Re: Observations of a Lurker and a question
Robert Harris
Great stuff!
It is indeed interesting that the CIA takes a much different view of
the use of silencers in assassinations, than our resident LNT
ridiculers do:-)
Robert Harris
On 12 Jun 2006 09:39:18 -0400, "pjsp...@AOL.COM" <pjsp...@AOL.COM>
wrote:
>Severin, in preparation for the 1954 overthrow of the Guatemalan
>government, the CIA provided its Guatemalan trainees with A Study of
>Assassination. Here are a few excerpts from this study.
>
>"Firearms are often used in assassination, often very ineffectively.
>The assassin usually has insufficient technical knowledge of the
>limitations of weapons, and expects more range, accuracy and killing
>power than can be provided with reliability. Since certainty of death
>is the major requirement, firearms should be used which can provide
>destructive power at least 100% in excess of that thought to be
>necessary, and ranges should be half that considered practical for the
>weapon.
>
>Firearms have other drawbacks. Their possession is often incriminating.
>They may be difficult to obtain. They require a degree of experience
>from the user. They are [illeg]. Their [illeg] is consistently
>over-rated.
>
>However, there are many cases in which firearms are probably more
>efficient than any other means. These cases usually involve distance
>between the assassin and the subject, or comparative physical weakness
>of the assassin, as with a woman.
>
>(a) The precision rifle. In guarded assassination, a good hunting or
>target rifle should always be considered as a possibility. Absolute
>reliability can nearly always be achieved at a distance of one hundred
>yards. In ideal circumstances, t he range may be extended to 250 yards.
>The rifle should be a well made bolt or falling block action type,
>handling a powerful long-range cartridge. The .300 F.A.B. Magnum is
>probably the best cartridge readily available. Other excellent calibers
>are . 375 M.[illeg]. Magnum, .270 Winchester, .30 - 106 p.s., 8 x 60 MM
>Magnum, 9.3 x 62 kk and others of this type. These are preferable to
>ordinary military calibers, since ammunition available for them is
>usually of the expanding bullet type, whereas most ammunition for
>military rifles is full jacketed and hence not sufficiently let hal.
>Military ammunition should not be altered by filing or drilling
>bullets, as this will adversely affect accuracy.
>
>The rifle may be of the "bull gun" variety, with extra heavy barrel and
>set triggers, but in any case should be capable of maximum precision.
>Ideally, the weapon should be able to group in one inch at one hundred
>yards, but 21/2" groups are adequa te. The sight should be telescopic,
>not only for accuracy, but because such a sight is much better in dim
>light or near darkness. As long as the bare outline of the target is
>discernable, a telescope sight will work, even if the rifle and shooter
>are in total darkness.
>
>An expanding, hunting bullet of such calibers as described above will
>produce extravagant laceration and shock at short or mid-range. If a
>man is struck just once in the body cavity, his death is almost
>entirely certain.
>
>Public figures or guarded officials may be killed with great
>reliability and some safety if a firing point can be established prior
>to an official occasion. TTHE PROPAGANDA VALUE OF THIS SYSTEM MAY BE
>VERY HIGH.
>
> (f) Silent Firearms
>
>The sound of the explosion of the proponent in a firearm can be
>effectively silenced by appropriate attachments. However, the sound of
>the projective passing through the air cannot, since this sound is
>generated outside the weapon. In cases w here the velocity of the
>bullet greatly exceeds that of sound, the noise so generated is much
>louder than that of the explosion. Since all powerful rifles have
>muzzle velocities of over 2000 feet per second, they cannot be
>silenced.
>
>Pistol bullets, on the other hand, usually travel slower than sound and
>the sound of their flight is negligible. Therefore, pistols, submachine
>guns and any sort of improvised carbine or rifle which will take a low
>velocity cartridge can be silenc ed. The user should not forget that
>the sound of the operation of a repeating action is considerable, and
>that the sound of bullet strike, particularly in bone is quite loud.
>
>Silent firearms are only occasionally useful to the assassin, though
>they have been widely publicized in this connection. BECAUSE
>PERMISSIBLE VELOCITY IS LOW, EFFECTIVE PRECISION RANGE IS HELD TO ABOUT
>100 YARDS with rifle or carbine type weapons, while with pistols,
>silent or otherwise, are most efficient just beyond arms length. The
>silent feature attempts to provide a degree of safety to the assassin,
>but mere possession of a silent firearm is likely to create enough
>hazard to counter the advantage of its silence. The silent pisto l
>combines the disadvantages of any pistol with the added one of its
>obviously clandestine purpose.
>
>A telescopically sighted, closed-action carbine shooting a low velocity
>bullet of great weight, and built for accuracy, could be very useful to
>an assassin in certain situations. At the time of writing, no such
>weapon is known to exist."
>
>
>
>So here the CIA is telling its assassins that a silenced rifle using
>subsonic ammunition is effective up to 100 yards, and that the
>propaganda value of killing a public figure in such a manner is very
>high. Well, who were the CIA agents in charge of training these men?
>Rip Robertson and David Morales, suspects in Kennedy's death long
>before the mid-90's release of this document. And who was the
>propaganda director of the Guatemalan OP? E. Howard Hunt, a suspect in
>Kennedy's death since the days of Watergate.
>
>So what would be the propaganda value of killing Kennedy in such a
>manner? Just a guess: "don't mess with the hidden powers-that-be." Was
>the message received by those anxious to walk in Kennedy's foot-steps?
>Probably.
>
>
There is NO question that an honest man will evade.
The JFK History Page
http://jfkhistory.com/
Robert Harris
>>> "There is really only ONE way to resolve this question, and that is by
>looking through a lot of evidence and testimony."
>
>
>I agree with Robert H. re. the "looking at the evidence and testimony".
>However, when you look at a "lot" of the evidence and testimony in this
>case (and nobody can deny that there is a ton of it), you're BOUND to
>find oddities, discrepancies, inconsistencies, and things that lead
>toward the LN conclusion as well as some things (when ISOLATED) that
>lead toward a "CT" conclusion.
David, the fallacy in your reasoning is that the LN conclusion is a
nonfalsifiable. There may be evidence of Oswald's guilt, but there is
no such thing as "lone-nut" evidence.
Even if the overwhelming preponderance of evidence did not support the
existence of multiple assassins, you could never say with absolute
certainty, that Oswald had no co-conspirators.
More importantly, we are NOT talking about mere "oddities,
discrepancies, and inconsistencies".
MOST witnesses contradicted the LN shooting scenaro.
ZERO law enforcement professionals supported a LN shooting scenario.
The very best science places a startling noise, which could only have
been a gunshot, at a point which is indisputably, inconsistent with
your theory, and is confirmed both visually and verbally, by the
reactions of the people in the Zapruder film, who were closest to the
President.
This is not trivial stuff, David. It is the best science, the best
witnesses and much of it is objectively corroborated by the visible
reactions of the same people who told us about the shots.
And David - NONE of this evidence contradicts in any way, shape or
form, the evidence that suggests Oswald took part in the attack.
And that's before we even BEGIN to talk about that last shot.
>
>That type of thing is inevitable....because we're dealing with human
>beings who were writing up the reports, giving the testimony, and doing
>the work for the authorities in this case (extending to the J.D. Tippit
>murder too, of course). These aren't machines doing the testifying and
>investigating and report-writing....they are men and women. And men and
>women are prone to errors and misjudgments.
>
>A big part of Mr. Harris' problem, and many other JFK researchers, IMO,
>is that they'll look at a "lot" of evidence UNTIL THEY FIND SOMETHING
>THAT TENDS TO LEAD TOWARD CT-ism,
You are absolutely and flatly wrong.
You may not believe this, but it all started in 1995, just after I had
finally come to the conclusion after a long series of debates with
LNer and Physicist, Cary Zeitlin, that the SBT was generally correct.
I became for a time, convinced that either Oswald really did act
alone, or that there was just no way to prove with absolute certainty,
that there was a conspiracy.
I had actually decided that this was all a big waste of time, and was
going to delete all this JFK crap from my computer, but for some
reason, decided to look once again at the low res version of the
Zapruder film that I had stored on the hard drive.
As I watched the film and the reactions of JBC, I thought to myself
that Nellie Connally certainly was confused. How in hell, could she
have thought the second and third shots were fired after she looked
back at Kennedy and after her husband had areadly begun to start
shouting?
It was as I watched her reactions, that it finally hit me, that she
had to have heard another shot then.
So I started to look at what the other witnesses said, and what they
did at the same instant Nellie reacted.
I counted back from those reactions to what I figured was the likely
cause of them, and guesstimated frame 284, which is what you will see
in a few of my early posts.
That was before I realized that Dr. Alvarez placed that same loud
noise at frame 285.
But even if you throw out all the witnesses, and all the science, here
is the acid test, David. Look at these reactions and with a straight
face, tell me these people were NOT reacting to a gunshot.
http://jfkhistory.com/reactions18fps.mov
Robert Harris
>and then they will proceed to
>"ISOLATE" those items and run with them toward their CT endzone until
>they think they've scored a "Conspiracy Touchdown" using this isolated
>evidence.
>
>But IMO such isolation of evidence is not the way to solve the JFK
>case, or to come to the CORRECT answer as to how President Kennedy died
>in 1963.
>
>Two excellent examples of the "Isolation Syndrome" to which I
>refer......
>
>1.) The "It Was Really A Mauser Rifle Found In The TSBD" conspiracy
>theory. .... Many CTers take this simple mis-identification of Oswald's
>C2766 M.-C. carbine (with it being mistaken by Boone/Weitzman as a
>"Mauser" at first blush) to be some kind of ironclad PROOF that Oswald
>is innocent and didn't fire his own rifle at JFK on 11/22. When, in
>actuality, this "isolated" piece of evidence means no such
>conspiratorial thing, and the overall record is quite clear about that.
>
>2.) Gerald Hill initially referring to the Tippit murder weapon as an
>"automatic". .... This, like the "Mauser" mix-up, is something the
>CTers have pounced on and gotten a lot of mileage out of. But is it
>truly a REASONABLE argument for CTers to spout? Answer: no, it is not.
>
>Gerald Hill was quite clear in his statements after 11/22/63 as to the
>reason why he initially thought the killer was carrying an "automatic".
>He made a simple HUMAN ERROR in judgment. Period. Because no automatic
>shells were picked up (by anybody) at the Tippit murder scene; and, no
>automatic shells were placed into the record in the case. Only shells
>from Oswald's revolver exist in the Tippit murder case. And to believe
>that all four Oswald bullet shells were "planted" at 10th & Patton (or
>afterward) is to engage in sheer speculation -- which, of course, is
>something that CTers rely on quite heavily to help them "solve" both
>the JFK and Tippit crimes; and is THAT a reasonable thing to constantly
>engage in either? Hardly.
>
>I talk about more of this type of CTer behavior in my review at the
>link below......
>
>www.amazon.com/gp/product/customer-reviews/0788600931/ref=cm_rev_sort/102-0679552-6293763?customer-reviews.sort_by=byExactRating_1&x=8&y=12&s=video
>
>I enjoyed reading the remarks made by Severin in this thread...and
>wholly concur with "Sev". Many CTers pluck items from the batch of
>evidence that seem to favor conspiracy (and I'm not denying that there
>are some things that do, when isolated, look suspicious) and then the
>conspiracists will just let them dangle there....out of context if you
>will.
>
>For example......
>
>Re. the people who believe in a vast plot to "set up" Lee Oswald in the
>days, weeks, and even months prior to November 22 --- these CTers then
>fail to go back and apply some ordinary common sense to such a plot.
>Oliver Stone being one such CTers who seemed to be in the CT club with
>a crazy theory that could easily have been labelled: "Let's Just Allow
>This Silly Plot To Dangle Out Here And Then Let The Gullible Public Eat
>It Up".
>
>Stone, in his fanciful movie, actually (I guess) wants people to
>believe that a group of always-unnamed and unknown (and evidently
>brain-dead) plotters would risk letting their only "Patsy" just wander
>around the Depository at exactly 12:30 when the President is being shot
>at from upstairs on the 6th Floor....instead of the plotters keeping a
>tight leash on their lone patsy (which, of course, SHOULD have been a
>top priority for the "Patsy Baby-Sitters" on the assassination payroll
>that Friday in Dallas).
>
>Does Mr. Stone's interpretation of Oswald's movements ("waiting for a
>phone call" on the 1st or 2nd Floor) make ANY logical sense within the
>confines of Stone's "Patsy" plot? Any sense at all?
>
>To Stone I guess it did...but to anyone with some "common"
>sense....letting Oswald wander around loose at the exact time he's
>needed on the sixth floor is just potential SUICIDE for that group of
>patsy-framers (who took the time to frame him so carefully, too, in the
>weeks leading up to 11/22).
>
>And just think --- Many people actually base their current CT beliefs
>on things found in THAT Oliver Stone movie. Amazing.
>
>More LN CS&L here:
>
>http://groups.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/msg/2468ba452baf99c0
>
>Regards,
>David R. Von Pein
>
>
"Shut up about the evidence." Bud 6-12-2006
David VP
I'd love to see the skewed CT-favoring-only data you dredged up to
support this outlandishly-absurd and dead-wrong statement, Bob.
MOST witnesses, in general, positively FAVOR the LN scenario....with a
HUGE majority hearing EXACTLY THREE SHOTS fired, instead of hearing
four or more. This figure is incredibly high in favor of "LN" (i.e., 3
shots)......
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/images/shots3.jpg
And even if you want to believe that Mr. McAdams' pie chart above is
full of shit and skewed toward LN drastically...you could arbitrarily
slice off a full 25% of the 76% three-shot witnesses and STILL be at a
"majority" for "3 Shots Only".
And the majority of "directional" witnesses favor the general/overall
LN scenario as well. (Robert Groden's blatant misrepresentation of the
facts notwithstanding...with Mr. Groden claiming, in 1975 on live TV,
that "80%" of the witnesses heard shots from the Grassy Knoll, which
even CTers today must agree is a figure skewed beyond tolerance. Wonder
what Mr. Groden's current % is in this regard. Is he still holding firm
at a ridiculous "80%"?......
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/images/shots4.jpg
Tell us again, Robert, how it is that "MOST witnesses contradicted the
LN shooting scenario".
Robert Harris
"David VP" <davev...@aol.com> wrote:
> >> "MOST witnesses contradicted the LN shooting scenaro."
>
> I'd love to see the skewed CT-favoring-only data you dredged up to
> support this outlandishly-absurd and dead-wrong statement, Bob.
David, you snipped my entire posting, except for a single sentence.
When you do that, you label yourself as dishonest and evasive.
I will put it back for you and give you another chance to respond,
>>> "There is really only ONE way to resolve this question, and that is
by
>looking through a lot of evidence and testimony."
>
>
>I agree with Robert H. re. the "looking at the evidence and testimony".
>However, when you look at a "lot" of the evidence and testimony in this
>case (and nobody can deny that there is a ton of it), you're BOUND to
>find oddities, discrepancies, inconsistencies, and things that lead
>toward the LN conclusion as well as some things (when ISOLATED) that
>lead toward a "CT" conclusion.
David, the fallacy in your reasoning is that the LN conclusion is a
nonfalsifiable. There may be evidence of Oswald's guilt, but there is
no such thing as "lone-nut" evidence.
Even if the overwhelming preponderance of evidence did not support the
existence of multiple assassins, you could never say with absolute
certainty, that Oswald had no co-conspirators.
More importantly, we are NOT talking about mere "oddities,
discrepancies, and inconsistencies".
MOST witnesses contradicted the LN shooting scenaro.
ZERO law enforcement professionals supported a LN shooting scenario.
http://jfkhistory.com/reactions18fps.mov
Robert Harris
>
Kenneth A. Rahn
and indirect evidence. I'm happy for him. But then he let it overcome all
the hard physical evidence he had previously assembled. That is a huge
no-no. Now I am very unhappy for him.
But people with epiphanies don't easily get unepiphanied, so I don't
hold out much hope for him. That's why I'm not bothering to communicate with
him. The strongest evangelists are the most recent converts.
Ken Rahn
"Robert Harris" <reha...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:reharris1-840BF...@forte.vsrv-sjc.supernews.net...
Robert Harris
wrote:
> So Robert Harris had an epiphany based on one piece of extremely weak
>and indirect evidence.
You are one pathetic, lying sack of shit, "doctor". You are a disgrace
to your profession.
You not only lack the courage and integrity to defend what you claim
to believe but you make hit n' run attacks, which include accusations
which you know are deliberate lies and which you have no intention of
defending.
You also fully acknowledge lies that are promoted in your articles on
the web, but which you gleefully refuse to correct.
If you genuinely believed these attacks you just posted about me, then
perhaps you will finally be able to summon the courage to debate me
about this. We can do that entirely under the protection of your
allies in alt.assassination.jfk - The only stipulation being that we
will not RUN, as you have been doing for nearly a decade, but will
address all material issues.
Go ahead "doctor". Now is the time for you to fabricate your excuses.
But I assure you, everyone will know the real reason that you cannot
defend your position, which is that you know as well as everyone else
does, that it is nothing more than a composite of lies on top of other
lies, that you could no more defend, that the flat-Earth theory.
And that sir, is your great sin - not that you are wrong, but that you
KNOW you are wrong.
Robert Harris
"Shut up about the evidence." Bud 6-12-2006
Kenneth A. Rahn
it came a little too close to home.
Ken Rahn
(Who may be having an epiphany about Robert Harris). :-)
"Robert Harris" <reha...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:4490300e...@news20.forteinc.com...
Robert Harris
wrote:
>Golly gee, but my last post to Robert seems to have hit a raw nerve. Guess
>it came a little too close to home.
It sure did - reminded me that things like you not only exist, but
that they infest our educational system.
Robert Harris
There is no question that an honest man will evade.
Kenneth A. Rahn
Ken Rahn
(aka "The Infester")
"Robert Harris" <reha...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:4491613c...@news20.forteinc.com...
Robert Harris
wrote:
>The raw nerve just won't go away, it seems. :-)
Yes, my secret is out.
My article which is over 100 pages long, wth 126 footnotes, only
contains one piece of evidence.
But with such a pathetically weak case, you must be quite eager to put
me in my place, aren't you "doctor"??
Why did you snip my challenge to debate, rather than confront it??
Surely, you can handle a solitary piece of undoubtedly, faulty
evidence, can't you, "doctor"??
It is one thing to lie in order to sell that lemon you bought at the
car lot, or to impress your friends. It is quite another, when ;you
are protecting the men who killed my country's head of state.
Your cowardly refusal to defend your position confirms that you know
as well as anyone else does, that you are wittingly promoting
deliberate lies, that you couldn't defend if your life depended on it.
In my book, you are human trash.
Robert Harris
There is no question that an honest man will evade.
Kenneth A. Rahn
It seems that Robert is warming up to his task now. (See below.) I
wonder whether he can do better. :-)
Surely "Infester" --> "Human trash" --> ??????
Ken ("Human Trash") Rahn
(Who believes that if you have no conclusive evidence it is tempting to
resort to demeaning others)
"Robert Harris" <reha...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:449401ff...@news20.forteinc.com...
> On Sat, 17 Jun 2006 19:29:27 +0800, "Kenneth A. Rahn" <kr...@uri.edu>
> wrote:
>
> >The raw nerve just won't go away, it seems. :-)
>
Robert Harris
"Kenneth A. Rahn" <kr...@uri.edu> wrote:
> To Lurkers,
>
> It seems that Robert is warming up to his task now. (See below.) I
> wonder whether he can do better. :-)
> Surely "Infester" --> "Human trash" --> ??????
>
> Ken ("Human Trash") Rahn
> (Who believes that if you have no conclusive evidence it is tempting to
> resort to demeaning others)
You should look at my exchanges with Jerry Logan, Severin, and 90
percent of the other nutters, "doctor".
I founded a newsgroup in 1995 for the express purpose of preventing ad
hominem attacks.
What I say about you, I say for the simple reason that it is true - not
because I am trying to win a debate or get even for something you said.
I also notice that you don't attempt to deny these accusations and that
you confirm your dishonesty and cowardice, by running away from every
one of my challenges:-)
Is that what you teach your students to do, "doctor"??
Robert Harris
Kenneth A. Rahn
"Robert Harris" <reha...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:reharris1-1FD0B...@forte.vsrv-sjc.supernews.net...
> In article <e72a9...@news2.newsguy.com>,
> "Kenneth A. Rahn" <kr...@uri.edu> wrote:
>
> > To Lurkers,
> >
> > It seems that Robert is warming up to his task now. (See below.) I
> > wonder whether he can do better. :-)
> > Surely "Infester" --> "Human trash" --> ??????
> >
> > Ken ("Human Trash") Rahn
> > (Who believes that if you have no conclusive evidence it is tempting to
> > resort to demeaning others)
>
> You should look at my exchanges with Jerry Logan, Severin, and 90
> percent of the other nutters, "doctor".
>
> I founded a newsgroup in 1995 for the express purpose of preventing ad
> hominem attacks.
>
> What I say about you, I say for the simple reason that it is true - not
> because I am trying to win a debate or get even for something you said.
As usual, Robert's logic is impeccable--"It can't be ad hominem, because
it's true!"
He also reminds me of a saying my grandfather the farmer used to cite:
"Everything what I was, he called me!" :-)
> I also notice that you don't attempt to deny these accusations and that
> you confirm your dishonesty and cowardice, by running away from every
> one of my challenges:-)
>
> Is that what you teach your students to do, "doctor"??
Robert has nailed another one--I do indeed teach my students to run from
meaningless "challenges." Credit where credit is due--to Robert.
Ken ("The Runner") Rahn
Robert Harris
"Kenneth A. Rahn" <kr...@uri.edu> wrote:
> Lurkers,
>
> "Robert Harris" <reha...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:reharris1-1FD0B...@forte.vsrv-sjc.supernews.net...
> > In article <e72a9...@news2.newsguy.com>,
> > "Kenneth A. Rahn" <kr...@uri.edu> wrote:
> >
> > > To Lurkers,
> > >
> > > It seems that Robert is warming up to his task now. (See below.) I
> > > wonder whether he can do better. :-)
> > > Surely "Infester" --> "Human trash" --> ??????
> > >
> > > Ken ("Human Trash") Rahn
> > > (Who believes that if you have no conclusive evidence it is tempting to
> > > resort to demeaning others)
> >
> > You should look at my exchanges with Jerry Logan, Severin, and 90
> > percent of the other nutters, "doctor".
> >
> > I founded a newsgroup in 1995 for the express purpose of preventing ad
> > hominem attacks.
> >
> > What I say about you, I say for the simple reason that it is true - not
> > because I am trying to win a debate or get even for something you said.
>
> As usual, Robert's logic is impeccable--"It can't be ad hominem, because
> it's true!"
Yes, it is indeed true.
>
> He also reminds me of a saying my grandfather the farmer used to cite:
> "Everything what I was, he called me!" :-)
I would say that is an excellent analogy, and to your credit, a
surprisingly candid admission.
Robert Harris
Kenneth A. Rahn
and a runner from challenges. But why did he stop there? Surely this is just
the tip of the iceberg of what he really feels. Why hold back?
Ken Rahn
(All of the above and probably a lot more) :-)
Robert Harris
wrote:
>I am disappointed with Robert Harris. He called me human trash, an infester,
>and a runner from challenges.
But it's not all bad, Ken.
You are at least bright enough to not insult our intelligence by
denying those accusations.
Robert Harris
>But why did he stop there? Surely this is just
>the tip of the iceberg of what he really feels. Why hold back?
>
>Ken Rahn
>(All of the above and probably a lot more) :-)
>
>
There is no question that an honest man will evade.
Kenneth A. Rahn
"Robert Harris" <reha...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:44997c61...@news20.forteinc.com...
> On Wed, 21 Jun 2006 22:51:27 +0800, "Kenneth A. Rahn" <kr...@uri.edu>
> wrote:
>
> >I am disappointed with Robert Harris. He called me human trash, an
infester,
> >and a runner from challenges.
>
> But it's not all bad, Ken.
>
> You are at least bright enough to not insult our intelligence by
> denying those accusations.
Robert, of course you are exactly right on all your accusations. I am
human trash, an infester of impressionable minds, a runner from challenges,
and all those other names you have yet to call me. How do I know? Because
you say so. After all, look at your stellar record on the movements in the
Zapruder film and their deep inner meanings. Case closed.
I congratulate you, Robert, for being right yet one more time!
Ken Rahn
(Who thankfully now has more titles to append to his name when seeking to
impress people)
Robert Harris
wrote:
>Robert,
>
>"Robert Harris" <reha...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>news:44997c61...@news20.forteinc.com...
>> On Wed, 21 Jun 2006 22:51:27 +0800, "Kenneth A. Rahn" <kr...@uri.edu>
>> wrote:
>>
>> >I am disappointed with Robert Harris. He called me human trash, an
>infester,
>> >and a runner from challenges.
>>
>> But it's not all bad, Ken.
>>
>> You are at least bright enough to not insult our intelligence by
>> denying those accusations.
>
> Robert, of course you are exactly right on all your accusations. I am
>human trash, an infester of impressionable minds, a runner from challenges,
I think we all know that.
>and all those other names you have yet to call me. How do I know? Because
>you say so. After all, look at your stellar record on the movements in the
>Zapruder film and their deep inner meanings. Case closed.
> I congratulate you, Robert, for being right yet one more time!
I am not sure what you mean by inner meanings. Are you talking about
these reactions?
http://jfkhistory.com/reactions18fps.mov
I'm afraid it hardly takes a genius to figure that out - anymore than
it takes a genius to see through the likes of you:-)
Robert Harris
>
>Ken Rahn
>(Who thankfully now has more titles to append to his name when seeking to
>impress people)
>
>
There is no question that an honest man will evade.
Kenneth A. Rahn
You forgot "ilk." Charlie Drago always used to say things like "Rahn and
his ilk" when we were working on the 1999 Providence Conference. Had a nice
ring to it.
Ken (Ilkster) Rahn
Robert Harris
"Kenneth A. Rahn" <kr...@uri.edu> wrote:
Ken, you seem to have snipped my question.
I am not sure what you mean by inner meanings. Are you talking about
these reactions?
http://jfkhistory.com/reactions18fps.mov
Robert Harris
>
> Ken (Ilkster) Rahn
Kenneth A. Rahn
imaginary interpretations. He will have to find someone else, if he can.
:-)
Ken Rahn
(The "pathetic, lying sack of ****")
(Maybe we can celebrate when we reach 100 unprintable things that Robert has
called me.)
"Robert Harris" <reha...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:reharris1-1E5C6...@forte.vsrv-sjc.supernews.net...
Robert Harris
wrote:
>Robert scores another direct hit!
I see you snipped the question again and then tried to pretend that
this is about tea leaves and Tarot cards. That would be a great tactic
if you weren't in a newsgroup where everyone who is following this
thread hadn't already seen the presentationi:-)
I don't think you need me to score "direct hits", Ken. You do a great
job all by yourself, proving that you are a chronic liar and a coward.
Robert Harris
There is no question that an honest man will evade.
Kenneth A. Rahn
> On Fri, 23 Jun 2006 20:05:09 +0800, "Kenneth A. Rahn" <kr...@uri.edu>
> wrote:
>
> >Robert scores another direct hit!
>
> I see you snipped the question again and then tried to pretend that
> this is about tea leaves and Tarot cards. That would be a great tactic
> if you weren't in a newsgroup where everyone who is following this
> thread hadn't already seen the presentationi:-)
>
> I don't think you need me to score "direct hits", Ken. You do a great
> job all by yourself, proving that you are a chronic liar and a coward.
That's two more keepers! :-)
Ken Rahn
Robert Harris
wrote:
>"Robert Harris" <reha...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>news:449bf0b...@news20.forteinc.com...
>> On Fri, 23 Jun 2006 20:05:09 +0800, "Kenneth A. Rahn" <kr...@uri.edu>
>> wrote:
>>
>> >Robert scores another direct hit!
>>
>> I see you snipped the question again and then tried to pretend that
>> this is about tea leaves and Tarot cards. That would be a great tactic
>> if you weren't in a newsgroup where everyone who is following this
>> thread hadn't already seen the presentationi:-)
>>
>> I don't think you need me to score "direct hits", Ken. You do a great
>> job all by yourself, proving that you are a chronic liar and a coward.
>
>That's two more keepers! :-)
Tell me something Ken, do you actually believe that you are achieving
something when you pretend that your dishonesty is less of a sin than
my pointing it out?
Robert Harris
>
>Ken Rahn
Kenneth A. Rahn
"Robert Harris" <reha...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:449d2f8...@news20.forteinc.com...
> On Fri, 23 Jun 2006 22:10:55 +0800, "Kenneth A. Rahn" <kr...@uri.edu>
> wrote:
>
> >"Robert Harris" <reha...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> >news:449bf0b...@news20.forteinc.com...
> >> On Fri, 23 Jun 2006 20:05:09 +0800, "Kenneth A. Rahn" <kr...@uri.edu>
> >> wrote:
> >>
> >> >Robert scores another direct hit!
> >>
> >> I see you snipped the question again and then tried to pretend that
> >> this is about tea leaves and Tarot cards. That would be a great tactic
> >> if you weren't in a newsgroup where everyone who is following this
> >> thread hadn't already seen the presentationi:-)
> >>
> >> I don't think you need me to score "direct hits", Ken. You do a great
> >> job all by yourself, proving that you are a chronic liar and a coward.
> >
> >That's two more keepers! :-)
>
> Tell me something Ken, do you actually believe that you are achieving
> something when you pretend that your dishonesty is less of a sin than
> my pointing it out?
Note how Robert Harris has been reduced to posing loaded questions, where
the question contains his opinion as a given. It resembles the classical
"When did you stop beating you wife?" The guy wasn't beating his wife, and I
certainly wasn't pretending anything about alleged dishonesty.
It's all in Robert's mind, just like those reactions. :-)
Ken Rahn
("They don't call me the Great Pretender...")
Robert Harris
wrote:
>Lurkers,
>
>"Robert Harris" <reha...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>news:449d2f8...@news20.forteinc.com...
>> On Fri, 23 Jun 2006 22:10:55 +0800, "Kenneth A. Rahn" <kr...@uri.edu>
>> wrote:
>>
>> >"Robert Harris" <reha...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>> >news:449bf0b...@news20.forteinc.com...
>> >> On Fri, 23 Jun 2006 20:05:09 +0800, "Kenneth A. Rahn" <kr...@uri.edu>
>> >> wrote:
>> >>
>> >> >Robert scores another direct hit!
>> >>
>> >> I see you snipped the question again and then tried to pretend that
>> >> this is about tea leaves and Tarot cards. That would be a great tactic
>> >> if you weren't in a newsgroup where everyone who is following this
>> >> thread hadn't already seen the presentationi:-)
>> >>
>> >> I don't think you need me to score "direct hits", Ken. You do a great
>> >> job all by yourself, proving that you are a chronic liar and a coward.
>> >
>> >That's two more keepers! :-)
>>
>> Tell me something Ken, do you actually believe that you are achieving
>> something when you pretend that your dishonesty is less of a sin than
>> my pointing it out?
>
>Note how Robert Harris has been reduced to posing loaded questions, where
>the question contains his opinion as a given.
Then dispute the opinion, Ken.
True - you will then have to deal with your own words, which are
archived at Google, but then you can pretend that my citing them, is
really the crime:-)
>It resembles the classical
>"When did you stop beating you wife?" The guy wasn't beating his wife, and I
>certainly wasn't pretending anything about alleged dishonesty.
Oh?
So, you are finally denying that you are a liar???
Shall we talk about that, Ken?
>
>It's all in Robert's mind, just like those reactions. :-)
Odd, that nutters like mcadams, severin, jerry logan, zimmerman, etc
have no problem at all seeing them. I guess it's all in their mind
too, eh??
Here they are again, Ken - exactly as they were before you snipped
them:-)
http://jfkhistory.com/reactions18fps.mov
And here is the presentation.
http://two.fsphost.com/reharris/jfk.mov
Why don't you at least, prove that you have courage of your
convictions, and post a rebuttal??
Robert Harris
>
>Ken Rahn
>("They don't call me the Great Pretender...")
>
>
There is no question that an honest man will evade.
Kenneth A. Rahn
Enough is enough. When I pointed out the obvious about the path you have
followed to your current beliefs about the Zapruder film and its deep inner
meanings, you responded with a barrage of insults and unprintable names.
When I responded humorously, you raised the level of insults and names.
Sayonara.
Ken Rahn
David VP
What he really means is -- Go to hell, you CT kook!
Yeah...that feels much better now. (Thanks.)
Kenneth A. Rahn
"David VP" <davev...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:1151293051.0...@m73g2000cwd.googlegroups.com...
> Ken's just being polite, Robert H.
>
> What he really means is -- Go to hell, you CT kook!
Now, now, David, you know I believe in civil discourse. I just wish certain
others here did, too.
> Yeah...that feels much better now. (Thanks.)
You're welcome. Any time.
Ken Rahn
Kenneth A. Rahn
nature of epiphanies and their resultant limitations.If he did, he would
give up his current quest.
Ken Rahn
"David VP" <davev...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:1151293051.0...@m73g2000cwd.googlegroups.com...
Robert Harris
"Kenneth A. Rahn" <kr...@uri.edu> wrote:
That's a pretty sorry excuse, Ken.
My challenge to you, was to discuss this under the shelter of mcadams
newsgroup.
Your refusal to do that, proves in spades, what a total liar and coward
you are.
Robert Harris
> Sayonara.
>
> Ken Rahn
Robert Harris
"David VP" <davev...@aol.com> wrote:
> Ken's just being polite, Robert H.
>
> What he really means is -- Go to hell, you CT kook!
No, what he actually means is, that he is exactly like you - a
deliberate liar and a coward:-)
Here are the reactions that have you guys wetting your britches, David,
http://jfkhistory.com/reactions18fps.mov
And here is the presentation.
http://two.fsphost.com/reharris/jfk.mov
I know you lack the mental horsepower to post anything beyond "go to
hell", but perhaps you could urge your better educated friend, Dr.
Rahn, to grow some balls and write a rebuttal:-)
Robert Harris
Anthony Marsh
Nice tie.
Kenneth A. Rahn
beyond all doubt. My epiphany told me so."
Person B: "No, I don't think I will right now. Even if there are some
motions, there is no way to tell what caused them, so they can't prove
anything."
Person A: "You gutless coward, you human trash, you infester of our
youth, you deliberate liar, you lying sack of ****, you #$%!#&*^$#%!*#!!!!!"
Ken Rahn
David VP
I'm lovin' it.
And I guess Bob H. never tires of linking his "This Proves Conspiracy
Because I Say It Does" webpages into his forum replies.
He's gonna hammer home that "Z285 shot" if it kills him. And people
better believe this gosh-darn 285 theory....or else (become subject to
The Wrath Of Bob).
I kinda like my own material better, though, Bob. Here it is
again....and again:
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/msg/2468ba452baf99c0
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/msg/2468ba452baf99c0
(Yeah, I've linked that page previously in a shameless attempt to get
somebody to read my thoughts re. the case. But the difference is, you
see, that Bob is fast becoming a CT Kook...and I'm......
......not one of those. Thankfully.) ~wide grin~
Robert Harris
David, if you actually believe the evidence contradicts my claims
about Z285, then you should post a rebuttal.
Surely, you have already done the research to refute my claims, or you
wouldn't be attacking me like this, would you?
Why don't you share what you discovered, David?
Robert Harris
There is no question that an honest man will evade.
David VP
weight/totality of the evidence indicates (without doubt) that just
three shots total were fired.....with all of these coming from the TSBD
between Z-Frames Z155 approx. and Z313 exactly.....with good
indications of the first of the shots coming around Z160.
Sure, the Z160 thing is a guess.....of course it's a guess. It was a
missed shot; it can't be anything BUT a guess. But it's a good guess,
based on Rosemary and John (Connally). It's every bit as "good" a guess
for a missed shot as Robert Harris' Z285 "ducking" theory....which is
utterly preposterous for reasons everyone can see but Bob.
The "285 ducks" are preposterous because of WHAT HAS ALREADY TAKEN
PLACE IN THE LIMO (causing reactions by the people in the vehicle).
Reasonable "reactions" by Nellie and Jackie that don't have anything to
do with a gunblast at Z285. These are "What The Hell Is Happening To My
Husband?" reactions, and nothing more.
How Bob can differentiate between a "leaning in" toward the victims
reaction of the women and a separate "Gee, That Must Have Been A
Gunshot; I Think I'll Lean In Toward My Husband Now!" reaction is
something evidently only Robert can discern with fine-tuned precision.
But it's not going to hold up in a courtroom I'm afraid.
But, like with any really good motion picture, I guess every viewer
will "take from the film what they will" (as most prominent film
directors say)....so I guess the Zapruder Film, too, has people taking
from it what they will.....whether the "taking from it" makes any
freakin' sense or not. ;)
Robert Harris
wrote:
> Person A: "Look at these movements. They absolutely prove conspiracy,
>beyond all doubt. My epiphany told me so."
> Person B: "No, I don't think I will right now. Even if there are some
>motions, there is no way to tell what caused them, so they can't prove
>anything."
But you don't believe that, do you Ken?
You know all too well that it is easy to "tell what caused them".
That's why you cannot engage in honest debate on the subject.
And THAT is why you are the moral garbage that you are. (There's
another honest insult for you to whine about:-)
Robert Harris
> Person A: "You gutless coward, you human trash, you infester of our
>youth, you deliberate liar, you lying sack of ****, you #$%!#&*^$#%!*#!!!!!"
>
>Ken Rahn
>
>
There is no question that an honest man will evade.
Robert Harris
>The evidence positively contradicts your Z285 claims.....
Please cite that evidence, David.
>because the
>weight/totality of the evidence indicates (without doubt) that just
>three shots total were fired.....
Please cite that evidence, David. Be specific.
>with all of these coming from the TSBD
>between Z-Frames Z155 approx. and Z313 exactly.....with good
>indications of the first of the shots coming around Z160.
Please cite that evidence, David. So far, you have cited absolutely
nothing.
>
>Sure, the Z160 thing is a guess.....of course it's a guess. It was a
>missed shot; it can't be anything BUT a guess. But it's a good guess,
>based on Rosemary and John (Connally). It's every bit as "good" a guess
>for a missed shot as Robert Harris' Z285 "ducking" theory....which is
>utterly preposterous for reasons everyone can see but Bob.
Please cite your evidence, David.
BTW, you are absolutely correct about the missed shot, just before
Z160.
>
>The "285 ducks" are preposterous because of WHAT HAS ALREADY TAKEN
>PLACE IN THE LIMO
And what is that?
>(causing reactions by the people in the vehicle).
What reactions do you feel make it impossible for a shot to have been
fired at Z285?
Please be specific.
>Reasonable "reactions" by Nellie and Jackie that don't have anything to
>do with a gunblast at Z285.
Which "reasonable reactions" do you feel make it impossible for a shot
to have been fired at Z285?
>These are "What The Hell Is Happening To My
>Husband?" reactions, and nothing more.
Which reactions are you talking about?
In which frames do you see them?
And why are you relying on your personal interpretation of what they
were doing, when we can simply read their testimonies which explain
their actions in detail?
>
>How Bob can differentiate between a "leaning in" toward the victims
>reaction of the women and a separate "Gee, That Must Have Been A
>Gunshot; I Think I'll Lean In Toward My Husband Now!" reaction is
>something evidently only Robert can discern with fine-tuned precision.
>But it's not going to hold up in a courtroom I'm afraid.
David, Mrs. Kennedy was very specific about when she heard those
shots.
So was Mrs. Connally, Kellerman and Greer. Do you suppose they might
have a slight advantage over you in determining when they heard those
shots:-)
>
>But, like with any really good motion picture, I guess every viewer
>will "take from the film what they will"
But that is exactly what we must NOT do, David.
We must never allow our subjective opinions to override the objective
evidence and facts.
And David, do you realize that all throughout this lengthy discourse,
you failed to cite a single specific piece of evidence??
Not one!
Why do you suppose that is, David?
Robert Harris
>(as most prominent film
>directors say)....so I guess the Zapruder Film, too, has people taking
>from it what they will.....whether the "taking from it" makes any
>freakin' sense or not. ;)
>
There is no question that an honest man will evade.
David VP
Not the kind of "Z285 shot" "detail" you want to achieve Bob. No way.
No how. And you know this as much as anybody. You've just got your mind
so wrapped around this "Z285 shot" thing, you won't let yourself see
that the type of ultra-detail you need to achieve in order to "prove"
your pet theory just cannot ever be obtained.
Yes...I know...I'm relying on some of the same general type of
guesswork with a Z160 missed shot. A missed shot can only be guesswork
when it comes to trying to pinpoint it on a silent film like the
Zapruder movie, obviously. But the Z160 "guess", IMO, is far less
ambiguous in nature than your 285 scenario. Connally's "first-shot
right turn" being the prime example of UNambiguity in the 160 regard.
>> "Mrs. Kennedy was very specific about when she heard those shots."
Oh really? She made mention of hearing a shot at just exactly when you
say a shot occurred at 285, eh? Please show us that type of detailed
testimony via Mrs. Kennedy's WC session of June 5, 1964 (a very short
session it was too).......
http://jfkassassination.net/russ/testimony/kennedy.htm
Where exactly within Mrs. Kennedy's comments on that webpage does she
provide the kind of detailed specificity that makes you believe she
heard a gunshot at PRECISELY Z285? Where?
>> "Which "reasonable reactions" do you feel make it impossible for a shot to have been fired at Z285?"
The reactions you (Robert) equate to a gunshot are MUCH more in line
with the two women tending to their shot-up husbands and leaning in
toward them out of concern. Surely you must realize this too. Don't you
think that is even REMOTELY more probable, Bob?
Or do you think there was no "concern" for JFK & JBC being displayed at
all by Jackie and Nellie during the Z-frames you equate to "ducking"
from a Z285 gunshot?
Are you really saying the ONLY thing making the ladies "lean in" is
hearing a 285 shot? They might not have been leaning in ANYWAY while in
the process of trying to help their husbands? That's not even possible
in your "Z285" mind?
>> "And David, do you realize that all throughout this lengthy discourse, you failed to cite a single specific piece of evidence?"
Well, I kind of figured you already KNEW what the "evidence" is for my
LN/SBT scenario, so I didn't repeat every single item favorable to the
LN/SBT/3-SHOT timeline. But OK......
Evidence for Shot #1 at approx. Z160 (which I did mention btw):
Rosemary Willis ("I stopped when I heard the shot"; Via 'Case Closed';
c.1993) .... and Governor Connally's "right turn" at Z164 (the ONLY
possible "right turn" visible on the Z-Film that could conceivably
equate to Connally's statement about having turned to his right after
hearing Shot #1).
Evidence for Shot #2 at Z223-Z224:
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/msg/c19abd308e0026e1
Evidence for Shot #3 at Z313: That's all too obvious...JFK's head
explodes.
Evidence for a shot at Z285: Resting within Robert's mind, and nowhere
else (as far as I can tell).
Evidence for other shots not mentioned above: None whatsoever.