Ben I Apologize
Robert Harris
officers when you said "All four motorcycle cops asserted that the limo
stopped."
If Vaughan is correct, then Chaney's earliest recollection was also that
the limo did not come to a full stop, as you falsely claimed.
Therefore your score is actually 0 correct and 4 wrong.
Please accept my apology for believing even one of your phony claims.
Robert Harris
Ben Holmes
Robert Harris says...
It's good to see that you accept a known LNT'er who's proven his willingness to
lie many times before over such researchers as Newcomb, Adams, Lane, Ian Griggs,
etc...
Sadly for you, Chaney made the statement about the limo stopping
contemporaneously, to a newspaper reporter, and it was reported in the 11/24/63
edition of The Houston Chronicle.
I'll accept your apologies when you retract your lie about the "roughly
adjacent" eyewitnesses.
But I doubt if you'll ever gather the courage and honesty to do so.
Looked at Z-369 yet?
Todd W. Vaughan
> In article <reharris1-B1FE89.00213504032...@earthlink.vsrv-sjc.supernews.net>,
> Robert Harris says...
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> >Ben, I previously stated that you only lied about three of the four
> >officers when you said "All four motorcycle cops asserted that the limo
> >stopped."
>
> >If Vaughan is correct, then Chaney's earliest recollection was also that
> >the limo did not come to a full stop, as you falsely claimed.
>
> >Therefore your score is actually 0 correct and 4 wrong.
>
> >Please accept my apology for believing even one of your phony claims.
>
> >Robert Harris
>
> It's good to see that you accept a known LNT'er who's proven his willingness to
> lie many times before over such researchers as Newcomb, Adams, Lane, Ian Griggs,
> etc...
>
> Sadly for you, Chaney made the statement about the limo stopping
> contemporaneously, to a newspaper reporter, and it was reported in the 11/24/63
> edition of The Houston Chronicle.
Sadly for you Chaney is on film and audio saying the limousine did not
stop on the evening of 22 November 1963.
But you would rather accept what a reporter writes in a news story 2
days later.
I suppose then that you also accept the news story written on the 23rd
(as I recall) that LHO had a live 6.5mm round on him when he was
arrested.
>
> I'll accept your apologies when you retract your lie about the "roughly
> adjacent" eyewitnesses.
>
> But I doubt if you'll ever gather the courage and honesty to do so.
>
> Looked at Z-369 yet?- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
Todd W. Vaughan
> Robert Harris says...
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> >Ben, I previously stated that you only lied about three of the four
> >officers when you said "All four motorcycle cops asserted that the limo
> >stopped."
>
> >If Vaughan is correct, then Chaney's earliest recollection was also that
> >the limo did not come to a full stop, as you falsely claimed.
>
> >Therefore your score is actually 0 correct and 4 wrong.
>
> >Please accept my apology for believing even one of your phony claims.
>
> >Robert Harris
>
> It's good to see that you accept a known LNT'er who's proven his willingness to
> lie many times before over such researchers as Newcomb, Adams, Lane, Ian Griggs,
> etc...
>
> Sadly for you, Chaney made the statement about the limo stopping
> contemporaneously, to a newspaper reporter, and it was reported in the 11/24/63
> edition of The Houston Chronicle.
Please provide the quote from the article, or, better yet, the entire
article if not too long.
>
> I'll accept your apologies when you retract your lie about the "roughly
> adjacent" eyewitnesses.
>
> But I doubt if you'll ever gather the courage and honesty to do so.
>
David Von Pein
things. Chaff trumps wheat in the CT world -- every time. Every day.
Amazing.
In the final analysis, of course, we KNOW the limo never "stopped",
because the Nix and Z-Films PROVE the car never fully stopped. So it
doesn't make a lick of difference how many people said they thought
the car came to a "stop". It didn't. Period. And two films prove this
fact to be true.
But even if the car came to a dead stop for two minutes -- who cares?
What possible difference does that make when confronted with the
barrel-full of LHO-Is-Guilty evidence in this case?
Answer -- No difference.
aeffects
> Once more, we're treated to CT-Kooks concentrating on ALL the wrong
> things. Chaff trumps wheat in the CT world -- every time. Every day.
> Amazing.
>
> In the final analysis, of course, we KNOW the limo never "stopped",
> because the Nix and Z-Films PROVE the car never fully stopped.
>
> What possible difference does that make when confronted with the
>
> Answer -- No difference.
sitdown Von Pain er, Reitzes.... actual researchers are busy here.....
Todd W. Vaughan
Because it is not seen in the films David.
>
> Answer -- No difference.
aeffects
he is the perverbial dumb-fuck isn't he.....
>
>
> > Answer -- No difference.
David Von Pein
>>> "Because it is not seen in the films David." <<<
True. But my hypothetical "What Difference Would It Make?" inquiry was
more of a rhetorical question that was asked outside the consideration
of the filmed (Nix/Zapruder) evidence.
I.E.,
It was asked more from the POV of the kooks who think that Greer
deliberately stopped the limo in order to make it easier for the many
shooters in DP to kill the President. From that POV, even if the limo
did stop completely, it would still not erase the fact that Oswald
shot JFK.
David Von Pein
>>> "If Vaughan is correct, then Chaney's earliest recollection was also that the limo did not come to a full stop, as you falsely claimed." <<<
Once more, we're treated to CT-Kooks concentrating on ALL the wrong
things. Chaff trumps wheat in the CT world -- every time. Every day.
Amazing.
In the final analysis, of course, we KNOW the limo never "stopped",
because the Nix and Z-Films PROVE the car never fully stopped. So it
doesn't make a lick of difference how many people said they thought
the car came to a "stop". It didn't. Period. And two films prove this
fact to be true.
But even if the car came to a dead stop for two minutes -- who cares?
What possible difference does that make when confronted with the
barrel-full of LHO-Is-Guilty evidence in this case?
Answer -- No difference.
Bob Harris
wrote:
> In article
> <reharris1-B1FE8...@earthlink.vsrv-sjc.supernews.net>,
> Robert Harris says...
> >
> >Ben, I previously stated that you only lied about three of the four
> >officers when you said "All four motorcycle cops asserted that the limo
> >stopped."
> >
> >If Vaughan is correct, then Chaney's earliest recollection was also that
> >the limo did not come to a full stop, as you falsely claimed.
> >
> >Therefore your score is actually 0 correct and 4 wrong.
> >
> >Please accept my apology for believing even one of your phony claims.
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >Robert Harris
>
>
> It's good to see that you accept a known LNT'er who's proven his willingness
> to
> lie many times before over such researchers as Newcomb, Adams, Lane, Ian
> Griggs,
> etc...
You stupid slug. I don't "accept" people. I accept facts and evidence -
a concept that you will never grasp.
You lied over and over again, and once again you have been busted.
It is morons like you who do infinitely more damage to the credibility
of a conspiracy in this case, than anything the nutters ever did.
You have no concept of what objectivity means and no concept of what
research is about. That's why I did more to make people aware of the
truth in this case, last week than you've done in your entire life.
Robert Harris
Ben Holmes
Harris says...
>
>In article <fqisa...@drn.newsguy.com>, Ben Holmes <ad...@khadaji.com>
>wrote:
>
>> In article
>> <reharris1-B1FE8...@earthlink.vsrv-sjc.supernews.net>,
>> Robert Harris says...
>> >
>> >Ben, I previously stated that you only lied about three of the four
>> >officers when you said "All four motorcycle cops asserted that the limo
>> >stopped."
>> >
>> >If Vaughan is correct, then Chaney's earliest recollection was also that
>> >the limo did not come to a full stop, as you falsely claimed.
>> >
>> >Therefore your score is actually 0 correct and 4 wrong.
>> >
>> >Please accept my apology for believing even one of your phony claims.
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >Robert Harris
>>
>>
>> It's good to see that you accept a known LNT'er who's proven his willingness
>> to
>> lie many times before over such researchers as Newcomb, Adams, Lane, Ian
>> Griggs,
>> etc...
>
>You stupid slug. I don't "accept" people. I accept facts and evidence -
>a concept that you will never grasp.
Yet you accept Toddy's citation, and call me a liar for citing honest
researchers...
A good commentary on your character, Bob.
>You lied over and over again, and once again you have been busted.
You haven't shown a single lie, Bob. The way that works, is that you
demonstrate that the citatations I gave were falsified.
You see, I gave SOURCES for every quote I gave.
>It is morons like you who do infinitely more damage to the credibility
>of a conspiracy in this case, than anything the nutters ever did.
>
>You have no concept of what objectivity means and no concept of what
>research is about. That's why I did more to make people aware of the
>truth in this case, last week than you've done in your entire life.
Yes, Bob; you DID do quite a bit to make people aware of the truth. By
demonstrating the very best defense possible - you give people the adversarial
process they need to judge whether eyewitnesses spoke of a limo stop or not.
Sadly, you needed to lie... and lurkers simply aren't that stupid.
Looked at Z-369 yet, Bob?
Please don't tell lurkers that you've become afraid to answer my questions,
Bob... how many people are standing on the grass Bob?
Its not a trick question.
muc...@gmail.com
> In article <fqisar0...@drn.newsguy.com>, Ben Holmes <ad...@khadaji.com>
> wrote:
>
> > In article
> > <reharris1-B1FE89.00213504032...@earthlink.vsrv-sjc.supernews.net>,
> > Robert Harris says...
>
> > >Ben, I previously stated that you only lied about three of the four
> > >officers when you said "All four motorcycle cops asserted that the limo
> > >stopped."
>
> > >If Vaughan is correct, then Chaney's earliest recollection was also that
> > >the limo did not come to a full stop, as you falsely claimed.
>
> > >Therefore your score is actually 0 correct and 4 wrong.
>
> > >Please accept my apology for believing even one of your phony claims.
>
> > >Robert Harris
>
> > It's good to see that you accept a known LNT'er who's proven his willingness
> > to
> > lie many times before over such researchers as Newcomb, Adams, Lane, Ian
> > Griggs,
> > etc...
>
> You stupid slug. I don't "accept" people. I accept facts and evidence -
> a concept that you will never grasp.
>
> You lied over and over again, and once again you have been busted.
>
> It is morons like you who do infinitely more damage to the credibility
> of a conspiracy in this case, than anything the nutters ever did.
>
> You have no concept of what objectivity means and no concept of what
> research is about. That's why I did more to make people aware of the
> truth in this case, last week than you've done in your entire life.
>
> Robert Harris
Having killfiled all the LN'ers, and been beated the snot out of by
Harris, Ben will soon be looking for easier targets. Such as Healy.
That lazy bum has been avoiding those 45 Questions like the plague.
aeffects
dance sweet gloria, DANCE.... Stick to cutting and pasting, you moron.
we also understand your need for closure concerning this case, ain't
gonna happen, hon....
Folks have more questions today than years ago...
Todd W. Vaughan
>
> - Show quoted text -
I've got a question, Healy-Bitch - On what days do you remove your
nose from Holme's asshole to come up for a breather? Does that work on
some sort of rotating schedule?
aeffects
your angst is showing, cool down sonny....
Ben Holmes
aeffects says...
It's just his anger at finally making my killfilter...
aeffects
> In article <371e0211-d47b-42ee-a5a3-1d0be40b2...@i7g2000prf.googlegroups.com>,
if he's angry now, wait'll he reads what I posted in another
thread.....
Todd W. Vaughan
I ain't your son.
robcap...@netscape.com
Robert Harris"
Robert, I realize it is tough to go against all the research you have
committed to over the years, BUT there is a lot of research that shows
quite a few of the frames of the Z-film do NOT match the other films
and pictures. Z-369 is one of them that Ben is refering to. They do
NOT match because they show people in different positions, people not
in the Z-film frame(s) that are in the other sources, or lastly are
NOT in proportion to their actual size. An example of this would be
frame Z-312 as the "Runningwoman" (Toni Foster) appears to be 7' feet
high instead of her 5'2'' stature. This was discovered by Jack White
who has been studying the pictures and films of the case since 1964.
Frame Z-233 does the same thing as it shows 6 people to be shorter
than the parking meters (5'). All I'm suggesting is you take a step
back and look at the film with new eyes. Don't assume it to be
authentic and go in with no opinion but look at these frames and
others with a new perspective.
Everyone here knows I have had my run-ins with Ben, and he has done
the same thing to me, but for your research purposes go at it with an
open-mind. I believe around 49 people said the limo either stopped
for a second or two or slowed down to an almost standstill so this is
in all liklihood the god's honest truth. The fact you don't see it in
the Z-film is why many believe it has been altered and remember it was
under lock and key for 12 years so they had ample time to work on it.
Anyway, hopefully you will look at it again with an open-mind and see
if you really see any descrepancies for yourself.
Best of luck.
justm...@gmail.com
wrote:
Jack White must be looking at some Disney film. The site I just
checked that has frame by frame pictures shows NO SUCH THING as you're
stating above. There is no 7 foot tall woman or people shorter then
meters. You really can't be as stupid as this...you believe EVERYTHING
you read from these CT nutcases.
You tell me where theres a 7 foot woman or midgets in the above
mentioned frames.
Ben Holmes
robcap...@netscape.com says...
Bob will need quite a bit of luck if he's honest enough to look at Z-369.
Anyone want to answer the question? How many people are on the grass in Z-369?
As soon as Bob answers... we'll move to part two.
Robert Harris
<b2d6f988-870b-435c...@e10g2000prf.googlegroups.com>,
"robcap...@netscape.com" <robc...@netscape.com> wrote:
> On Mar 4, 12:21 am, Robert Harris <reharr...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> "Ben, I previously stated that you only lied about three of the four
> officers when you said "All four motorcycle cops asserted that the
> limo stopped."
>
> If Vaughan is correct, then Chaney's earliest recollection was also
> that the limo did not come to a full stop, as you falsely claimed.
>
> Therefore your score is actually 0 correct and 4 wrong.
>
> Please accept my apology for believing even one of your phony claims.
>
> Robert Harris"
>
> Robert, I realize it is tough to go against all the research you have
> committed to over the years,
Rob, I realize it is not your intention to insult. But you don't
understand my standards. I cannot think of anything more despicable than
to reject an argument because it contradicts my position. What you guys
don't realize is that I have done a LOT of analysis over the years, to
consider the possibility that the film(s) were altered.
> BUT there is a lot of research that shows
> quite a few of the frames of the Z-film do NOT match the other films
> and pictures.
Dr. Mantik who was working with some pretty good graphics people, looked
into these same issues and disagreed with you (or at least he used to).
He told me in the mid-nineties that he found perfect matches among the
three films and that the limo positions synchronized perfectly.
> Z-369 is one of them that Ben is refering to. They do
> NOT match because they show people in different positions, people not
> in the Z-film frame(s) that are in the other sources, or lastly are
> NOT in proportion to their actual size.
You have to look at the positions of Nix and Zapruder. Nix shows the
limo passing those same four people a bit later than Zapruder does, but
only because of the angle he was filming from.
The two people behind that group (in Nix) are taller than the four near
the road, because they were well back from the road and out of
Zapruder's view.
Take an accurate copy of the surveyor's diagram and draw cones from
Zapruder and Nix and you will see that those people were exactly where
they should have been at the times they appeared in the two films. The
lady in the dark dress btw, might have moved a tad to her left before
she appeared in the Nix film, which happened a second or so after she
appeared in Zapruder.
> An example of this would be
> frame Z-312 as the "Runningwoman" (Toni Foster) appears to be 7' feet
> high instead of her 5'2'' stature. This was discovered by Jack White
> who has been studying the pictures and films of the case since 1964.
Yes, I saw his video. But he bases his calculation on a guesstimate of
where the woman was located. By arbitrarily placing her a few feet
further back than she really was, he can claim she was huge.
Because of the downward angle that Zapruder was filming from, his
background was pretty shallow at that point in the film. For that woman
to be totally visible, she would have had to have been relatively close
to the road - more so than White apparently presumed.
Also, what he seems to ignore, is the fact that Zapruder was zooming in
on his subjects, and any kind of zoom or wide angle lense will introduce
distortion - causing subjects in one part of a scene to be magnified to
a different degree than subjects in another part of the scene.
There is a great article on this subject in Wikipedia.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Perspective_distortion_(photography)
The first paragraph tells the story:
"In photography and cinematography, perspective distortion describes one
of two phenomena the appearance of a part of the subject as abnormally
large, relative to the rest of the scene, or an apparent lack of
distance between objects in the foreground and those behind them."
BTW, watch her start to lean sharply to her right in the sprocket area
of the Zfilm, at 323. Now, watch her do exactly the same thing in the
Nix film.
And finally, think about how and why such a thing could have happened.
If the forgers were filming a standin, then did they hire a 7 foot
actress for the job?
If they were overlaying one film onto another, then the background would
presumably have been from the original and should have been quite
accurate.
There has to be some kind of logic associated with these claims. There
has to be some kind of plausible theory about how it was done.
> Frame Z-233 does the same thing as it shows 6 people to be shorter
> than the parking meters (5').
Did you mean a different frame than 233? I haven't located the parking
meters.
> All I'm suggesting is you take a step
> back and look at the film with new eyes. Don't assume it to be
> authentic and go in with no opinion but look at these frames and
> others with a new perspective.
>
> Everyone here knows I have had my run-ins with Ben, and he has done
> the same thing to me, but for your research purposes go at it with an
> open-mind. I believe around 49 people said the limo either stopped
> for a second or two or slowed down to an almost standstill
Well, there is no doubt that the limo slowed down dramatically. Alvarez
determined that it was moving well under 10mph, based on his study of
the Zapruder film.
But MOST people were behind the limousine then and not in a good
position to determine its velocity. And the question of how many mph it
was going, was undoubtedly, among the very least important issues on
their minds at the time.
And the technology to remove frames without leaving telltale traces
would have been hellaciously difficult - especially on the Nix film. I
would challenge anybody to reproduce such a forgery, using 1963
equipment.
> so this is
> in all liklihood the god's honest truth. The fact you don't see it in
> the Z-film is why many believe it has been altered and remember it was
> under lock and key for 12 years so they had ample time to work on it.
I see the same thing you guys do. And one of the problems is obviously,
that the Zfilm SEEMS to show more motion during the slowdown than say,
the Nix film does. But we know the limo was moving the same distance in
both films.
Analyzing this stuff is very, very tricky and I have fooled myself on
more than one occasion. You have to be your own toughest critic and look
very closely for alternative explanations for what you think you see.
> Anyway, hopefully you will look at it again with an open-mind and see
> if you really see any descrepancies for yourself.
>
> Best of luck.
Thanks,
Robert Harris
Ben Holmes
Robert Harris says...
>
>In article
><b2d6f988-870b-435c...@e10g2000prf.googlegroups.com>,
> "robcap...@netscape.com" <robc...@netscape.com> wrote:
>
>> On Mar 4, 12:21 am, Robert Harris <reharr...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>
>> "Ben, I previously stated that you only lied about three of the four
>> officers when you said "All four motorcycle cops asserted that the
>> limo stopped."
>>
>> If Vaughan is correct, then Chaney's earliest recollection was also
>> that the limo did not come to a full stop, as you falsely claimed.
>>
>> Therefore your score is actually 0 correct and 4 wrong.
>>
>> Please accept my apology for believing even one of your phony claims.
>>
>> Robert Harris"
>>
>> Robert, I realize it is tough to go against all the research you have
>> committed to over the years,
>
>Rob, I realize it is not your intention to insult. But you don't
>understand my standards. I cannot think of anything more despicable than
>to reject an argument because it contradicts my position.
And yet, you clearly do.
I've given a number of eyewitnesses who *CLEARLY* stated that the limo stopped,
in *direct* contradiction to your "position".
>What you guys
>don't realize is that I have done a LOT of analysis over the years, to
>consider the possibility that the film(s) were altered.
Then you won't mind *defending* that position, right? Is this why you've been
running from the question on Z-369? You *know* what's coming up, right?
Don't worry Bob... I'm going to present the evidence that will demonstrate your
character...
>> BUT there is a lot of research that shows
>> quite a few of the frames of the Z-film do NOT match the other films
>> and pictures.
>
>Dr. Mantik who was working with some pretty good graphics people, looked
>into these same issues and disagreed with you (or at least he used to).
>He told me in the mid-nineties that he found perfect matches among the
>three films and that the limo positions synchronized perfectly.
Argument by authority. If Dr. Mantik disagrees on Z-369, then he's as wrong as
anyone else.
>> Z-369 is one of them that Ben is refering to. They do
>> NOT match because they show people in different positions, people not
>> in the Z-film frame(s) that are in the other sources, or lastly are
>> NOT in proportion to their actual size.
>
>You have to look at the positions of Nix and Zapruder. Nix shows the
>limo passing those same four people
Good of you to come up with a number.
And *FASCINATING* that you argue that Nix film shows the "same four people."
I invite all lurkers to go view the Nix film for themselves, and see these "same
four people." Pay particular attention to how many people there are in this
"same four people" group. And how they're dressed.
Tell us Bob - how many people are standing on the grass *TO THE RIGHT* of this
group of four people on the Z-film?
And how many people are standing on the grass *TO THE LEFT* of these same "four"
people in the Nix film?
You've been ducking and running from my questions - I predict right now that
you'll refuse to answer these.
>a bit later than Zapruder does, but
>only because of the angle he was filming from.
>
>The two people behind that group (in Nix) are taller than the four near
>the road, because they were well back from the road and out of
>Zapruder's view.
ROTFLMAO!!!
You're a bald-faced LIAR Bob...
Do you want to defend this lie, Bob?
Tell us, Bob... what part of the grass was *NOT* visible in Z-369 (moving
straight *BACK* from the group of four?)
>Take an accurate copy of the surveyor's diagram and draw cones from
>Zapruder and Nix and you will see that those people were exactly where
>they should have been at the times they appeared in the two films. The
>lady in the dark dress btw, might have moved a tad to her left before
>she appeared in the Nix film, which happened a second or so after she
>appeared in Zapruder.
These are *videos* Bob... not photographs. Simply point to her movement...
Silly! There's actually a fairly reasonable and understandable reason for the
height problem.
>If they were overlaying one film onto another, then the background would
>presumably have been from the original and should have been quite
>accurate.
>
>There has to be some kind of logic associated with these claims. There
>has to be some kind of plausible theory about how it was done.
No Bob, there doesn't.
When you're looking at a green Fire-engine - you don't try to complain that it's
really red, and that someone will have to explain HOW it became green before you
accept the color.
Likewise, when a group of four people morph into more, and a group of two people
morph into three... and THERE IS NO GRASS NOT VISIBLE IN THE ZAPRUDER FILM FOR
THEM TO HAVE BEEN STANDING - then you don't need to complain that a "plausible
theory" must be developed before admitting that the films don't match...
They don't match... period.
And you knew this, or else you wouldn't have been ducking my question about
Z-369.
But that's okay, Bob. The evidence is still there - and I'll be happy to point
it out - and let you look like a fool for being unable to explain it.
>> Frame Z-233 does the same thing as it shows 6 people to be shorter
>> than the parking meters (5').
>
>
>Did you mean a different frame than 233? I haven't located the parking
>meters.
>
>
>
>> All I'm suggesting is you take a step
>> back and look at the film with new eyes. Don't assume it to be
>> authentic and go in with no opinion but look at these frames and
>> others with a new perspective.
>>
>> Everyone here knows I have had my run-ins with Ben, and he has done
>> the same thing to me, but for your research purposes go at it with an
>> open-mind. I believe around 49 people said the limo either stopped
>> for a second or two or slowed down to an almost standstill
>
>Well, there is no doubt that the limo slowed down dramatically.
And yet, it can't be seen in the extant Z-film.
>Alvarez
>determined that it was moving well under 10mph, based on his study of
>the Zapruder film.
>
>But MOST people were behind the limousine then and not in a good
>position to determine its velocity.
And yet, they indisputably did.
But Bob will keep making this statement, and keep running from the actual
statements and testimony of those people from the rear. (and front... and
side...)
>And the question of how many mph it
>was going, was undoubtedly, among the very least important issues on
>their minds at the time.
Meaningless...
>And the technology to remove frames without leaving telltale traces
>would have been hellaciously difficult - especially on the Nix film. I
>would challenge anybody to reproduce such a forgery, using 1963
>equipment.
I would challenge you to perform Hidari Hane Goshi using Kenka Yotsu.
The *FACT* that you'll never be able to do so doesn't prove to me that it can't
be done. Indeed, I can easily do so.
>> so this is
>> in all liklihood the god's honest truth. The fact you don't see it in
>> the Z-film is why many believe it has been altered and remember it was
>> under lock and key for 12 years so they had ample time to work on it.
>
>I see the same thing you guys do.
No you don't.
You've already tried to argue that there was a portion of the grass that
couldn't be seen in the Zapruder film.
A dishonest and false argument, Bob.
>And one of the problems is obviously,
>that the Zfilm SEEMS to show more motion during the slowdown than say,
>the Nix film does. But we know the limo was moving the same distance in
>both films.
>
>Analyzing this stuff is very, very tricky and I have fooled myself on
>more than one occasion. You have to be your own toughest critic and look
>very closely for alternative explanations for what you think you see.
Go ahead, Bob... give us your best "explanation" for why the extant Z-film and
the Nix film disagree on the number of people standing in the grass (and their
positions) beginning at Z-369 (and Nix equivalent)
aeffects
> In article
[...]
>
> Dr. Mantik who was working with some pretty good graphics people, looked
> into these same issues and disagreed with you (or at least he used to).
> He told me in the mid-nineties that he found perfect matches among the
> three films and that the limo positions synchronized perfectly.
yep he has worked with and presented with some pretty good graphics
folks, I'm was one in fact...... never heard Dr. Mantik say "perfect
matches amongst the three films".
Did Dr. Mantik say: yeah all three ARE KODAK films, or the film
content of all three films themselves match perfectly?
[...]
tims...@gmail.com
Hi Ben,
Say, here's ANOTHER example of the theory about Z film alteration that
you *never* debated, Ben.
One of the people you're referring to below is *Yellow Pants* or
*Yellow Legs*, isn't it, Ben?
Doesn't look like you ever posted the evidence to demonstrate Bob
Harris's characater, Ben.
All we've seen is a demonstration of YOUR character, once you realised
you were wrong, Benny.
Isn't that so, Ben?
Keep on runnin', Benny, LOL!
Regards,
Tim Brennan
Sydney, Australia
*Newsgroup(s) Commentator*
On Mar 6, 3:00 am, Ben Holmes <ad...@khadaji.com> wrote:
> In article <reharris1-2C2354.08505905032...@earthlink.vsrv-sjc.supernews.net>,
> Robert Harris says...
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> >In article
> ><b2d6f988-870b-435c-9171-9b716b72a...@e10g2000prf.googlegroups.com>,
> ...
>
> read more »- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
Tim Brennan
More Lady In Yellow Pants stuff for you, Yellow Pants! KUTGW! TB
Lovey Dovey Doo
> Ben, I previously stated that you only lied about three of the four
> officers when you said "All four motorcycle cops asserted that the limo
> stopped."
>
> If Vaughan is correct, then Chaney's earliest recollection was also that
> the limo did not come to a full stop, as you falsely claimed.
>
> Therefore your score is actually 0 correct and 4 wrong.
>
> Please accept my apology for believing even one of your phony claims.
>
>
>
>
> Robert Harris
Tim Brennan
Yes that's true! Looks like he ripped Ben (Yellow Pants) Holmes a new one here! Way to go Mr Harris!
Chortlin' Regards,