Ambiguity

[Robert Harris]

There are few tactics that are sleezier or more dishonest than accusing
someone of ambiguous offenses.

In most cases, that is done when the attacker knows that if he is
specific, his victim will easily prove him wrong.

Recently, John Corbett accused me of "seeing things that no one else can
see". Strangely however, he never mentioned what this hallucination was.
So, I asked him to be specific but he still dodged my question.

John mcadams however, rushed to his defense and responded to my challenge
by stating that what I am falsely claiming to see, is "this or that".

"THIS OR THAT"

I'm not making this up, folks:-)

"Harris loudly insists that he can see this or that in the Zapruder film.
Nobody else sees it the way he does."

The reason that neither of them will describe what it is that I claim to
see, that no one else can, is that they know their accusation is untrue.

I'm sure they would like to claim that only I can see the reactions to the
285 shot. But if they do that, I will ask them to explain why so many of
their fellow nutters acknowledged the reactions but argued that they were
caused by a backfire or Greer hitting the brakes.

And then they would have to explain the overwhelming majority of approvals
from people who rated my 285 presentations.

They would also like to claim that only I can see the massive protrusion
in the upper-rear of JFK's head. But then they would have to explain this:

http://jfkhistory.com/LastShot2/BOHDamage_files/5.jpg

and this:

http://jfkhistory.com/threetwenties.gif

This crime is historically important. It merits serious, honest
discussion - NOT bullshit tactics and not a campaign of ad hominem smears.



Robert Harris

[BOZ]

You are speculating about 285. Speculation is not evidence. Evidence is
Oswald's rifle on the 6th floor.

[Steve Barber]

Well, when you post ridiculous threads like you did this week titled
"The White Piece That Brehm Described". And speaking of that, the more I
thought about it the more I believe that you purposely used the words
"White Piece" to attract readers while fully knowing that Brehm never said
any such thing! So regarding "tactics"--don't even go there! It's
difficult to take you seriously. I see that you dropped out of your on
thread! That says a lot about you!

[bigdog]

On Thursday, April 20, 2017 at 6:02:33 PM UTC-4, Robert Harris wrote:

Bob, how many times have I and others pointed out to you that we don't see
the simultaneous startle reactions which you based your pet theory on.
Your belief in a Z285 shot is something you claim to have figured out that
none of the rest of us have. We've been down this road so many times I
really didn't think it was necessary to point them out again.

The fact that you find it necessary to create new threads to make your
rebuttals is another example of you trying to make this all about you. Why
don't you just continue in the same thread as the post you are responding
to? Do you just like to see as many threads as you can with your name on
them?

Was that specific enough for you, Bob? If not, it will give you a reason
to start still another thread.

[Robert Harris]

It is irrelevant, what color it was.

What matters is that it was blown over 40 feet to the rear. That could
only have been the result of a shot from the front.

> And speaking of that, the more I
> thought about it the more I believe that you purposely used the words
> "White Piece" to attract readers while fully knowing that Brehm never said
> any such thing!

Well of course you do. When you can't deal with the facts and evidence,
start squealing, "liar, liar".

Never mind that you have no justification whatsoever for your accusation
and the fact that I immediately acknowledged that trivial error.

> So regarding "tactics"--don't even go there! It's
> difficult to take you seriously.

Ad hominem smear after ad hominem smear.

What you sink to that level, it is not I who loses credibility.




Robert Harris

[John McAdams]

On 21 Apr 2017 19:51:51 -0400, Robert Harris <bobha...@yahoo.com>
wrote:

You have no basis for your "40 foot" statement.

Brehm thought that "whatever it was" was blown to the rear.

Somehow, the Zapruder film doesn't show any piece of bone blown
backward, although it shows a few pieces blown upward and forward.

Brehm was probably wrong about "backward," but he certainly didn't say
it landed near him.

.John
-----------------------
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/home.htm

[Robert Harris]

It is not my "theory". The Nobel prize winning physicist, Dr. Luis Alvarez
identified the loud and startling noise at 285.

And Dr. Michael Stroscio determined that it was a gunshot, not a siren,
which also happens to be what the people who heard that shot said.

And of course you see the reactions, just like all the nutters who said
they reacted to Greer hitting the brakes or some other cause.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cv7Lz25Xyno&t=1s

Are all of those people delusional, John:-)

> Your belief in a Z285 shot is something you claim to have figured out that
> none of the rest of us have.

You're making a fool out of yourself, Mr. Bigdog. You know as well as I
do, who discovered that shot, and it wasn't me.

And you know very well that EVERYONE sees those reactions, including
those who pretend they don't.

> We've been down this road so many times I
> really didn't think it was necessary to point them out again.

I think it is. How else can I get such a huge laugh out of this forum:-)

>
> The fact that you find it necessary to create new threads to make your
> rebuttals is another example of you trying to make this all about you.

It is sad that you are so hopelessly refuted that you have to sink to ad
hominem smears.

YOUR FELLOW NUTTERS PROVED YOU ARE WRONG.

And so did the overwhelming majority of people who rated my 285
presentations.

EVERYONE SEES THOSE REACTIONS.

Pretending that I am the only one, is idiotic and flagrantly untruthful.




Robert Harris

[John McAdams]

On 21 Apr 2017 19:55:03 -0400, Robert Harris <bobha...@yahoo.com>
wrote:

>bigdog wrote:
>> On Thursday, April 20, 2017 at 6:02:33 PM UTC-4, Robert Harris wrote:
>>> There are few tactics that are sleezier or more dishonest than accusing
>>> someone of ambiguous offenses.
>>>
>

>Are all of those people delusional, John:-)
>
>> Your belief in a Z285 shot is something you claim to have figured out that
>> none of the rest of us have.
>
>You're making a fool out of yourself, Mr. Bigdog. You know as well as I
>do, who discovered that shot, and it wasn't me.
>
>And you know very well that EVERYONE sees those reactions, including
>those who pretend they don't.
>

What people *see* is actions that you call "ducking" or "startle
reactions" which in fact aren't.

You are using slippery language.

The fact that I see what you *think* is Jackie and Nellie ducking
doesn't mean I agree they are reacting to a shot.

.John
-----------------------
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/home.htm

[Robert Harris]

That is correct.

Evidence is the overwhelming consensus of the people who heard the shots.

And the scientific analysis of two of the top physicists of the 20th
century.

And the empirical evidence of three people simultaneous dropping their
heads by app. 27 to 35 degrees, beginning in the same 1/18th of a second
that Alvarez identified Zapruder's reaction.

And the driver spinning around, simultaneous with the others, from
rear-to-front in 2/9ths of one second, exactly as he did following the
shot at 313.

And Roy Kellerman simultaneously ducking, shielding his ear and shrugging
his shoulders upward - all classic startle responses - at the same point
in time that he said a "flurry" of shells came into the car.

> Evidence is
> Oswald's rifle on the 6th floor.

Yes it is. That strongly suggests that he was involved in the attack.




Robert Harris

[Anthony Marsh]

Big Fart, how many times do I have to point out to you that I see ALL
the limo occupants reacting the same way at the same time? It has
nothing to do with a startle reflex. It is a thing called inertia.
Have you ever see videos of a crash test dummy. When I show them to
Harris he claims the crash test dummy has a reflex reaction to a 140 dB
sound and is ducking to protect himself. In reality, which he refuses to
visit, the dummy has no reflexes. His reaction is due only to inertia.
When the limo suddenly slowed down, everyone was thrown forward like
crash test dummies.

> Your belief in a Z285 shot is something you claim to have figured out that
> none of the rest of us have. We've been down this road so many times I
> really didn't think it was necessary to point them out again.
>
> The fact that you find it necessary to create new threads to make your
> rebuttals is another example of you trying to make this all about you. Why
> don't you just continue in the same thread as the post you are responding
> to? Do you just like to see as many threads as you can with your name on
> them?
>

Of course it's all about Harris. He's the only one here who believes in
a shot at frame 285. The others that believe in it are too many light
years away to post here.

> Was that specific enough for you, Bob? If not, it will give you a reason
> to start still another thread.
>

Could you please start a new thread just about Harris's reasons to post?

[Anthony Marsh]

That is the ONLY trick he has, to misrepresent witness statements.
And you want to take that away from him?
How cruel!

[Anthony Marsh]

You are speculating about the Single Bullet THEORY. Speculation is not
evidence. Evidence is the HSCA acoustical study. Science.

[OHLeeRedux]

Bob Harris, comedian . . .

http://articles.mcall.com/1993-11-20/entertainment/2946845_1_smuggling-biggest-drug-conspiracy

For those who actually take this excreta seriously.

[Robert Harris]

That is untrue.

Keep in mind that Elm St. is exactly 40 feet wide.

http://jfkhistory.com/brehm-to-headshot.png

Also, this image does not depict the distance from JFK to Brehm at 319,
which would be a bit further.

40 feet is actually an underestimate.

>
> Brehm thought that "whatever it was" was blown to the rear.

Gosh, what can that possibly be? Maybe someone threw at baseball back
toward Brehm??

>
> Somehow, the Zapruder film doesn't show any piece of bone blown
> backward, although it shows a few pieces blown upward and forward.

The Zapruder film also doesn't show the piece of skull that Clint Hill
described, which he mistakenly believed, was what Jackie tried to retrieve.

Nor does it show the brain tissue that Jackie retrieved or the pieces
that struck the two motorcycle officers.

We don't see most objects in flight for the same reason we don't see
bullets in flight. They pass out of sight, in between frames.

The lens on Zapruder's camera was closed for longer durations than it
was open. It has to be closed as the film advances.

>
> Brehm was probably wrong about "backward," but he certainly didn't say
> it landed near him.

What are you talking about? That's EXACTLY what he said.

Did you even bother to read the transcript that YOU LINKED???

"over in the area of the curb where I was standing." ... "It seemed to
have come left, and back."



Robert Harris

[John McAdams]

On 22 Apr 2017 15:39:36 -0400, Robert Harris <bobha...@yahoo.com>

That's because there was no such piece of skull.

You are back to what the alterationists do: trying to impeach the Z
film with witness testimony.

And Hill never said he *saw* Jackie getting anything from the trunk.
He apparently *inferred* that was what she was doing.

>Nor does it show the brain tissue that Jackie retrieved or the pieces
>that struck the two motorcycle officers.
>

Jackie got the tissue from inside the limo. You are aware brain
tissue was all over the inside, right?

As for the motorcycle officers:

http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/hargis.htm

You are invoking buff factoids.

>We don't see most objects in flight for the same reason we don't see
>bullets in flight. They pass out of sight, in between frames.
>
>The lens on Zapruder's camera was closed for longer durations than it
>was open. It has to be closed as the film advances.
>

But in fact, the Z film picks up the skull fragments blown upward and
forward.

>>
>> Brehm was probably wrong about "backward," but he certainly didn't say
>> it landed near him.
>
>What are you talking about? That's EXACTLY what he said.
>
>Did you even bother to read the transcript that YOU LINKED???
>
>"over in the area of the curb where I was standing." ... "It seemed to
>have come left, and back."
>

You seem to be interpreting "in the area where I was standing" as
"just a few feet from me." "The area" might only mean the general
area -- somewhere on the south said of Elm Street.

.John
-----------------------
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/home.htm

[Robert Harris]

John McAdams wrote:
> On 21 Apr 2017 19:55:03 -0400, Robert Harris <bobha...@yahoo.com>
> wrote:
>
>> bigdog wrote:
>>> On Thursday, April 20, 2017 at 6:02:33 PM UTC-4, Robert Harris wrote:
>>>> There are few tactics that are sleezier or more dishonest than accusing
>>>> someone of ambiguous offenses.
>>>>
>>
>> Are all of those people delusional, John:-)
>>
>>> Your belief in a Z285 shot is something you claim to have figured out that
>>> none of the rest of us have.
>>
>> You're making a fool out of yourself, Mr. Bigdog. You know as well as I
>> do, who discovered that shot, and it wasn't me.
>>
>> And you know very well that EVERYONE sees those reactions, including
>> those who pretend they don't.
>>
>
> What people *see* is actions that you call "ducking" or "startle
> reactions" which in fact aren't.

You seem to thrive on blurtations, John. Why won't you discuss
verifiable facts, instead.

ALL of those reactions began in the same 1/6th of one second. That
included three people dropping their heads, one spinning from rear to
front in 2/9ths of one second and one simultaneously dropping his head,

shielding his ear and shrugging his shoulders upward - all classic startle

responses.

Those reactions all began in the range of 290-292. Alvarez identified
Zapruder's reaction at 290-291.

You NEVER ADDRESS THOSE FACTS.

YOU ONLY BLURT OUT SUBJECTIVE, UNSUPPORTED OPINIONS.

Is that what they taught you at Harvard:-)

>
> You are using slippery language.

BULLSHIT!!

I state verifiable facts.

Challenge me to prove ANYTHING I say.

>
> The fact that I see what you *think* is Jackie and Nellie ducking
> doesn't mean I agree they are reacting to a shot.

No, John. YOU CAN'T AGREE. Can you??

You have to defend the LN theory in spite of the evidence.

Why you do that is something I would cheerfully kill, to find out.



Robert Harris

[John McAdams]

On 22 Apr 2017 15:46:49 -0400, Robert Harris <bobha...@yahoo.com>

wrote:

>John McAdams wrote:
>> On 21 Apr 2017 19:55:03 -0400, Robert Harris <bobha...@yahoo.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> bigdog wrote:
>>>> On Thursday, April 20, 2017 at 6:02:33 PM UTC-4, Robert Harris wrote:
>>>>> There are few tactics that are sleezier or more dishonest than accusing
>>>>> someone of ambiguous offenses.
>>>>>
>>>
>>> Are all of those people delusional, John:-)
>>>
>>>> Your belief in a Z285 shot is something you claim to have figured out that
>>>> none of the rest of us have.
>>>
>>> You're making a fool out of yourself, Mr. Bigdog. You know as well as I
>>> do, who discovered that shot, and it wasn't me.
>>>
>>> And you know very well that EVERYONE sees those reactions, including
>>> those who pretend they don't.
>>>
>>
>> What people *see* is actions that you call "ducking" or "startle
>> reactions" which in fact aren't.
>
>You seem to thrive on blurtations, John. Why won't you discuss
>verifiable facts, instead.
>

Bob, it's not a "verifiable fact" just because you say it is.

You can't make something true just by loudly proclaiming it 2,000
times.

>ALL of those reactions began in the same 1/6th of one second. That
>included three people dropping their heads, one spinning from rear to
>front in 2/9ths of one second and one simultaneously dropping his head,
>shielding his ear and shrugging his shoulders upward - all classic startle
>responses.
>
>Those reactions all began in the range of 290-292. Alvarez identified
>Zapruder's reaction at 290-291.
>
>You NEVER ADDRESS THOSE FACTS.
>

I have, you just don't like my answer.

>YOU ONLY BLURT OUT SUBJECTIVE, UNSUPPORTED OPINIONS.
>

Irony alert!

>Is that what they taught you at Harvard:-)
>

I was taught to look at reliable evidence.

>>
>> You are using slippery language.
>
>BULLSHIT!!
>
>I state verifiable facts.
>
>Challenge me to prove ANYTHING I say.
>

Prove that what you consider "ducking" or "startle reactions" are in
fact startle reactions.

>>
>> The fact that I see what you *think* is Jackie and Nellie ducking
>> doesn't mean I agree they are reacting to a shot.
>
>No, John. YOU CAN'T AGREE. Can you??
>
>You have to defend the LN theory in spite of the evidence.
>

Irony alert!

>Why you do that is something I would cheerfully kill, to find out.
>

You need to accept that people don't buy your theory.

.John
-----------------------
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/home.htm

[bigdog]

On Friday, April 21, 2017 at 8:00:23 PM UTC-4, Robert Harris wrote:

>
> And the scientific analysis of two of the top physicists of the 20th
> century.
>

I always get a chuckle when you cite Alvarez as an empirical source until
we get to the part where he disagrees with your Z285 shot and then you
throw him under the bus. You are in effect saying, "You should listen to
what this guy has to say because he doesn't know what he's talking about".

[Conan The Contrarian]

Start "cheerfully" with yourself, Bob.

[Anthony Marsh]

On 4/21/2017 7:57 PM, John McAdams wrote:
> On 21 Apr 2017 19:55:03 -0400, Robert Harris <bobha...@yahoo.com>
> wrote:
>
>> bigdog wrote:
>>> On Thursday, April 20, 2017 at 6:02:33 PM UTC-4, Robert Harris wrote:
>>>> There are few tactics that are sleezier or more dishonest than accusing
>>>> someone of ambiguous offenses.
>>>>
>>
>> Are all of those people delusional, John:-)
>>
>>> Your belief in a Z285 shot is something you claim to have figured out that
>>> none of the rest of us have.
>>
>> You're making a fool out of yourself, Mr. Bigdog. You know as well as I
>> do, who discovered that shot, and it wasn't me.
>>
>> And you know very well that EVERYONE sees those reactions, including
>> those who pretend they don't.
>>
>
> What people *see* is actions that you call "ducking" or "startle
> reactions" which in fact aren't.
>
> You are using slippery language.
>

Much worse than that. Stop making excuses for him.

> The fact that I see what you *think* is Jackie and Nellie ducking
> doesn't mean I agree they are reacting to a shot.
>

Do you know what inertia is or don't you believe in science?

> .John
> -----------------------
> http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/home.htm
>

[Anthony Marsh]

No, he did not. Stop misusing words. He guessed. He did not identify.

> And Dr. Michael Stroscio determined that it was a gunshot, not a siren,
> which also happens to be what the people who heard that shot said.
>

No, he did not. He did not determine. He speculated.

> And of course you see the reactions, just like all the nutters who said
> they reacted to Greer hitting the brakes or some other cause.
>

Greer did not hit the brakes.

> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cv7Lz25Xyno&t=1s
>
> Are all of those people delusional, John:-)
>
>> Your belief in a Z285 shot is something you claim to have figured out
>> that
>> none of the rest of us have.
>
> You're making a fool out of yourself, Mr. Bigdog. You know as well as I
> do, who discovered that shot, and it wasn't me.
>

No, only YOU say it was a shot. Alvarez said it was a siren.

> And you know very well that EVERYONE sees those reactions, including
> those who pretend they don't.
>

No. WC defenders are not allowed to see.

>> We've been down this road so many times I
>> really didn't think it was necessary to point them out again.
>
> I think it is. How else can I get such a huge laugh out of this forum:-)
>
>>
>> The fact that you find it necessary to create new threads to make your
>> rebuttals is another example of you trying to make this all about you.
>
> It is sad that you are so hopelessly refuted that you have to sink to ad
> hominem smears.
>
> YOUR FELLOW NUTTERS PROVED YOU ARE WRONG.
>
> And so did the overwhelming majority of people who rated my 285
> presentations.
>

Not as many as the cat playing the piano.
YOUTUBE is not reality.

[Anthony Marsh]

Yes, and then the were blown backwards by the wind.
How else did the motorcycle cops get hit by the debris.
You admit that this alone is not proof that a shot from the front exited
the back of the head. Can you admit that a bullet does not have to exit
exactly on the opposite side of the entrance?

> Brehm was probably wrong about "backward," but he certainly didn't say
> it landed near him.
>

Close enough for a WC defender.

> .John
> -----------------------
> http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/home.htm
>

[BOZ]

Evidence of an adult temper tantrum.

[Robert Harris]

WOW!!!

The mother of all blurations! (Ok, you've actually done worse:-)

How is it John, that your opinion trumps what Clint Hill saw?
He was within inches of the tissue and the skull piece he
described.

And Brehm was full of crap too??

You have a long history of just blurting out anything you
want, without so much as an attempt to prove it.

>
> You are back to what the alterationists do: trying to impeach the Z
> film with witness testimony.

That is untrue. I explained to you EXACTLY, why most objects
flying through the air do not show up in the film.

>
> And Hill never said he *saw* Jackie getting anything from the trunk.
> He apparently *inferred* that was what she was doing.

He saw the skull piece rolling of the rear of the trunk and
assumed that she was trying to retrieve it. But he was
mistaken. She picked up a piece of brain tissue. Watch her
right arm, in the Nix film:

http://jfkhistory.com/jackienix.gif

and the Zapruder film:

http://jfkhistory.com/jackie.gif

Also, read this article so that you won't have to embarrass
yourself any more:

http://jfkhistory.com/jackie/Jackie.html

>
>
>> Nor does it show the brain tissue that Jackie retrieved or the pieces
>> that struck the two motorcycle officers.
>>
>
> Jackie got the tissue from inside the limo. You are aware brain
> tissue was all over the inside, right?
>
> As for the motorcycle officers:
>
> http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/hargis.htm

You should be embarrassed about that horribly disingenuous
article. You pretend that you outed by Thompson by stating
that Hargis did not use the word "force", leaving out the
minor detail, that Thompson never said he did:-)

"This debris hit Officer Hargis with such force that he told
reporters the next day, 'I thought at first I might have been
hit.'"

By misrepresenting Thompson, you also managed to slither out
of what REALLY matters - that Hargis thought he might have
been hit by a bullet.

Of course, Thompson was perfectly correct that Hargis was
saying he was hit with great force. Bullets tend to be that
way:-)

BTW, Hargis also said, "I was splattered with blood and brain".

Why don't we seen any of that flying toward Hargis with so
much force, that he thought he might have been hit by a bullet??

Clint Hill also said he was spattered with blood and Brain as
he approached the limo. Why don't we see that either?

>
> You are invoking buff factoids.

Bullshit!

I am citing 5 star witnesses who all said essentially the
same thing.

You have no justification or right, to reject their
statements - at least until you can drum up a little evidence
or logic to support this endless stream of blurtations.

Not only were the witnesses THERE when this happened, but
none of them were biased, unlike yourself - who denies
everything and anything that proves you wrong, regardless of
a mountain of evidence that proves you wrong.

>
>> We don't see most objects in flight for the same reason we don't see
>> bullets in flight. They pass out of sight, in between frames.
>>
>> The lens on Zapruder's camera was closed for longer durations than it
>> was open. It has to be closed as the film advances.
>>
>
> But in fact, the Z film picks up the skull fragments blown upward and
> forward.

You can't be that stupid, John.

Of course a flying object might occasionally appear when the
lens is open. But the odds are against it.

>
>
>>>
>>> Brehm was probably wrong about "backward," but he certainly didn't say
>>> it landed near him.
>>
>> What are you talking about? That's EXACTLY what he said.
>>
>> Did you even bother to read the transcript that YOU LINKED???
>>
>> "over in the area of the curb where I was standing." ... "It seemed to
>> have come left, and back."
>>
>
> You seem to be interpreting "in the area where I was standing" as
> "just a few feet from me."

LOL!!

John, give it up.

> "The area" might only mean the general
> area -- somewhere on the south said of Elm Street.

Oh ya!! He probably just meant somewhere in Dallas:-)



Robert Harris

[John McAdams]

On 23 Apr 2017 20:28:55 -0400, Robert Harris <bobha...@yahoo.com>

wrote:

>John McAdams wrote:
>>>>
>>>> Somehow, the Zapruder film doesn't show any piece of bone blown
>>>> backward, although it shows a few pieces blown upward and forward.
>>>
>>> The Zapruder film also doesn't show the piece of skull that Clint Hill
>>> described, which he mistakenly believed, was what Jackie tried to retrieve.
>>>
>>
>> That's because there was no such piece of skull.
>
>WOW!!!
>
>The mother of all blurations! (Ok, you've actually done worse:-)
>
>How is it John, that your opinion trumps what Clint Hill saw?
>He was within inches of the tissue and the skull piece he
>described.
>

When did he say he *saw* skull or tissue on the trunk of the limo?

He said:

"Mrs. Kennedy had jumped up from the seat and was, it appeared to me,
reaching for something coming off the right rear bumper of the car."

>And Brehm was full of crap too??

Brehm was probably wrong in thinking the piece of something was blown
backwards, but he *certainly* did not claim in landed near him.

The "area" could be anywhere on the south side of Elm Street.

And your pretending to be huffy and indignant when somebody disagrees
with your interpretation impresses nobody.

>
>You have a long history of just blurting out anything you
>want, without so much as an attempt to prove it.
>

You have a long history of silly interpretations of sources.

>>
>> You are back to what the alterationists do: trying to impeach the Z
>> film with witness testimony.
>
>That is untrue. I explained to you EXACTLY, why most objects
>flying through the air do not show up in the film.
>

In fact, they would have to completely fly out of the frame in a 30th
or 40th of a second not to show up.

>>
>> And Hill never said he *saw* Jackie getting anything from the trunk.
>> He apparently *inferred* that was what she was doing.
>
>He saw the skull piece rolling of the rear of the trunk and

Quote him saying he *saw* that.

I've quoted him above saying it "appeared to him" that Jackie was
reaching for something.

>assumed that she was trying to retrieve it. But he was
>mistaken.

You are quoting him as a witness, and now saying he was mistaken?

>She picked up a piece of brain tissue. Watch her
>right arm, in the Nix film:
>
>http://jfkhistory.com/jackienix.gif
>
>and the Zapruder film:
>
>http://jfkhistory.com/jackie.gif
>

Your GIFs don't show any such thing.

>Also, read this article so that you won't have to embarrass
>yourself any more:
>
>http://jfkhistory.com/jackie/Jackie.html
>

There is no brain matter visible in any of your images. And Jackie
seems to have her hands flat on the trunk, and not grasping anything.

>>
>>
>>> Nor does it show the brain tissue that Jackie retrieved or the pieces
>>> that struck the two motorcycle officers.
>>>
>>
>> Jackie got the tissue from inside the limo. You are aware brain
>> tissue was all over the inside, right?
>>
>> As for the motorcycle officers:
>>
>> http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/hargis.htm
>
>You should be embarrassed about that horribly disingenuous
>article. You pretend that you outed by Thompson by stating
>that Hargis did not use the word "force", leaving out the
>minor detail, that Thompson never said he did:-)
>

I never said Thompson said he did.

But I pointed out that Thompson added "force" with no support in the
source.

>"This debris hit Officer Hargis with such force that he told
>reporters the next day, 'I thought at first I might have been
>hit.'"
>
>By misrepresenting Thompson, you also managed to slither out
>of what REALLY matters - that Hargis thought he might have
>been hit by a bullet.
>

But Hargis saw "the splash come out the other side," and:

<quote on>

. . . you've got to take into consideration we were moving at the
time, and when he got hit all that stuff went like this, and of course
I run through it.

<end quote>

So you are slithering out of Hargis disagreeing with your
interpretation.

>Of course, Thompson was perfectly correct that Hargis was
>saying he was hit with great force. Bullets tend to be that
>way:-)
>

No, he was not. Bullets don't throw people around. Hargis explicitly
said he "run through" brain matter blown into the air.

Now start calling Hargis a liar.

>BTW, Hargis also said, "I was splattered with blood and brain".

>
>Why don't we seen any of that flying toward Hargis with so
>much force, that he thought he might have been hit by a bullet??

<quote on>

. . . you've got to take into consideration we were moving at the
time, and when he got hit all that stuff went like this, and of course
I run through it.

<end quote>

>
>Clint Hill also said he was spattered with blood and Brain as
>he approached the limo. Why don't we see that either?
>

Same reason.

>>
>> You are invoking buff factoids.
>
>Bullshit!
>
>I am citing 5 star witnesses who all said essentially the
>same thing.
>

You are misrepresenting and distorting their testimony.

>You have no justification or right, to reject their
>statements -

Irony alert!

>at least until you can drum up a little evidence
>or logic to support this endless stream of blurtations.
>

Irony alert!

>Not only were the witnesses THERE when this happened, but
>none of them were biased, unlike yourself - who denies
>everything and anything that proves you wrong, regardless of
>a mountain of evidence that proves you wrong.
>

Hill: "Mrs. Kennedy had jumped up from the seat and was, it appeared
to me, reaching for something coming off the right rear bumper of the
car."

Not the testimony you need.

Hargis:

Saw "the splash come out the other side," and:

<quote on>

. . . you've got to take into consideration we were moving at the
time, and when he got hit all that stuff went like this, and of course
I run through it.

<end quote>

Getting irate and huffy when you are "outed" as distorting witness
testimony does you no good.

>>
>>> We don't see most objects in flight for the same reason we don't see
>>> bullets in flight. They pass out of sight, in between frames.
>>>
>>> The lens on Zapruder's camera was closed for longer durations than it
>>> was open. It has to be closed as the film advances.
>>>
>>
>> But in fact, the Z film picks up the skull fragments blown upward and
>> forward.
>
>You can't be that stupid, John.
>
>Of course a flying object might occasionally appear when the
>lens is open. But the odds are against it.
>
>>
>>
>>>>
>>>> Brehm was probably wrong about "backward," but he certainly didn't say
>>>> it landed near him.
>>>
>>> What are you talking about? That's EXACTLY what he said.
>>>
>>> Did you even bother to read the transcript that YOU LINKED???
>>>
>>> "over in the area of the curb where I was standing." ... "It seemed to
>>> have come left, and back."
>>>
>>
>> You seem to be interpreting "in the area where I was standing" as
>> "just a few feet from me."
>
>LOL!!
>
>John, give it up.
>

Give it up, Bob. The "area" was the south side of Elm.

>> "The area" might only mean the general
>> area -- somewhere on the south said of Elm Street.
>
>Oh ya!! He probably just meant somewhere in Dallas:-)
>

No, the south side of Elm.

.John
-----------------------
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/home.htm

[Robert Harris]

No you didn't.

Cite your statement about the reactions all beginning in the
same 1/6th of a second.

Cite your statement about Kellerman's three simultaneous
startle reactions.

http://jfkhistory.com/shoulders.gif

Cite your statement about Alvarez identifying Zapruder's
reaction at 290-291 - EXACTLY when the limo passengers began
to drop their heads, spin around, etc.

You need to be truthful John. You've never addressed those
issues.

>
>> YOU ONLY BLURT OUT SUBJECTIVE, UNSUPPORTED OPINIONS.
>>
>
> Irony alert!

BULLSHIT!!

Cite me saying ANYTHING that I didn't support with evidence.

Anything!

>
>> Is that what they taught you at Harvard:-)
>>
>
> I was taught to look at reliable evidence.

Uh huh. And did they tell you to then clam up when it proves
you wrong?

>
>>>
>>> You are using slippery language.
>>
>> BULLSHIT!!
>>
>> I state verifiable facts.
>>
>> Challenge me to prove ANYTHING I say.
>>
>
> Prove that what you consider "ducking" or "startle reactions" are in
> fact startle reactions.

I have done that more times than I can count.

The simple fact that they all began in the same 1/6th of one
second, proves that they were startled - beyond any possible
doubt.

http://jfkhistory.com/simultaneous.gif

As does the fact that they reacted at EXACTLY the same
instant that Alvarez identified Zapruder's reaction.

Short of pretending that you can't see what your fellow
nutters see, what is your explanation for the simultaneity of
their actions?

>
>>>
>>> The fact that I see what you *think* is Jackie and Nellie ducking
>>> doesn't mean I agree they are reacting to a shot.
>>
>> No, John. YOU CAN'T AGREE. Can you??
>>
>> You have to defend the LN theory in spite of the evidence.
>>
>
> Irony alert!

I feel obligated to defend conspiracy theories??

I have debunked more of them than you have. And I've done it
honestly.

Stop making bullshit accusations.

>
>> Why you do that is something I would cheerfully kill, to find out.
>>
>
> You need to accept that people don't buy your theory.

As you know very well, most people do.

But that doesn't really matter. What matters is the evidence,
the most important of which, you refuse to even discuss.


Robert harris

[John McAdams]

On 23 Apr 2017 20:58:08 -0400, Robert Harris <bobha...@yahoo.com>

wrote:

>John McAdams wrote:
>> On 22 Apr 2017 15:46:49 -0400, Robert Harris <bobha...@yahoo.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> Those reactions all began in the range of 290-292. Alvarez identified
>>> Zapruder's reaction at 290-291.
>>>
>>> You NEVER ADDRESS THOSE FACTS.
>>>
>>
>> I have, you just don't like my answer.
>
>No you didn't.
>
>Cite your statement about the reactions all beginning in the
>same 1/6th of a second.
>
>Cite your statement about Kellerman's three simultaneous
>startle reactions.
>
>http://jfkhistory.com/shoulders.gif
>

I've posted this about a dozen times:

You loudly insist that everybody in the limo is "ducking" in response
to a shot at Z-285. But nobody else sees that.

Each and every action you see as "ducking" is something else.

Jackie and Nellie are trying to look into their wounded husbands'
faces.

Greer is rapidly turning his head (but not lowering it at all) to see
what's going on in the back seat.

Kellerman is swaying forward. I can't see what he is doing, but he
might be reaching for the microphone, or maybe swaying forward as
Greer brakes.

You just won't accept anything but agreement with you.

Even on forums dominated by people who would *love* to believe in a
conspiracy, nobody agrees with you.

In your little world, the only "response" you will accept is people
agreeing with you.

If people refuse to agree with you, you insist they "haven't
responded."

>Cite your statement about Alvarez identifying Zapruder's
>reaction at 290-291 - EXACTLY when the limo passengers began
>to drop their heads, spin around, etc.
>

Alvarez didn't think it was a shot. He thought a siren had gone off.

>You need to be truthful John. You've never addressed those
>issues.
>

People here will decide who is truthful.

>
>>
>>> YOU ONLY BLURT OUT SUBJECTIVE, UNSUPPORTED OPINIONS.
>>>
>>
>> Irony alert!
>
>BULLSHIT!!
>
>Cite me saying ANYTHING that I didn't support with evidence.
>

Virtually nothing you say is supported with evidence.

It's all your subjective opinions.

>Anything!
>

"Ducking" after Z285.

>
>>
>>> Is that what they taught you at Harvard:-)
>>>
>>
>> I was taught to look at reliable evidence.
>
>Uh huh. And did they tell you to then clam up when it proves
>you wrong?
>

They taught me that arguing with idiots isn't a good use of my time.

But sometimes I do it for sport.

.John
-----------------------
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/home.htm

[Anthony Marsh]

Well, don't you believe it was a siren?

[Jason Burke]

Yeah. Harris be o-fer-jfk.
But that won't keep him from spamming everything he can another 10k times.

>
> Even on forums dominated by people who would *love* to believe in a
> conspiracy, nobody agrees with you.
>
> In your little world, the only "response" you will accept is people
> agreeing with you.
>
> If people refuse to agree with you, you insist they "haven't
> responded."
>
>> Cite your statement about Alvarez identifying Zapruder's
>> reaction at 290-291 - EXACTLY when the limo passengers began
>> to drop their heads, spin around, etc.
>>
>
> Alvarez didn't think it was a shot. He thought a siren had gone off.
>

Harris seems to have a MAJOR problem with that.

>> You need to be truthful John. You've never addressed those
>> issues.
>>
>
> People here will decide who is truthful.

And, once again, Harris hits an o-fer.

>
>>
>>>
>>>> YOU ONLY BLURT OUT SUBJECTIVE, UNSUPPORTED OPINIONS.
>>>>
>>>
>>> Irony alert!
>>
>> BULLSHIT!!
>>
>> Cite me saying ANYTHING that I didn't support with evidence.
>>
>
> Virtually nothing you say is supported with evidence.
>

Virtually?

> It's all your subjective opinions.
>
>> Anything!
>>
>
> "Ducking" after Z285.
>
>>
>>>
>>>> Is that what they taught you at Harvard:-)
>>>>
>>>
>>> I was taught to look at reliable evidence.
>>
>> Uh huh. And did they tell you to then clam up when it proves
>> you wrong?
>>
>
> They taught me that arguing with idiots isn't a good use of my time.
>

Dead on balls accurate.

> But sometimes I do it for sport.
>

It *is* fun watching Harris make a fool of himself daily.

> .John
> -----------------------
> http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/home.htm
>

[Jason Burke]

But it be all Harris got.

[mainframetech]

Yes, the proof that Greer hit the brakes at a critical moment is shown
in this video first of Bobby Hargis who was pacing the limousine, and the
enhancement of the tail lights of the limousine when the brake lights come
on:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hrX8lsb2WTk

> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cv7Lz25Xyno&t=1s
>
> Are all of those people delusional, John:-)
>
> > Your belief in a Z285 shot is something you claim to have figured out that
> > none of the rest of us have.
>
> You're making a fool out of yourself, Mr. Bigdog. You know as well as I
> do, who discovered that shot, and it wasn't me.
>
> And you know very well that EVERYONE sees those reactions, including
> those who pretend they don't.
>
> > We've been down this road so many times I
> > really didn't think it was necessary to point them out again.
>
> I think it is. How else can I get such a huge laugh out of this forum:-)
>
> >
> > The fact that you find it necessary to create new threads to make your
> > rebuttals is another example of you trying to make this all about you.
>
> It is sad that you are so hopelessly refuted that you have to sink to ad
> hominem smears.
>
> YOUR FELLOW NUTTERS PROVED YOU ARE WRONG.
>
> And so did the overwhelming majority of people who rated my 285
> presentations.
>
> EVERYONE SEES THOSE REACTIONS.
>

Seeing the reactions and interpreting them to be the same as yours is
where the problem is.

[mainframetech]

On Friday, April 21, 2017 at 7:54:12 PM UTC-4, John McAdams wrote:
> On 21 Apr 2017 19:51:51 -0400, Robert Harris <bobha...@yahoo.com>
> wrote:

> >>> Robert Harris
> >>
> >> Well, when you post ridiculous threads like you did this week titled
> >> "The White Piece That Brehm Described".
> >
> >It is irrelevant, what color it was.
> >
> >What matters is that it was blown over 40 feet to the rear. That could
> >only have been the result of a shot from the front.
> >
>
> You have no basis for your "40 foot" statement.
>

> Brehm thought that "whatever it was" was blown to the rear.
>

> Somehow, the Zapruder film doesn't show any piece of bone blown
> backward, although it shows a few pieces blown upward and forward.
>

Of course it doesn't show material being blown back and to the left.
That would suggest a frontal shot, which was against the critical need to
have ONLY shots from above and behind to implicate ONLY Oswald. The
Z-film was shown to have been altered, and folks can pretend they didn't
see the proof of that, but it happened. The alteration were definitely
done at the frame 313 point and after, and possibly at other places too.
Part of the alteration was painting black blobs on many of the frames
after 313 to hide the blowout in the BOH there. Witnesses from the CIA
have stated their part in the operation to do the alteration, and Douglas
Horne has written up 200 pages of information proving it happened and how
it was done with equipment from 1963. His volume 4 of 5 on the ARRB
findings can be found at amazon.com.

It had to be known long before the actual killing, that it was going to
be made to look like it was done from above and behind where some shooters
were located in the TSBD.

> Brehm was probably wrong about "backward," but he certainly didn't say
> it landed near him.
>

Bobby Hargis, a DPD motorcycle cop, was behind and to the left of the
limousine, and he was pelted with brains, blood and other material from
the blowout in the BOH caused by the bullet that came into the front right
forehead/temple area of JFK. It's not too much to expect that the piece
of skull that was blown out with the brains went in a backward direction
with the other material.

Chris




> .John
> -----------------------
> http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/home.htm

[Robert Harris]

John McAdams wrote:
> On 23 Apr 2017 20:28:55 -0400, Robert Harris <bobha...@yahoo.com>
> wrote:
>
>> John McAdams wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> Somehow, the Zapruder film doesn't show any piece of bone blown
>>>>> backward, although it shows a few pieces blown upward and forward.
>>>>
>>>> The Zapruder film also doesn't show the piece of skull that Clint Hill
>>>> described, which he mistakenly believed, was what Jackie tried to retrieve.
>>>>
>>>
>>> That's because there was no such piece of skull.
>>
>> WOW!!!
>>
>> The mother of all blurations! (Ok, you've actually done worse:-)
>>
>> How is it John, that your opinion trumps what Clint Hill saw?
>> He was within inches of the tissue and the skull piece he
>> described.
>>
>
> When did he say he *saw* skull or tissue on the trunk of the limo?
>

Since you have admitted censoring my posts without telling
me, I will post another reply, hopefully to insure that at
least it will appear.

Clint Hill:

"I heard it and I felt it because it hit the president in the
head. It was so explosive in nature that blood and BRAIN
MATTER AND BONE FRAGMENTS all erupted right out of the wound.
It came over the back of the car, onto Mrs. Kennedy and onto
myself".

http://detroit.cbslocal.com/2013/11/20/former-secret-service-agent-gives-first-hand-account-of-jfk-assassination/

Of course, why should we believe Hill and Brehm, when we have
a radical, biased nutter fanatic to tell us what they saw:-)

And speaking of fanatical nutters, FBI agent Robert Frazier,
on the presence of brain tissue on the trunk,

"We found blood and tissue all over the outside areas of the
vehicle from the hood ornament, over the complete area of the
hood.. and of course considerable quantities inside the car
and on the *trunk* lid area"

http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/russ/testimony/frazrsh.htm

Now, let's hear YOUR evidence, John!!

You do have some I presume or you wouldn't be making these
incredible assertions:-)

> He said:
>
> "Mrs. Kennedy had jumped up from the seat and was, it appeared to me,
> reaching for something coming off the right rear bumper of the car."
>

Are you suggesting that she was reaching for brain tissue
rather than bone?? I hope you are, since that would be the
first accurate statement you made in this thread:-)

>> And Brehm was full of crap too??
>
> Brehm was probably wrong in thinking the piece of something was blown
> backwards, but he *certainly* did not claim in landed near him.
>
> The "area" could be anywhere on the south side of Elm Street.
>

Why don't you cite him correctly??

He didn't say it landed "in the area".

He said it landed "..in the area of the curb where I was
standing."

Tell me John, do you feel good about these tactics? I hope
you do, because you've been pulling this crap for decades.

> And your pretending to be huffy and indignant when somebody disagrees
> with your interpretation impresses nobody.

I don't get "huffy" John. I can only feel sympathy for you
having to resort to such pathetic tactics.

It is not an "interpretation" to claim that this could be
"anywhere" on the south side of Elm. It is something else.

Charles Brehm said it landed "..in the area of the curb where
I was standing."

>
>>

>> You have a long history of just blurting out anything you
>> want, without so much as an attempt to prove it.
>>
>
> You have a long history of silly interpretations of sources.
>

LOL!!

>
>>>
>>> You are back to what the alterationists do: trying to impeach the Z
>>> film with witness testimony.
>>
>> That is untrue. I explained to you EXACTLY, why most objects
>> flying through the air do not show up in the film.
>>
>
> In fact, they would have to completely fly out of the frame in a 30th
> or 40th of a second not to show up.

Well, don't be bashful. Cite your source for that.

And then explain why Brehm, Hill, Hargis and even FBI SAIC
Frazier confirmed that tissue and bone flew to the rear, and
why we can't see that ANYWHERE in the Zapruder film.

Are you ready to sign up with Fetzer/Horne, john:-)

>
>>>
>>> And Hill never said he *saw* Jackie getting anything from the trunk.
>>> He apparently *inferred* that was what she was doing.
>>
>> He saw the skull piece rolling of the rear of the trunk and
>
> Quote him saying he *saw* that.
>
> I've quoted him above saying it "appeared to him" that Jackie was
> reaching for something.
>

It is irrelevant whether he saw tissue or bone. It was
actually tissue that she recovered.

>> assumed that she was trying to retrieve it. But he was
>> mistaken.
>
> You are quoting him as a witness, and now saying he was mistaken?
>

That is a spectacularly idiotic argument - identical to you
accusation that by accepting Alvarez's scientific analysis,
which is massively corroborated, I am required to agree with
his admitted guess, that the startling noise was a siren.

Nellie Connally was also mistaken because she thought her
husband was hit by the shot at 285, which we can clearly see
her react to.

Sometimes, it is the errors that are most revealing, john.

As for Hill, I am certain he said that what he thought he saw
was bone, but I am not going to spend all day, trying to find
that interview.

If I am mistaken however, then the fact remains that he saw
either bone or tissue. Since tissue is what she actually
recovered, then that is just another corroboration for what I
have been saying.

>> She picked up a piece of brain tissue. Watch her
>> right arm, in the Nix film:
>>
>> http://jfkhistory.com/jackienix.gif

C'mon John.

Why won't you reply?

Are you going to pass up another chance to do your Mr. Magoo
impression?

>>
>> and the Zapruder film:
>>
>> http://jfkhistory.com/jackie.gif
>>
>
> Your GIFs don't show any such thing.

ROFLMAO!!

>
>> Also, read this article so that you won't have to embarrass
>> yourself any more:
>>
>> http://jfkhistory.com/jackie/Jackie.html
>>
>
> There is no brain matter visible in any of your images.

And yet FBI agent Frazier said they found brain tissue on the
trunk, after the assassination.

Was he full of crap too, John??

And Jackie
> seems to have her hands flat on the trunk, and not grasping anything.
>

Her hand was not flat. It was arched, and she was putting her
weight on the heel of her hand, which she had to do in order
to get back to her seat.

>
>>>
>>>
>>>> Nor does it show the brain tissue that Jackie retrieved or the pieces
>>>> that struck the two motorcycle officers.
>>>>
>>>
>>> Jackie got the tissue from inside the limo. You are aware brain
>>> tissue was all over the inside, right?
>>>
>>> As for the motorcycle officers:
>>>
>>> http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/hargis.htm
>>
>> You should be embarrassed about that horribly disingenuous
>> article. You pretend that you outed by Thompson by stating
>> that Hargis did not use the word "force", leaving out the
>> minor detail, that Thompson never said he did:-)
>>
>
> I never said Thompson said he did.

You're insulting everyone's intelligence.

Sorry john, I can only take so much of this.



Robert Harris

[John McAdams]

On 24 Apr 2017 18:45:53 -0400, Robert Harris <bobha...@yahoo.com>

There is nothing at all there about Hill saying he *saw* and brain
matter on the trunk or "coming off" the trunk.

He says it "came over" the back of the car.

And it did. Blown into the air, it did come down on Hill (and Hargis,
etc.).

So you need to quit "enhancing" his testimony to have him saying what
you want him to say.

>Of course, why should we believe Hill and Brehm, when we have
>a radical, biased nutter fanatic to tell us what they saw:-)
>

Irony alert!

>And speaking of fanatical nutters, FBI agent Robert Frazier,
>on the presence of brain tissue on the trunk,
>
>"We found blood and tissue all over the outside areas of the
>vehicle from the hood ornament, over the complete area of the
>hood.. and of course considerable quantities inside the car
>and on the *trunk* lid area"
>
>http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/russ/testimony/frazrsh.htm
>
>Now, let's hear YOUR evidence, John!!
>

Fine, but you said Clint Hill saw something coming off the trunk, and
could not produce a source.

It's clear that brain matter, blown upward, came down all over the
place.

http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/exploded.htm

>You do have some I presume or you wouldn't be making these
>incredible assertions:-)
>
>
>> He said:
>>
>> "Mrs. Kennedy had jumped up from the seat and was, it appeared to me,
>> reaching for something coming off the right rear bumper of the car."
>>
>
>Are you suggesting that she was reaching for brain tissue
>rather than bone?? I hope you are, since that would be the
>first accurate statement you made in this thread:-)
>

Hill said it "appeared to him." He was frantically racing to get to
the limo, and that was his impression.

>>> And Brehm was full of crap too??
>>
>> Brehm was probably wrong in thinking the piece of something was blown
>> backwards, but he *certainly* did not claim in landed near him.
>>
>> The "area" could be anywhere on the south side of Elm Street.
>>
>
>Why don't you cite him correctly??
>
>He didn't say it landed "in the area".
>
>He said it landed "..in the area of the curb where I was
>standing."
>

http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/pdf/lane_interviews/brehm.pdf#page=6

Brehm:

Q. And in which direction did if fly?

A. It seemed to have come left and back just a bit. Now the back
could have been because the car was moving forward, but I would say
left and back.

"Because the car was moving forward."

>Tell me John, do you feel good about these tactics? I hope
>you do, because you've been pulling this crap for decades.

Bob, your whining about "tactics" impresses nobody. It just makes you
look like a fanatic.

>
>> And your pretending to be huffy and indignant when somebody disagrees
>> with your interpretation impresses nobody.
>
>I don't get "huffy" John. I can only feel sympathy for you
>having to resort to such pathetic tactics.
>

Do you begin to understand how pathetic such statements sound like
coming from you?

>It is not an "interpretation" to claim that this could be
>"anywhere" on the south side of Elm. It is something else.
>
>Charles Brehm said it landed "..in the area of the curb where
>I was standing."
>

And how large an "area" was that, Bob?

>>
>>>
>>> You have a long history of just blurting out anything you
>>> want, without so much as an attempt to prove it.
>>>
>>
>> You have a long history of silly interpretations of sources.
>>
>
>LOL!!
>
>>
>>>>
>>>> You are back to what the alterationists do: trying to impeach the Z
>>>> film with witness testimony.
>>>
>>> That is untrue. I explained to you EXACTLY, why most objects
>>> flying through the air do not show up in the film.
>>>
>>
>> In fact, they would have to completely fly out of the frame in a 30th
>> or 40th of a second not to show up.
>
>Well, don't be bashful. Cite your source for that.
>

http://www.jfk-info.com/zavada1.htm

Search for:

"Shutter/Exposure Time"

>And then explain why Brehm, Hill, Hargis and even FBI SAIC
>Frazier confirmed that tissue and bone flew to the rear, and
>why we can't see that ANYWHERE in the Zapruder film.
>
>Are you ready to sign up with Fetzer/Horne, john:-)
>

Nice of you to *cut* the part of my post where I talked about Hargis,
Bob.

Did you think nobody would notice that?

I'll put it back:

>But Hargis saw "the splash come out the other side," and:
>
><quote on>
>
>. . . you've got to take into consideration we were moving at the
>time, and when he got hit all that stuff went like this, and of course
>I run through it.
>
><end quote>
>
>So you are slithering out of Hargis disagreeing with your
>interpretation.
>
>

>Now start calling Hargis a liar.
>
>
>>BTW, Hargis also said, "I was splattered with blood and brain".
>
>>
>>Why don't we seen any of that flying toward Hargis with so
>>much force, that he thought he might have been hit by a bullet??
>
><quote on>
>
>. . . you've got to take into consideration we were moving at the
>time, and when he got hit all that stuff went like this, and of course
>I run through it.
>
><end quote>

So you tout Hargis, but ignore him saying the "splash come out the
other side" and he "run trough it."

>>
>>>>
>>>> And Hill never said he *saw* Jackie getting anything from the trunk.
>>>> He apparently *inferred* that was what she was doing.
>>>
>>> He saw the skull piece rolling of the rear of the trunk and
>>
>> Quote him saying he *saw* that.
>>
>> I've quoted him above saying it "appeared to him" that Jackie was
>> reaching for something.
>>
>
>It is irrelevant whether he saw tissue or bone. It was
>actually tissue that she recovered.
>

So another one of your witnesses is thrown under the bus when I point
out he doesn't support your view.

>>> assumed that she was trying to retrieve it. But he was
>>> mistaken.
>>
>> You are quoting him as a witness, and now saying he was mistaken?
>>
>
>That is a spectacularly idiotic argument - identical to you
>accusation that by accepting Alvarez's scientific analysis,
>which is massively corroborated, I am required to agree with
>his admitted guess, that the startling noise was a siren.
>

You are demanding that I agree with Clint Hill's admitted guess.

>Nellie Connally was also mistaken because she thought her
>husband was hit by the shot at 285, which we can clearly see
>her react to.
>

Bob, you can say "clearly" until the cows come home, and it doesn't
impress anybody.

>Sometimes, it is the errors that are most revealing, john.
>
>As for Hill, I am certain he said that what he thought he saw
>was bone, but I am not going to spend all day, trying to find
>that interview.
>
>If I am mistaken however, then the fact remains that he saw
>either bone or tissue. Since tissue is what she actually
>recovered, then that is just another corroboration for what I
>have been saying.
>

Where does it say he *saw* bone or tissue coming off the end of the
trunk?

You somehow can't just accept witness testimony. You have to add your
own interpretation.

>>> She picked up a piece of brain tissue. Watch her
>>> right arm, in the Nix film:
>>>
>>> http://jfkhistory.com/jackienix.gif
>
>C'mon John.
>
>Why won't you reply?
>

It doesn't show any such thing.

>Are you going to pass up another chance to do your Mr. Magoo
>impression?
>

You are hallucinating, Bob.

>
>>>
>>> and the Zapruder film:
>>>
>>> http://jfkhistory.com/jackie.gif
>>>
>>
>> Your GIFs don't show any such thing.
>
>ROFLMAO!!
>

You think that's a response?

>>
>>> Also, read this article so that you won't have to embarrass
>>> yourself any more:
>>>
>>> http://jfkhistory.com/jackie/Jackie.html
>>>
>>
>> There is no brain matter visible in any of your images.
>
>And yet FBI agent Frazier said they found brain tissue on the
>trunk, after the assassination.
>
>Was he full of crap too, John??
>

Any piece big enough for Jackie to pick up would have been visible.

>
> And Jackie
>> seems to have her hands flat on the trunk, and not grasping anything.
>>
>
>Her hand was not flat. It was arched, and she was putting her
>weight on the heel of her hand, which she had to do in order
>to get back to her seat.
>

You are just seeing what you *want* to see.

>
>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> Nor does it show the brain tissue that Jackie retrieved or the pieces
>>>>> that struck the two motorcycle officers.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Jackie got the tissue from inside the limo. You are aware brain
>>>> tissue was all over the inside, right?
>>>>
>>>> As for the motorcycle officers:
>>>>
>>>> http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/hargis.htm
>>>
>>> You should be embarrassed about that horribly disingenuous
>>> article. You pretend that you outed by Thompson by stating
>>> that Hargis did not use the word "force", leaving out the
>>> minor detail, that Thompson never said he did:-)
>>>
>>
>> I never said Thompson said he did.
>
>You're insulting everyone's intelligence.
>
>Sorry john, I can only take so much of this.
>

Actually, you seem to be a complete masochist who can take any amount
of people telling you you are full of it.

.John
-----------------------
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/home.htm

[Robert Harris]

John McAdams wrote:
> On 23 Apr 2017 20:58:08 -0400, Robert Harris <bobha...@yahoo.com>
> wrote:
>
>> John McAdams wrote:
>>> On 22 Apr 2017 15:46:49 -0400, Robert Harris <bobha...@yahoo.com>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>>
>>>> Those reactions all began in the range of 290-292. Alvarez identified
>>>> Zapruder's reaction at 290-291.
>>>>
>>>> You NEVER ADDRESS THOSE FACTS.
>>>>
>>>
>>> I have, you just don't like my answer.
>>
>> No you didn't.
>>
>> Cite your statement about the reactions all beginning in the
>> same 1/6th of a second.
>>
>> Cite your statement about Kellerman's three simultaneous
>> startle reactions.
>>
>> http://jfkhistory.com/shoulders.gif
>>
>
> I've posted this about a dozen times:

Stop dodging!

Cite your statement about the reactions all beginning in the
same 1/6th of a second.

Cite your statement about Kellerman's three simultaneous
startle reactions.

http://jfkhistory.com/shoulders.gif

Cite your statement about Alvarez identifying Zapruder's
reaction at 290-291 - EXACTLY when the limo passengers began
to drop their heads, spin around, etc.

YOU NEVER ADDRESSED THOSE FACTS.

Which is why you cannot produce citations in which you did.

>
> You loudly insist that everybody in the limo is "ducking" in response
> to a shot at Z-285. But nobody else sees that.

Stop playing word games.

By blurting out that they weren't "ducking", you evade having
to discuss the fact that they dropped their heads SIMULTANEOUSLY.

Denying that they were ducking, changes the discussion to
your subjective opinion that they dropped their heads for
some other reason, which of course, you cannot tell anyone about.

Why do you suppose it is that NO ONE in the limo dropped his
or her head like that, EXCEPT immediately following 285 and 313?

Why did all those reactions begin at EXACTLY the same instant
that Alvarez discovered Zapruder's reaction??

Why did Greer spin around from rear to front, in 2/9ths of
one second - in perfect unison with the others?

Why did Kellerman shield his ear and shrug his shoulders
upward, for a fraction of a second??

Stop looking for ways to slither out of the issues on the
table. And stop pretending that you have addressed them. YOU
NEVER HAVE.

>
> Each and every action you see as "ducking" is something else.
>

Why do you waste time blurting out things that you cannot
support to save your life??

> Jackie and Nellie are trying to look into their wounded husbands'
> faces.

Why is it that I always feel a need to take a shower after
debating with you??




Robert Harris

[John McAdams]

On 24 Apr 2017 19:29:51 -0400, Robert Harris <bobha...@yahoo.com>

wrote:

>John McAdams wrote:
>> On 23 Apr 2017 20:58:08 -0400, Robert Harris <bobha...@yahoo.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> John McAdams wrote:
>>>> On 22 Apr 2017 15:46:49 -0400, Robert Harris <bobha...@yahoo.com>
>>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Those reactions all began in the range of 290-292. Alvarez identified
>>>>> Zapruder's reaction at 290-291.
>>>>>
>>>>> You NEVER ADDRESS THOSE FACTS.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> I have, you just don't like my answer.
>>>
>>> No you didn't.
>>>
>>> Cite your statement about the reactions all beginning in the
>>> same 1/6th of a second.
>>>
>>> Cite your statement about Kellerman's three simultaneous
>>> startle reactions.
>>>
>>> http://jfkhistory.com/shoulders.gif
>>>
>>
>> I've posted this about a dozen times:
>
>Stop dodging!
>
>Cite your statement about the reactions all beginning in the
>same 1/6th of a second.
>

See below.

>Cite your statement about Kellerman's three simultaneous
>startle reactions.
>
>http://jfkhistory.com/shoulders.gif
>

What three simultaneous startle reactions?

>Cite your statement about Alvarez identifying Zapruder's
>reaction at 290-291 - EXACTLY when the limo passengers began
>to drop their heads, spin around, etc.
>

Alvarez thought it was a siren going off.

>YOU NEVER ADDRESSED THOSE FACTS.
>

Yes I did. You simply didn't like the answers.

>Which is why you cannot produce citations in which you did.
>
>>
>> You loudly insist that everybody in the limo is "ducking" in response
>> to a shot at Z-285. But nobody else sees that.
>
>Stop playing word games.
>

Nobody else sees it your way, Bob?

How can I respond to your hallucinations other than to say that's not
what's happening?

>By blurting out that they weren't "ducking", you evade having
>to discuss the fact that they dropped their heads SIMULTANEOUSLY.
>

They are all doing *different* things "simultaneously."

Every place else in the Z film they are all doing *something*
simultaneously.

You need "ducking" in response to a shot.

You don't have it.

>Denying that they were ducking, changes the discussion to
>your subjective opinion that they dropped their heads for
>some other reason, which of course, you cannot tell anyone about.
>

But I did.

>Why do you suppose it is that NO ONE in the limo dropped his
>or her head like that, EXCEPT immediately following 285 and 313?
>

You mean Jackie and Nellie?

Because they realized their husbands were hit, and were trying to look
at their faces.

>Why did all those reactions begin at EXACTLY the same instant
>that Alvarez discovered Zapruder's reaction??
>
>Why did Greer spin around from rear to front, in 2/9ths of
>one second - in perfect unison with the others?
>

Something that looks nothing at all like any startle reaction.

>Why did Kellerman shield his ear and shrug his shoulders
>upward, for a fraction of a second??
>

Did he do that?

>Stop looking for ways to slither out of the issues on the
>table. And stop pretending that you have addressed them. YOU
>NEVER HAVE.
>

Quit the nonsense. You only consider "addressing the issues" to mean
agreeing with you.

You can't bully people into agreeing with you.

>>
>> Each and every action you see as "ducking" is something else.
>>
>
>Why do you waste time blurting out things that you cannot
>support to save your life??
>

Irony alert!

>> Jackie and Nellie are trying to look into their wounded husbands'
>> faces.
>
>Why is it that I always feel a need to take a shower after
>debating with you??
>

Because you've soiled yourself.

.John
-----------------------
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/home.htm

[Anthony Marsh]

On 4/23/2017 9:05 PM, John McAdams wrote:
> On 23 Apr 2017 20:58:08 -0400, Robert Harris <bobha...@yahoo.com>
> wrote:
>
>> John McAdams wrote:
>>> On 22 Apr 2017 15:46:49 -0400, Robert Harris <bobha...@yahoo.com>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>>
>>>> Those reactions all began in the range of 290-292. Alvarez identified
>>>> Zapruder's reaction at 290-291.
>>>>
>>>> You NEVER ADDRESS THOSE FACTS.
>>>>
>>>
>>> I have, you just don't like my answer.
>>
>> No you didn't.
>>
>> Cite your statement about the reactions all beginning in the
>> same 1/6th of a second.
>>
>> Cite your statement about Kellerman's three simultaneous
>> startle reactions.
>>
>> http://jfkhistory.com/shoulders.gif
>>
>
> I've posted this about a dozen times:
>
> You loudly insist that everybody in the limo is "ducking" in response
> to a shot at Z-285. But nobody else sees that.
>

Only Harris is allowed to see it.
You claim to see Kennedy and Connally being hit by the same bullet, but

nobody else sees that.

> Each and every action you see as "ducking" is something else.
>

So, you can never see anyone ducking in the films? Ever?

> Jackie and Nellie are trying to look into their wounded husbands'
> faces.
>

Something like that.
Both at exactly the same frame even though it was long after they were hit?

> Greer is rapidly turning his head (but not lowering it at all) to see
> what's going on in the back seat.
>

Something like that.
Maybe he is ducking because a bullet almost hit him.
When someone is shooting at you, what do you do? Nothing? Like Jean Hill?

> Kellerman is swaying forward. I can't see what he is doing, but he

Swaying? Oh, I see. Maybe he's swaying to the music, not the shots.

> might be reaching for the microphone, or maybe swaying forward as
> Greer brakes.
>

Greer did not brake. Stop supporting kook theories.

> You just won't accept anything but agreement with you.
>

Isn't that what this newsgroup is for?

> Even on forums dominated by people who would *love* to believe in a
> conspiracy, nobody agrees with you.
>

Biased sampling. Did you check the newsgroup 49 light years away?

> In your little world, the only "response" you will accept is people
> agreeing with you.
>
> If people refuse to agree with you, you insist they "haven't
> responded."
>

Oh, we've responded a lot, but Harris refuses to answer his critics. He
just cries and runs away.
Sorta like you.

>> Cite your statement about Alvarez identifying Zapruder's
>> reaction at 290-291 - EXACTLY when the limo passengers began
>> to drop their heads, spin around, etc.
>>
>
> Alvarez didn't think it was a shot. He thought a siren had gone off.
>

It was a cute theory for a couple of days.

>> You need to be truthful John. You've never addressed those
>> issues.
>>
>
> People here will decide who is truthful.
>

Some people are not qualified to decide what is truthful.
Especially Trump supporters who accept alternative facts.
Or Nazis who say that Global Warming is a hoax created by China.

>>
>>>
>>>> YOU ONLY BLURT OUT SUBJECTIVE, UNSUPPORTED OPINIONS.
>>>>
>>>
>>> Irony alert!
>>
>> BULLSHIT!!
>>
>> Cite me saying ANYTHING that I didn't support with evidence.
>>
>
> Virtually nothing you say is supported with evidence.
>
> It's all your subjective opinions.
>
>> Anything!
>>
>
> "Ducking" after Z285.
>
>>
>>>
>>>> Is that what they taught you at Harvard:-)
>>>>
>>>
>>> I was taught to look at reliable evidence.
>>
>> Uh huh. And did they tell you to then clam up when it proves
>> you wrong?
>>
>
> They taught me that arguing with idiots isn't a good use of my time.
>

Funny how you are allowed to say that, but when I say it you reject my
message.

> But sometimes I do it for sport.
>

So the leader of the cover-up admits that he's just a troll here?

> .John
> -----------------------
> http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/home.htm
>

[John McAdams]

On 24 Apr 2017 19:41:37 -0400, Anthony Marsh

<anthon...@comcast.net> wrote:

>
>Funny how you are allowed to say that, but when I say it you reject my
>message.
>
>> But sometimes I do it for sport.
>>
>
>So the leader of the cover-up admits that he's just a troll here?
>

Irony alert!

.John
-----------------------
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/home.htm

[Anthony Marsh]

When you refuse to quote properly, it looks like YOU wrote what someone
else wrote. Clean up your act.

[BT George]

On Sunday, April 23, 2017 at 8:05:10 PM UTC-5, John McAdams wrote:
> On 23 Apr 2017 20:58:08 -0400, Robert Harris <bobha...@yahoo.com>
> wrote:
>
> >John McAdams wrote:
> >> On 22 Apr 2017 15:46:49 -0400, Robert Harris <bobha...@yahoo.com>
> >> wrote:
> >>
> >>>
> >>> Those reactions all began in the range of 290-292. Alvarez identified
> >>> Zapruder's reaction at 290-291.
> >>>
> >>> You NEVER ADDRESS THOSE FACTS.
> >>>
> >>
> >> I have, you just don't like my answer.
> >
> >No you didn't.
> >
> >Cite your statement about the reactions all beginning in the
> >same 1/6th of a second.
> >
> >Cite your statement about Kellerman's three simultaneous
> >startle reactions.
> >
> >http://jfkhistory.com/shoulders.gif
> >
>
> I've posted this about a dozen times:
>
> You loudly insist that everybody in the limo is "ducking" in response
> to a shot at Z-285. But nobody else sees that.
>
> Each and every action you see as "ducking" is something else.
>
> Jackie and Nellie are trying to look into their wounded husbands'
> faces.
>

Or trying to pull their injured husbands in/down and away from harm.
Whatever they were doing everyone---I believe including Bob, who just
won't admit it---can see it is not *involuntary*.

> Greer is rapidly turning his head (but not lowering it at all) to see
> what's going on in the back seat.
>

In fact he is *repeating* the very same motion he made just a few frames
earlier. Bob knows this, but for some reason which I "can't imagine"
doesn't like to talk about it very much.

> Kellerman is swaying forward. I can't see what he is doing, but he
> might be reaching for the microphone, or maybe swaying forward as
> Greer brakes.
>
> You just won't accept anything but agreement with you.
>

Yepper. Or as I've said before:

"There is NO question and honest man will evade."

...But a little DIFFERENT rule applies to Z285. For that...

"There is also no honest answer an honest man will be allowed to give that
does not agree with a shot at Z285."

> Even on forums dominated by people who would *love* to believe in a
> conspiracy, nobody agrees with you.
>
> In your little world, the only "response" you will accept is people
> agreeing with you.
>
> If people refuse to agree with you, you insist they "haven't
> responded."
>
> >Cite your statement about Alvarez identifying Zapruder's
> >reaction at 290-291 - EXACTLY when the limo passengers began
> >to drop their heads, spin around, etc.
> >

LOL! He knows Alverez didn't agree with his conclusions about this; and
that not even Strocio stated with any certainty that he thought a shot
happened here. Nor did Strocio *ever* point to the limo. passengers
movements as *involuntary* startle reactions. Indeed Strocio's
observations can be read here:

http://www.kenrahn.com/Marsh/Jfk-conspiracy/stroscio.html

...in part of which, he even made note of the following statement that Bob
would be better served to cite:

The HCSA Photographic Panel's observations of this segment:

'A fifth episode (E) possibly associated with a shot occurs at
frames 290-293. Although it contains a very small blur detected by
both Hartmann and Scott, as well as a more substantial blur in
Alvarez's data, the Panel found no visual indications of reaction
to a shot by the limousine's occupants coinciding with this segment
of the blur in the film."

Thus Harris has no (ZERO) experts who have backed his interpretations of
the limo. passengers movements, but at least one set who flatly *rejected*
it. :-)

>
> Alvarez didn't think it was a shot. He thought a siren had gone off.
>
> >You need to be truthful John. You've never addressed those
> >issues.
> >
>
> People here will decide who is truthful.
>
> >
> >>
> >>> YOU ONLY BLURT OUT SUBJECTIVE, UNSUPPORTED OPINIONS.
> >>>
> >>
> >> Irony alert!
> >
> >BULLSHIT!!
> >
> >Cite me saying ANYTHING that I didn't support with evidence.
> >
>
> Virtually nothing you say is supported with evidence.
>
> It's all your subjective opinions.
>
> >Anything!
> >
>
> "Ducking" after Z285.
>
> >
> >>
> >>> Is that what they taught you at Harvard:-)
> >>>
> >>
> >> I was taught to look at reliable evidence.
> >
> >Uh huh. And did they tell you to then clam up when it proves
> >you wrong?
> >
>
> They taught me that arguing with idiots isn't a good use of my time.
>
> But sometimes I do it for sport.
>

ABSOLUTELY!

> .John
> -----------------------
> http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/home.htm

[John McAdams]

On 24 Apr 2017 21:08:01 -0400, BT George <brockg...@gmail.com>
wrote:

>On Sunday, April 23, 2017 at 8:05:10 PM UTC-5, John McAdams wrote:
>> On 23 Apr 2017 20:58:08 -0400, Robert Harris <bobha...@yahoo.com>
>>
>

>http://www.kenrahn.com/Marsh/Jfk-conspiracy/stroscio.html
>
>...in part of which, he even made note of the following statement that Bob
>would be better served to cite:
>
>The HCSA Photographic Panel's observations of this segment:
>
>'A fifth episode (E) possibly associated with a shot occurs at
>frames 290-293. Although it contains a very small blur detected by
>both Hartmann and Scott, as well as a more substantial blur in
>Alvarez's data, the Panel found no visual indications of reaction
>to a shot by the limousine's occupants coinciding with this segment
>of the blur in the film."
>

Good find. These were photo experts who were explicitly *looking* for
evidence that would show the jiggle actually represented a shot, and
they simply didn't see any.

>Thus Harris has no (ZERO) experts who have backed his interpretations of
>the limo. passengers movements, but at least one set who flatly *rejected*
>it. :-)
>

Correct.

.John
-----------------------
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/home.htm

[Anthony Marsh]

Some conspiracy theorists claim that they see something on the trunk.

> I've quoted him above saying it "appeared to him" that Jackie was
> reaching for something.
>
>> assumed that she was trying to retrieve it. But he was
>> mistaken.
>
> You are quoting him as a witness, and now saying he was mistaken?
>
>> She picked up a piece of brain tissue. Watch her
>> right arm, in the Nix film:
>>
>> http://jfkhistory.com/jackienix.gif
>>
>> and the Zapruder film:
>>
>> http://jfkhistory.com/jackie.gif
>>
>
> Your GIFs don't show any such thing.
>
>> Also, read this article so that you won't have to embarrass
>> yourself any more:
>>
>> http://jfkhistory.com/jackie/Jackie.html
>>
>
> There is no brain matter visible in any of your images. And Jackie
> seems to have her hands flat on the trunk, and not grasping anything.
>

Something like that. But she can not have her palms on the trunk all the
time.

[Anthony Marsh]

False.

> And Brehm was full of crap too??
>

No, you just misquote him.

> You have a long history of just blurting out anything you want, without
> so much as an attempt to prove it.
>
>>
>> You are back to what the alterationists do: trying to impeach the Z
>> film with witness testimony.
>
> That is untrue. I explained to you EXACTLY, why most objects flying
> through the air do not show up in the film.
>

Can you see the skull bone flying up from JFK's head just after 313?

>>
>> And Hill never said he *saw* Jackie getting anything from the trunk.
>> He apparently *inferred* that was what she was doing.
>
> He saw the skull piece rolling of the rear of the trunk and assumed that
> she was trying to retrieve it. But he was mistaken. She picked up a
> piece of brain tissue. Watch her right arm, in the Nix film:
>

You see what you want to see.

> http://jfkhistory.com/jackienix.gif
>
> and the Zapruder film:
>
> http://jfkhistory.com/jackie.gif
>
> Also, read this article so that you won't have to embarrass yourself any
> more:
>
> http://jfkhistory.com/jackie/Jackie.html
>
>>
>>
>>> Nor does it show the brain tissue that Jackie retrieved or the pieces
>>> that struck the two motorcycle officers.
>>>
>>
>> Jackie got the tissue from inside the limo. You are aware brain
>> tissue was all over the inside, right?
>>
>> As for the motorcycle officers:
>>
>> http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/hargis.htm
>
> You should be embarrassed about that horribly disingenuous article. You
> pretend that you outed by Thompson by stating that Hargis did not use
> the word "force", leaving out the minor detail, that Thompson never said
> he did:-)
>
> "This debris hit Officer Hargis with such force that he told reporters
> the next day, 'I thought at first I might have been hit.'"
>
> By misrepresenting Thompson, you also managed to slither out of what
> REALLY matters - that Hargis thought he might have been hit by a bullet.
>
> Of course, Thompson was perfectly correct that Hargis was saying he was
> hit with great force. Bullets tend to be that way:-)
>

He was talking about the debris, not the bullets. You keep conflating to
create phony stories.

> BTW, Hargis also said, "I was splattered with blood and brain".
>
> Why don't we seen any of that flying toward Hargis with so much force,
> that he thought he might have been hit by a bullet??
>

Did he say bullet? Or are you putting word in his mouth?

> Clint Hill also said he was spattered with blood and Brain as he
> approached the limo. Why don't we see that either?
>

Neither can you see the bullet in flight. So you'll say there was no
bullet.

>>
>> You are invoking buff factoids.
>
> Bullshit!
>
> I am citing 5 star witnesses who all said essentially the same thing.
>

Never rely on witnesses. Especially when you misquote them.

> You have no justification or right, to reject their statements - at
> least until you can drum up a little evidence or logic to support this
> endless stream of blurtations.
>

Yes, we do. Never rely on witnesses.

> Not only were the witnesses THERE when this happened, but none of them
> were biased, unlike yourself - who denies everything and anything that
> proves you wrong, regardless of a mountain of evidence that proves you
> wrong.
>

Nor were they perfect. You pick and choose which ones to believe.

>>
>>> We don't see most objects in flight for the same reason we don't see
>>> bullets in flight. They pass out of sight, in between frames.
>>>
>>> The lens on Zapruder's camera was closed for longer durations than it
>>> was open. It has to be closed as the film advances.
>>>
>>
>> But in fact, the Z film picks up the skull fragments blown upward and
>> forward.
>
> You can't be that stupid, John.
>
> Of course a flying object might occasionally appear when the lens is
> open. But the odds are against it.
>

And how big does the object have to be for us to see it?

[mainframetech]

I'm sure you will try to get away from it by talking timing, but the
timing in the Z-film is suspect, since it was altered by removal of frames
and by direct changes to the frames. But to have everyone in a limo put
heads forward in unison, can also be due to Greer the driver hitting the
brakes, which has been proven to you, though you may not have dared to
watch the video shown to you, showing the brake lights coming on at that
moment:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hrX8lsb2WTk

Not only does Bobby Hargis say that the limo came almost to a stop, but
the video catches the brake lights coming on. The brakes were hit by
Greer causing everyone to lean forward. This was just before the kill
shot to the forehead/temple area.

[mainframetech]

The back of the car consists mostly of the trunk.

> And it did. Blown into the air, it did come down on Hill (and Hargis,
> etc.).
>
> So you need to quit "enhancing" his testimony to have him saying what
> you want him to say.
>
>
> >Of course, why should we believe Hill and Brehm, when we have
> >a radical, biased nutter fanatic to tell us what they saw:-)
> >
>
> Irony alert!
>
> >And speaking of fanatical nutters, FBI agent Robert Frazier,
> >on the presence of brain tissue on the trunk,
> >
> >"We found blood and tissue all over the outside areas of the
> >vehicle from the hood ornament, over the complete area of the
> >hood.. and of course considerable quantities inside the car
> >and on the *trunk* lid area"
> >
> >http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/russ/testimony/frazrsh.htm
> >
> >Now, let's hear YOUR evidence, John!!
> >
>
> Fine, but you said Clint Hill saw something coming off the trunk, and
> could not produce a source.
>
> It's clear that brain matter, blown upward, came down all over the
> place.
>

The Z-film, which is suspect does show that burst upward of blood and
other material, but the wind from movement of the vehicle blew it all to
the rear. It's difficult when applying common sense to say that he found
some at the hood ornament. But then, Frazier is suspect also for some for
the shenanigans with the bullets, since he was the custodian. DiMaio
allows for 'tailsplash' or a splashing of material from the entry of a
bullet wound back toward the source of a bullet. But JFK was sitting down
in the limo and wasn't high enough to pepper the hood ornament in that
fashion.

Chris

[Robert Harris]

LOL!!


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7GH5pGQy6yI





Robert Harris

[John McAdams]

On 25 Apr 2017 20:42:46 -0400, Robert Harris <bobha...@yahoo.com>
wrote:

>LOL!!
>
>
>https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7GH5pGQy6yI
>
>
>

You've posted that a hundred times, Bob.

Nobody sees the things you think you see.

.John
-----------------------
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/home.htm

[Robert Harris]

John McAdams wrote:
> On 24 Apr 2017 19:29:51 -0400, Robert Harris <bobha...@yahoo.com>
> wrote:
>
>> John McAdams wrote:
>>> On 23 Apr 2017 20:58:08 -0400, Robert Harris <bobha...@yahoo.com>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>> John McAdams wrote:
>>>>> On 22 Apr 2017 15:46:49 -0400, Robert Harris <bobha...@yahoo.com>
>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Those reactions all began in the range of 290-292. Alvarez identified
>>>>>> Zapruder's reaction at 290-291.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> You NEVER ADDRESS THOSE FACTS.
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> I have, you just don't like my answer.
>>>>
>>>> No you didn't.
>>>>
>>>> Cite your statement about the reactions all beginning in the
>>>> same 1/6th of a second.
>>>>
>>>> Cite your statement about Kellerman's three simultaneous
>>>> startle reactions.
>>>>
>>>> http://jfkhistory.com/shoulders.gif
>>>>
>>>
>>> I've posted this about a dozen times:
>>
>> Stop dodging!
>>
>> Cite your statement about the reactions all beginning in the
>> same 1/6th of a second.
>>
>
> See below.

There are no citations, below.

Do you know what "cite" means??

Stop dodging and answer the question. You said you
specifically addressed this issue.

Cite at least one of your statements regarding the fact that
all of the actions began in the same 1/6th of one second.

After you do that and cite the others, we can continue.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7GH5pGQy6yI




Robert Harris

[Robert Harris]

ROFLMAO!!

I can't remember the last time Brock was correct about anything!


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7GH5pGQy6yI



Robert Harris

[Anthony Marsh]

What experts do you have to back your Single-Bullet Theory or miss shot?

> .John
> -----------------------
> http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/home.htm
>

[Anthony Marsh]

So you say that a reflex reaction is voluntary?
When a doctor tests your reflexes with the rubber hammer, you have to
THINK about whether you want to voluntarily react?

[Anthony Marsh]

On 4/24/2017 7:42 PM, John McAdams wrote:
> On 24 Apr 2017 19:41:37 -0400, Anthony Marsh
> <anthon...@comcast.net> wrote:
>
>>
>> Funny how you are allowed to say that, but when I say it you reject my
>> message.
>>
>>> But sometimes I do it for sport.
>>>
>>
>> So the leader of the cover-up admits that he's just a troll here?
>>
>
> Irony alert!
>

I am not the leader of the cover-up. You are.
A Troll posts just for sport, which is what you said.

> .John
> -----------------------
> http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/home.htm
>

[Dave Reitzes]

If LNs would stop taking the bait, these threads would be nothing but Bob,
Mainframe, and Marsh. Throw in a lesbian and you've got Sartre's NO EXIT.

Why tamper with perfection?

Dave

[bigdog]

It wasn't so much the blood and brain went backward as much as the went
upward while the vehicles continued moving forward. Hargis drove through a
cloud of blood and brain. the limo also was continuing forward and so the
trunk went under that cloud as well. The country road I live on is prone
to developing potholes. After a heavy rain those potholes fill with water.
If I hit one of those potholes the water is thrown forward but because it
meets resistance from the atmosphere is slows while my car continues
forward at a constant speed. I drive through the splash and my windshield
gets soaked. It would be physically impossible for the water to be thrown
forward and then curve around and move backwards unless I was driving into
a powerful headwind. The blood and brain exploding from JFK's head would
act in a similar manner.

[BT George]

Probably because these days he can't seem to remember the last time he went to the bathroom---still less what his critics have ever told him! ...And (strangely) even less than that when they are *spot* on. :-)

>
> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7GH5pGQy6yI
>
>
>
> Robert Harris

[BT George]

Calling what they are doing a "reflex" reaction begs the question. But
yes, there are "reactions" that are voluntary.

It is true that when a loud shot or explosion occurs, certain things like
wincing your eyes, quickly raising or lowering your shoulders, or a swift
ducking motion of the head, tend to occur, and are mostly involuntary.
But if you continue to move into a full on duck, run, turn, or any other
large smoothly executed motion, *that* is a *voluntary* reaction to the
ongoing stimuli.

Bob has not even proven that there were first any *involuntary* movements
among the limo passengers. (Kellerman is his best evidence for that, but
no one else even comes close.) The things all the others can be seen doing
are what anyone with two functioning eyes and a normal intellect can
easily recognize as *voluntary* movements. Quite obviously, in reaction
to the attack that everyone acknowledges has already been going for at
least (if one accepts a first shot at or near Z160) around 85% of its full
length.

But Tony, if you really do now agree with Bob on this whole "involuntary"
reaction thing, perhaps you should reconsider all those gratuitous attack
posts you make on him too. ...After all, that puts you on his side of
this issue, and makes you "amigos" now doesn't it? :-)

[sloga...@comcast.net]

Shot at 285 ?
Brakes applied by Kennedy limo ?
Hole in windshield ?

You're still trudging through this junk Tony?

C'Mon Man!

[Anthony Marsh]

On 4/26/2017 10:57 AM, Dave Reitzes wrote:
> If LNs would stop taking the bait, these threads would be nothing but Bob,
> Mainframe, and Marsh. Throw in a lesbian and you've got Sartre's NO EXIT.
>

I have to argue with both sides. Almost never do we see WC defenders
disagree with each other. Maybe one frame or two, that's about it.

[Anthony Marsh]

Some kooks keep bringing it up and sometimes I am the only one who can
refute them with facts.

[Anthony Marsh]

Sure, but why can't you answer my question?
Does a crash test dummy make a voluntary reaction?

[Jason Burke]

On 4/26/2017 8:43 PM, Anthony Marsh wrote:
> On 4/26/2017 10:57 AM, Dave Reitzes wrote:
>> If LNs would stop taking the bait, these threads would be nothing but
>> Bob,
>> Mainframe, and Marsh. Throw in a lesbian and you've got Sartre's NO EXIT.
>>
>
> I have to argue with both sides. Almost never do we see WC defenders
> disagree with each other. Maybe one frame or two, that's about it.

When you gots the troof on your side, you don't need to make up hundreds
of fantastic, well, fantasies.

[Anthony Marsh]

We have to investigate this case because the Warren Commission refused to.