts by others making demands on other posters be censured too?
>
> > From now on, any attempts of his to badger you will be deleted.
ROFLMAO!!
Any attempts of "HIS" will be deleted!
Wow!! I get a special rule, just for me!
John and his fellow nutters can harass and "badger" to their little
hearts' content, but Robert Harris will be censored for pretty much
anything which challenges him and his buddies.
Is that a fair assessment John?
You need to stop running John. You're wrong and you know you're wrong.
Your problem is NOT that you are being harassed, it's that you have no
defenses for this.
You cannot debate it without making utterly ridiculous arguments which
defy science and in most cases, even your fellow nutters.
THAT is why are need to shut me up, isn't it John:-)
Robert Harris
<5964e082-7bd1-4fed...@z25g2000vbs.googlegroups.com>,
Pamela Brown <pamel...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Dec 26, 11:28?pm, John McAdams <john.mcad...@marquette.edu> wrote:
> > On 27 Dec 2011 00:25:59 -0500, David Von Pein <davevonp...@aol.com>
> > wrote:
> >
> >
> >
> > >>>> "Have you noticed that even the other nutters have not tried to defend
> > >any of your arguments, or deny mine." <<<
> >
> > >Yeah, nobody cares, Bob. Nobody.
> >
> > >Anyway, my lengthy 12/1/09 post speaks for itself. It says all that needs
> > >to be said about your silliness:
> >
> > >http://groups.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/msg/0a581746c27b7a2f
> >
> > Bob seems to think that if he just badgers people enough, they will
> > agree with him.
>
> Where on earth could that idea have come from?
>
> >
> > We moderators decided to let him get in one more post demanding a
> > response from you.
> >
>
> Will posts by others making demands on other posters be censured too?
>
> > From now on, any attempts of his to badger you will be deleted.
ROFLMAO!!
Any attempts of "HIS" will be deleted!
Wow!! I get a special rule, just for me!
John and his fellow nutters can harass and "badger" to their little
hearts' content, but Robert Harris will be censored for pretty much
anything which challenges him and his buddies.
Is that a fair assessment John?
You need to stop running John. You're wrong and you know you're wrong.
Your problem is NOT that you are being harassed, it's that you have no
defenses for this.
You cannot debate it without making utterly ridiculous arguments which
defy science and in most cases, even your fellow nutters.
THAT is why are need to shut me up, isn't it John:-)
Robert Harris
aeffects
Jan 1, 2012, 4:38:32 PM1/1/12
to
On Jan 1, 12:44 pm, Robert Harris <bobharri...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> In article
> <5964e082-7bd1-4fed-8f7a-efaa948b9...@z25g2000vbs.googlegroups.com>,
same for Tim *Fats* Brennan.... DVP, Bill Clarke, etal.... their WCR
faith is challenged, they run at the very least, they change the
subject.... most netter-trolls are terrified of the truth, terrified
discovering the truth.... waste of time dealing with the morons.
> In article
> <5964e082-7bd1-4fed-8f7a-efaa948b9...@z25g2000vbs.googlegroups.com>,
faith is challenged, they run at the very least, they change the
subject.... most netter-trolls are terrified of the truth, terrified
discovering the truth.... waste of time dealing with the morons.
Robert Harris
Jan 1, 2012, 5:37:25 PM1/1/12
to
Stop making an idiot of yourself. Your post was not specific about who
you were replying to. I suppose its possible that you mentioned it later
in the post, but nobody reads your long winded babbling beyond the first
couple of sentences anyway, and unless you are actually saying something
relevant, neither do I.
And you had already posted links that WERE in reply to me, which didn't
even address the issues we were debating.
You seem to be obsessed with finding ways to change the subject to
anything other than the relevant issues, which you consistently evade.
Any idiot can see that those people were reacting to a gunshot, just
like they said they heard at that time. You can run and dodge the
subject as long as you like, but that won't change the fact that you
are wrong and you know you are wrong.
Robert Harris
In article
<b04a92d7-d1dc-4696...@a17g2000yqj.googlegroups.com>,
Robert Harris
Jan 1, 2012, 5:40:33 PM1/1/12
to
In article
<94c8b96e-818f-46dc...@o9g2000yqa.googlegroups.com>,
NO!!!
How many impressionable students do you suppose mcadams and other
academics direct to mcadams forum, for the "truth" about the JFK case?
Giving the nutters a free, unchallenged pass to promote their sewage is
the WORST possible thing we can do.
Robert Harris
<94c8b96e-818f-46dc...@o9g2000yqa.googlegroups.com>,
How many impressionable students do you suppose mcadams and other
academics direct to mcadams forum, for the "truth" about the JFK case?
Giving the nutters a free, unchallenged pass to promote their sewage is
the WORST possible thing we can do.
Robert Harris
Bud
Jan 1, 2012, 5:48:25 PM1/1/12
to
> <94c8b96e-818f-46dc-99b4-43d19b265...@o9g2000yqa.googlegroups.com>,
Don`t let those windmills get the best of you, Robert Harass, er
Badger Harris.
Badger Harris.
Sam McClung
Jan 1, 2012, 11:08:11 PM1/1/12
to
David Von Pein
Jan 1, 2012, 11:56:27 PM1/1/12
to
>>> "Stop making an idiot of yourself. Your post was not specific about who you were replying to." <<<
passages from those of John A. Canal's. So you have no reason to call
me an "idiot" because of your error.
Did you really think YOU had written the part that I put inside these
arrow/bracket thingies? --- >>> <<<
>>> "You seem to be obsessed with finding ways to change the subject to anything other than the relevant issues, which you consistently evade." <<<
shot. Everybody else is forced to tow the subjective Harris line.
Right, Bobby?
(Who's got the barf bags today?)
>>> "Any idiot can see that those people were reacting to a gunshot..." <<<
Yes, I agree, Bob. You've got to be an "idiot" to think that the limo
passengers were all reacting to a gunshot at the time when you have
told everyone there was a make-believe gunshot.
So, yes, your verbiage was quite accurate -- "Any idiot can see that
those people were reacting to a gunshot." (I guess you qualify then,
eh Bobby?)
But a reasonable person looking at this film would probably say the
things I have told you for several years now -- i.e., Jackie & Nellie
were merely leaning in toward their husbands to aid them after they
had both been shot at Z224. And Greer & Kellerman were merely turning
back around to the front after they both had been looking into the
back seat.
http://www.box.com/shared/7n9bertqjo
There are no jerky "I'm Startled!" movements being exhibited by anyone
in the car around Z285. The movements of the passengers are smooth,
fluid, and non-jerky. Not what you'd expect if someone had just been
"startled" by a loud noise.
I doubt very much that anyone in the whole plaza was exhibiting the
kind of noticeable "startle" reactions that you think the 4 limo pax
were exhibiting. The shots from Oswald's gun were coming from six
stories above the street; meaning: they certainly weren't being fired
directly in anybody's ear in the Plaza.
Yes, the shots were certainly audible and had a cracking sound to
them, but they probably weren't loud enough at street level to make
anyone jump out of their skins, particularly when the gunshots had to
compete with the somewhat loud sounds of the motorcade vehicles and
motorcycles and the crowd noise too.
And I wonder why you think anyone would have necessarily had visible
startle reactions after hearing Oswald's 3 shots from six floors up?
(And, yes, ONLY Oswald was firing a gun that day. So your make-believe
shots from other non-Depository locations is just more made-up
claptrap coming from your imagination and nowhere else.)
>>> "You can run and dodge the subject as long as you like, but that won't change the fact that you are wrong and you know you are wrong." <<<
(And yet Bob calls me "obsessed". Holy Kettle.)
Chuck Schuyler
Jan 2, 2012, 2:55:50 AM1/2/12
to
On Dec 28 2011, 2:48 pm, Robert Harris <bobharri...@yahoo.com> wrote:
<snip>
> Bullshit!!
>
> You post links because you are unable to address the issues at hand.
> Your links almost NEVER address the issue and questions and when they
> do, I have already refuted them.
>
> And now you and mcadams have teamed up to prevent me from responding.
>
> Why is it that you are permitted to repeat these same, lame arguments
> that you posted twice before, when I am not permitted to reply to you,
> even ONCE??
>
> Isn't David "badgering" me John?
>
> Isn't this harassment??
<snip>
Awww...
Poor lil' Bobbi Harris, boo-hoo-hoo. He's being "badgered." You CTs
are remarkably thin-skinned, considering the professional reputations
of completely innocent people and organizations you and your ilk have
collectively sullied over the last five decades by tying them in with
the JFK assassination.
There are other discussion boards, Bob. You also have the ability to
trumpet your views on YouTube, your own website/blog, etc.
In fact, I'm sure you can send DVP or McA a personal email.
So, please stop the pity-party. It's unbecoming of a visionary man
like yourself on the cusp of cracking the JFK killing wiiiide open.
<snip>
> Bullshit!!
>
> You post links because you are unable to address the issues at hand.
> Your links almost NEVER address the issue and questions and when they
> do, I have already refuted them.
>
> And now you and mcadams have teamed up to prevent me from responding.
>
> Why is it that you are permitted to repeat these same, lame arguments
> that you posted twice before, when I am not permitted to reply to you,
> even ONCE??
>
> Isn't David "badgering" me John?
>
> Isn't this harassment??
Awww...
Poor lil' Bobbi Harris, boo-hoo-hoo. He's being "badgered." You CTs
are remarkably thin-skinned, considering the professional reputations
of completely innocent people and organizations you and your ilk have
collectively sullied over the last five decades by tying them in with
the JFK assassination.
There are other discussion boards, Bob. You also have the ability to
trumpet your views on YouTube, your own website/blog, etc.
In fact, I'm sure you can send DVP or McA a personal email.
So, please stop the pity-party. It's unbecoming of a visionary man
like yourself on the cusp of cracking the JFK killing wiiiide open.
aeffects
Jan 2, 2012, 4:38:57 PM1/2/12
to
On Jan 1, 11:55 pm, Chuck Schuyler <chu...@am-mtg.com> wrote:
> On Dec 28 2011, 2:48 pm, Robert Harris <bobharri...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> <snip>
>
> > Bullshit!!
>
> > You post links because you are unable to address the issues at hand.
> > Your links almost NEVER address the issue and questions and when they
> > do, I have already refuted them.
>
> > And now you and mcadams have teamed up to prevent me from responding.
>
> > Why is it that you are permitted to repeat these same, lame arguments
> > that you posted twice before, when I am not permitted to reply to you,
> > even ONCE??
>
> > Isn't David "badgering" me John?
>
> > Isn't this harassment??
>
> <snip>
>
> Awww...
>
> Poor lil' Bobbi Harris, boo-hoo-hoo. He's being "badgered." You CTs
> are remarkably thin-skinned, considering the professional reputations
> of completely innocent people and organizations you and your ilk have
> collectively sullied over the last five decades by tying them in with
> the JFK assassination.
yet you run to wifey when the assassination debate going gets rough,
> On Dec 28 2011, 2:48 pm, Robert Harris <bobharri...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> <snip>
>
> > Bullshit!!
>
> > You post links because you are unable to address the issues at hand.
> > Your links almost NEVER address the issue and questions and when they
> > do, I have already refuted them.
>
> > And now you and mcadams have teamed up to prevent me from responding.
>
> > Why is it that you are permitted to repeat these same, lame arguments
> > that you posted twice before, when I am not permitted to reply to you,
> > even ONCE??
>
> > Isn't David "badgering" me John?
>
> > Isn't this harassment??
>
> <snip>
>
> Awww...
>
> Poor lil' Bobbi Harris, boo-hoo-hoo. He's being "badgered." You CTs
> are remarkably thin-skinned, considering the professional reputations
> of completely innocent people and organizations you and your ilk have
> collectively sullied over the last five decades by tying them in with
> the JFK assassination.
been known to besmirch Vietnam vets too--what's a matter with you
trolls.... you're a disgrace, pukster.
> There are other discussion boards, Bob. You also have the ability to
> trumpet your views on YouTube, your own website/blog, etc.
>
> In fact, I'm sure you can send DVP or McA a personal email.
>
> So, please stop the pity-party. It's unbecoming of a visionary man
> like yourself on the cusp of cracking the JFK killing wiiiide open.
what .john mcadams can't, be honest concerning the evidence....
presently, you're cowardice is a disgrace for lone nut trolls ...
0 new messages