The more people ignore Bob, the more it proves he's right.
Commentary from the great philosopher Morrissey:
http://youtu.be/6nAMFWDuDEI
> > Simple. After all these years and 10,000 posts+ only you, Ott, and a few
>
> > YouTubers (who as I once said would "...probably give thumbs up to a
>
> > dancing mongoose if it prooved sufficiently entertaining.") are the ONLY
>
> > persons who seem to have embraced your theories or put much confidence in
>
> > them. With such and UNDERwhelming public response, why would he waste the
>
> > ink?
>
>
>
> I have almost 10 million views on Youtube David
Very impressive credentials, if you're a music video or a cat playing a
keyboard.
and the vast majority of
>
> people who rated my videos, gave me approvals.
How many times did Reggie and Ott get to vote?
> But why do you care?
I believe it was B.T. who brought it up.
You may suggest he and I are interchangeable because we disagree with you,
but then you once said the same thing about me and John Hunt, and Hunt
believes the FBI framed Oswald for the assassination. So kindly pay more
attention.
> It wouldn't matter if I was the only one on the planet to understood
>
> this, since the evidence proves beyond any possible doubt that I am correct.
http://youtu.be/qlmGJQq3AlM
> How do you explain the fact that most witnesses only heard one of the
>
> earlly shots, prior to the very end of the attack?
It's not a fact, Bob. You do not seem to understand the difference between
fact and hypothesis.
> And how do you explain the absence of startle reactions to the early
>
> shots which would have been 16 times louder than the level at which
> involuntary startle reactions *must* occur?
How many times do you intend to ask me such pointless questions based on
premises established solely by figments of your imagination?
You're making the whole thing up, Bob.
> And how do you explain why every surviving passenger in that limo
>
> reported only one early shot prior to the very end or after events that
>
> were post-223?
You're making the whole thing up, Bob.
> And how do you explain why five people reacted simultaneously following
>
> 285, or that their reactions began at precisely the same instant in
>
> which Drs. Alvarez and Stroscio confirmed that Zapruder reacted?
You have an unusually vivid imagination, Bob.
You make up stories about me, you make up stories about other posters, you
make up stories about estranged friends of yours, you make up stories
about published authors, and you make up stories about the Kennedy
assassination.
And there appears to be no end in sight.
> I have asked you these questions many times before. Why don't you go
> ahead and answere them now, David?
I've answered them many times, Bob. You always pretend no one answers your
questions. Why is that, Bob?
My answers aren't going to change:
You're making the whole thing up. You always have been and you apparently
always will be.
> In fact, let's hold the presses and give you a chance to post
> *specific*, and (hopefully) concise answers to those questions.
> (Please do not snip any text. I can't stand the whining)
Sorry for the reruns, folks:
On Monday, October 7, 2013 8:20:31 PM UTC-4, Robert Harris wrote:
> David, let me make a polite and very sincere suggestion to you.
>
> Instead of posting all this drivel from your fellow nutters and personal
> insults,
Is that what I posted?
why don't you address the issues directly and in a
> straightforward manner?
Hmm, because in a month (if not sooner), you'll be claiming that I never did?
But all right, Bob, Christmas is coming early this year. Here, yet again, are the same reasons I've given you previously on numerous occasions, all in one convenient place so you can more easily ignore them.
Why don't you say things like,
> "I disagree with your measurements of the people you claim, dropped their
> heads following 285. The correct angles are..."
You haven't posted any measurements, Bob, much less had any such data verified by professional, disinterested experts in photographic analysis. So you haven't given me anything to disagree with.
Let me remind you once again about the perfectly reasonable standard of evidence you personally outlined in your own words to a guest at your late, lamented forum, for establishing the minimum acceptable level of credibility -- credibility "at least [worthy of] consideration from serious researchers" -- in such areas as photographic interpretation:
<QUOTE ON>-----------------------------
It is NOT someone else's responsibility to prove what we all see [you wrote]. It is YOUR responsibility to prove what you assert.
If you had confirmation from professional, disinterested analysts, you would then have a case. And you would at least get consideration from serious researchers.
But the fact that you refuse to do that, tells us that you realize as well as we do, that there is nothing there.
<QUOTE OFF>-----------------------------
Let us all know when you meet that standard, Bob.
Even better, let Brian Williams or Scott Pelley or Diane Sawyer know. Or CNN. Or PBS. Or ((shudder)) Fox. Or the New York Times. Or the Washington Post. Or Time. Or Newsweek. Or your congressman. Or your senators. Or the Justice Department. Basically, anyone at all with more influence in the world than the JFK assassination buffs you rant and rave at day in and day out on the internet.
You'll never do it, Bob. Why? Apparently because, as your very own aforementioned analysis suggests, "you realize as well as we do, that there is nothing there."
> or
>
> "I disagree that all of these people reacted in the range of 290-292.
> The correct frame numbers are...."
As far as I can tell, Bob, it's all in your imagination.
But, hey, if you sincerely believe I'm wrong, you'll immediately cease these endlessly tedious and repetitive demands you make of me and the many other hobbyists who disagree with you, and instead bear in mind these words from longtime researcher Robert Harris:
<QUOTE ON>-----------------------------
It is NOT someone else's responsibility to prove what we all see. It is YOUR responsibility to prove what you assert.
If you had confirmation from professional, disinterested analysts, you would then have a case. And you would at least get consideration from serious researchers.
But the fact that you refuse to do that, tells us that you realize as well as we do, that there is nothing there.
<QUOTE OFF>-----------------------------
And, if we're talking about events in the Zapruder film, then "professional, disinterested analysts" could only mean one thing: qualified, reputable experts who objectively analyze photographic data for a living, often with an eye to utilizing such data in developing practical, real-world applications, like members of the 20-member HSCA Photographic Panel, the people at Itek, and those at Failure Analysis Associates, all of whom studied the Z film in minute detail and failed to observe (much less quantify) any of the phenomena you have described in thousands of internet posts. It obviously does not mean someone in another field entirely, particularly someone who, regardless of how admirable his credentials in that field may be, just conveniently happens to be a ("disinterested") conspiracy buff you contacted specifically because of his publicly stated opinions on the JFK assassination.
Should you attain the level of credibility for your claim that you yourself have outlined, then you will have shown that, if nothing else, at least you have a premise worth hypothesizing about, a premise that might "at least get consideration from serious researchers."
Once you accomplish this, then you can seek out world-class forensic experts on wound ballistics, photographic evidence, and trajectory analysis at least the equal of those who served on the Clark Panel, the Rockefeller Commission, the HSCA Forensic Pathology Panel, the HSCA Photographic Panel, the HSCA Firearms Panel, etc., to endorse your novel hypotheses about the source(s) of the shots that struck JFK and Connally, when ALL of the aforementioned experts (even that hero to conspiracy believers everywhere, Cyril Wecht) agreed that the autopsy evidence, photographic evidence, trajectory analysis, and crime scene evidence showed nothing more than what the pathologists who actually performed the President's autopsy, and the WC and FBI forensic experts on the crime scene evidence reported in 1963: two bullets fired from above and to the rear of the limousine -- specifically (according to the photographic, ballistic, and crime scene evidence; as well as the trajectory analysis by NASA staff engineer Thomas Canning) from the southeastern-most window of the TSBD, and specifically fired from Lee Harvey Oswald's rifle to the exclusion of all other weapons in the world.
Then, obviously, you'll want to publish these ground-breaking findings in a prestigious, peer-reviewed forensic journal, to establish at least the possibility that you're right about the number, source, and timing of the shots, while all the world-class experts who were commissioned to study the forensic evidence over the past 50 years were hopelessly wrong. Considerable further investigation will be required to overturn the conclusions of the aforementioned bodies of experts in favor of your claims, but at least you will have a viable hypothesis.
Why is all this necessary? Same reason as with your novel claims about the Zapruder film. Once again, in your own words:
<QUOTE ON>-----------------------------
It is NOT someone else's responsibility to prove what we all see. It is YOUR responsibility to prove what you assert.
If you had confirmation from professional, disinterested analysts, you would then have a case. And you would at least get consideration from serious researchers.
But the fact that you refuse to do that, tells us that you realize as well as we do, that there is nothing there.
<QUOTE OFF>-----------------------------
Hell, once you accomplish these things, you may even have enough evidence to convince the Justice Department, Congress, or the U.S. Senate to reopen the investigation and ultimately determine whether your hypotheses are actually true. You might be the one who at long last delivers on the promise of 50 years of conspiracy theorists to break the case wide open and maybe even attain some sort of justice for John F. Kennedy.
But let's not get ahead of ourselves. Start with following your own advice about how to establish the minimum acceptable level of credibility for your claims about the photographic and forensic evidence.
> or
>
> "I disagree with Alvarez and Stroscio's conclusion about a startling
> noise at 285 because.."
Because, as I have said a number of times, Bob, there is no way to determine the difference between a missed shot and a false positive in the "jiggle" analysis.
That's why I very publicly disavowed the "jiggle" analysis over a decade ago and deleted it from a number of my online articles, even though it very conveniently supported some of the arguments I was making. But I realized that the potential for false positives -- not to mention the differences of opinions between experts in interpreting the results -- rendered it unreliable, regardless of how convenient it might be.
It doesn't matter whether you're a conspiracy buff or a Nobel Prize-winning physicist: there's no way of distinguishing between a missed shot and a false positive without something concrete to verify it.
Of course, you claim you have something concrete with which to verify it; so bear in mind your very own words once again:
<QUOTE ON>-----------------------------
It is NOT someone else's responsibility to prove what we all see. It is YOUR responsibility to prove what you assert.
If you had confirmation from professional, disinterested analysts, you would then have a case. And you would at least get consideration from serious researchers.
But the fact that you refuse to do that, tells us that you realize as well as we do, that there is nothing there.
<QUOTE OFF>-----------------------------
> or
>
> "I believe that most of the witnesses were mistaken in their belief that
> the final shots were closely bunched, because..."
For the same reason I believe that the dozens of witnesses who reported the first shots bunched together could have been mistaken (as you commented upon at the time I posted about the issue):
https://groups.google.com/forum/#!topic/alt.assassination.jfk/YyBTb1zWvf8
And for the same reason I believe it's equally possible that the dozens of witnesses who reported that the three shots were timed equally could have been wrong (as you commented upon at the time I posted about the issue):
https://groups.google.com/forum/#!original/alt.assassination.jfk/kRYGeHbYq3Y/vnThKvRS-7EJ
See also:
https://groups.google.com/forum/#!msg/alt.assassination.jfk/kRYGeHbYq3Y/vnThKvRS-7EJ
https://groups.google.com/forum/#!topic/alt.assassination.jfk/z1_f11F_3dE
The simple fact is that eyewitnesses are notoriously unreliable about such details, Bob. If you were to look into the research about eyewitness testimony that scientists like Elizabeth Loftus have been conducting for decades, you wouldn't even be asking such a question, much less wasting your time hypothesizing about such an unreliable source of evidence.
Even better, we can disregard the inherently unreliable eyewitness testimony completely because the professional photographic analysts who studied the Z film have provided verifiable, quantifiable evidence of when the shots occurred, and no such person has ever agreed with you.
> David, this is how honest people disagree.
Then why have you been dodging my arguments for some 15 years?
It is all about the facts and
> evidence.
Then I'm sure you'll be eager to produce evidence of the exact same caliber you would demand from anyone else, as outlined in the passage I keep quoting of yours.
Go right ahead and produce that evidence, Bob. Don't let me stand in your way.
> As for the issue of whether the 223 shot was better proven than 285, I
> have answered this before. There is no evidence other than JFK's visible
> reactions for 223. And although I doubt it, it is not impossible that this
> was a delayed reaction to an earlier shot.
As I have posted many times, including at this newsgroup, John McAdams' website, and my own web, the evidence indicates that JFK and Connally were both struck at about Z223, and I can easily cite experts (FAA's Piziali, for example) who agree with me.
See for example:
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/jfkhit.htm
http://www.jfk-online.com/jfk100sbth.html
See also:
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/jbchit.htm
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/Lattimer.txt
You have no qualified experts who agree with you, Bob. None.
> The 285 shot is far beyond any logical doubt and I have referenced
> *DOZENS* of pieces of evidence and testimony to support it.
Yet none of this evidence (much less "testimony") comes anywhere close to meeting the perfectly reasonable minimum standards of credibility outlined by none other than you yourself.
Let's review your own words yet again:
<QUOTE ON>-----------------------------
It is NOT someone else's responsibility to prove what we all see. It is YOUR responsibility to prove what you assert.
If you had confirmation from professional, disinterested analysts, you would then have a case. And you would at least get consideration from serious researchers.
But the fact that you refuse to do that, tells us that you realize as well as we do, that there is nothing there.
<QUOTE OFF>-----------------------------
> Of course, that is why you refuse to discuss these issues, isn't it?
I've discussed these issues with you many times, Bob, and you just pretend I haven't, just as you do with everyone else here.
Frankly, in the 20+ years I've been researching, discussing, debating, and writing about this case, you are far and away the most colossal waste of time I have ever encountered.
You also happen to be the individual who's been saying things like this about me for 15 years:
"There is just no nice way to say it David. You're a liar."
-- Robert Harris
"Reitzes is the master of insinuation and innuendo, almost never making a straightforward statement and forever using weasel words when he is attacking conspiracy people....And Reitzes was never in his life, a conspiracy advocate. Back when he claimed he was, he was spamming alt.conspiracy.jfk with endless attacks on Garrison and other conspiracy people, and was making only rare, token arguments that there were multiple Oswalds, to justify his CT charade. He never once, stated a belief about who was behind the assassination, how many snipers were involved, or anything else of even the slightest significance in support of conspiracy."
-- Robert Harris
"You're a liar and a phony Mr. Reitzes."
-- Robert Harris
"I stop posting for a month, and somebody unlocked the fruit loop city gates. Between this crackpot and DSharp, the drool is really flowing. BTW, is there anyone in this newsgroup that Mr. Reeses hasn't attacked by name in the header of his posts? But the good news here is that this is the best McAdams can recruit!"
-- Robert Harris
"Who comes after Garrison, Dave? Did McAdams give you a list?"
-- Robert Harris
"You're not only a paranoic [sic] fruitcake, David, but a liar..."
-- Robert Harris
"...David Reitzes is about as much of a conspiracy buff as his fellow New Yorker, Gerald Posner. I don't know if McNally is posting through that account or not, but I have no doubt whatsoever, that people of widely varying writing skills are. The long-winded stuff is definitely coming from a pro. If that is the David Reitzes we all know and love, then I would expect that he is published somewhere. But the guy who writes most of the day-to-day stuff is nowhere near that level."
-- Robert Harris
"So David, living in the Big Apple, is it possible that you've never met Mr. Posner? Or that he never helped you write anything? Or that he never wrote "Impeaching Clinton" for you? We all expect sarcasm David. Surprise us this time with an honest answer:-)"
-- Robert Harris
"That's pathetic, Mr. Reitzes, and you don't even do a good job of twisting and spinning."
-- Robert Harris
"I call you a liar, for one, simple reason. You tell lies, and you do so frequently, and repeatedly."
-- Robert Harris
"Mr. Drietzes - this is absolutely pathetic."
-- Robert Harris
"Do you *really* believe any of this nonsense??"
-- Robert Harris
"I have never heard such idiocy."
-- Robert Harris
"Great god, you are one chronic liar, aren't you David?"
-- Robert Harris
"Let's see your citation, David. Show us you're not really a pathological liar."
-- Robert Harris
If "Ad hominem is the absolute admission of utter and total defeat," as you used to insist, Bob, then you absolutely admit utter, total defeat more frequently and emphatically than anyone I have ever met in my entire life.
Oh, one more thing:
> Dave Reitzes wrote:
> > On Sunday, October 6, 2013 11:51:12 PM UTC-4, Robert Harris wrote:
> >> For those who might be wondering what in holy hell Reitzes is complaining
> >> about, roughly 15 years ago I stated, exactly as I do today, that three of
> >> the limo passengers dropped their heads simultaneously, beginning within a
> >> third of a second following frame 285.
> >>
> >>
http://jfkhistory.com/angles285.jpg
> >>
> >> I also stated that Dr. Michael Stroscio fully endorsed the paper I sent
> >> him on subject of the 285 shot. Stroscio is a highly qualified physicist
> >> who has chaired Presidential science commissions and wrote a paper
> >> himself, on the Zapruder film and Alvarez's analysis. This is the letter
> >> he sent me,
> >>
> >> Dear Mr. Harris,
> >> Thank you for sending your paper on the "JFK Assassination - Another Look"
> >> along with your good letter.
> >> I find your paper to be extremely convincing and I'm glad that you could
> >> use my work to add some support to your very clear and compelling
> >> analysis.
> >>
> >> I am really impressed with your logical, direct approach to demonstrating
> >> that two shots were fired within a time interval too short to be
> >> associated with one shooter.
> >>
> >> Sincerely,
> >>
> >> Michael A. Stroscio
> >>
> >> (unquote)
> >>
> >> After reading Stroscio's letter, David must have really struggled to
> >> find something about it that he could attack:-)
> >> He apparently decided that he would challenge me to show where Stroscio
> >> corroborated the angles I had previously described. Obviously, he never
> >> mentioned that but equally obvious is the fact that we don't need a Phd in
> >> Physics, to do such a simple measurement. I replied,
> >>
> >> "Pull out your protractor, David. A 7th grade geometry student can
> >> measure the angles. If you disagree, why don't you post your own
> >> measurements?"
> >>
> >> David then decided that I was evading him:-)
> >>
> >> I guess not all of us are born to be analytical, critical thinkers. By
> >> his own admission, David doesn't even understand why Oswald couldn't
> >> have fired both of the shots at 285 and 313.
As you may be aware, Bob, the time elapsed between Z285 and 313 is 1.53 seconds. As you also may be aware, the HSCA concluded that Oswald could have accurately fired two shots at a moving target in under 1.66 seconds:
http://www.archives.gov/research/jfk/select-committee-report/part-1b.html
<QUOTE ON>------------------------------
Despite the existence of adequate corroboration or substantiation of the tape's authenticity, the committee realized that other questions were posed by the timing sequence of the impulses on the tape. The acoustical analysis had indicated both the first and second impulse patterns were shots from the vicinity of Texas School Book Depository, but that there were only 1.66 seconds between the onset of each of these impulse patterns. The committee recognized that 1.66 seconds is too brief a period for both shots to have been fired from Oswald's rifle, given the results of tests performed for the Warren Commission that found that the average minimum firing time between shots was 2.3 seconds.(117)
The tests for the Warren Commission, however, were based on an assumption that Oswald used the telescopic sight on the rifle. (118) The committee's panel of firearms experts, on the other hand, testified that given the distance and angle from the sixth floor window to the location of the President's limousine, it would have been easier to use the open iron sights.(119) During the acoustical reconstruction performed for the committee in August, the Dallas Police Department marksmen in fact used iron sights and had no difficulty hitting the targets.
The committee test fired a Mannlicher-Carcano rifle using the open iron sights. It found that it was possible for two shots to be fired within 1.66 seconds.(120) One gunman, therefore, could have fired the shots that caused both impulse pattern 1 and impulse pattern 2 on the dispatch tape. The strongest evidence that one gunman did, in fact, fire the shots that caused both impulse patterns was that all three cartridge cases found on the sixth floor of the Texas School Book Depository came from Oswald's rifle.(121) In addition, the fragments from the two bullets that were found were identified as having been fired from Oswald's rifle. (122) Accordingly, the 1.66 seconds between the onset of the first and second impulse patterns on the tape are not too brief a period of time for both of these patterns to represent gunfire, and for Oswald to have been the person responsible for firing both shots.
<QUOTE OFF>-----------------------------
Not only that, but none of the experts who test-fired weapons for the WC or HSCA had time to practice working the bolt of the test rifle, while Oswald had months to practice working the bolt of his, not only when he conducted target practice, according to his widow, but also when he spent time at home, dry firing his weapon -- that is, practicing the operation of the bolt. So Oswald's familiarity with the weapon could have easily allowed him to outperform experts who possessed no such familiarity.
How quickly could someone with more familiarity with a rifle like Oswald's Mannlicher-Carcano fire? How about, say, six times in 5.1 seconds:
http://youtu.be/h4c5Zr7hzzA
Now, quite frankly, it seems unlikely to me that Oswald could have gotten off two good shots at a moving target in so short a time; I doubt very much that it happened. But you're the one who's been claiming for years that it's absolutely impossible.
Prove it.
> >> Perhaps it is my fault in thinking that everyone is capable of measuring
> >> a simple angle. Obviously, that is not true. But it seems reasonable to
> >> me that those who cannot, should not be attacking those of us who can.
>
>
> >
https://groups.google.com/forum/#!topic/alt.assassination.jfk/GTfXBaX7jcM
> >
> > <QUOTE ON>-----------------------------------
> >
> > X-Received: by 10.180.106.161 with SMTP id gv1mr6192969wib.4.1381015594380;
> > Sat, 05 Oct 2013 16:26:34 -0700 (PDT)
> > From: Dave Reitzes <
drei...@aol.com>
> > Newsgroups: alt.assassination.jfk
> > Subject: Re: Robert Harris re: making things up
> > Date: 5 Oct 2013 19:26:33 -0400
> > Lines: 393
> > Approved:
jmca...@shell.core.com
> > Message-ID: <
d4b3ded4-66b6-4adc...@googlegroups.com>
> > References: <
20030319120637...@mb-ck.aol.com> <
20030321213224...@mb-mf.aol.com>
> > <
56fdce76-d3b8-4a29...@googlegroups.com> <
ApWdna1DsNC_INDP...@earthlink.com>
> > <
76f100e3-9e17-4e4b...@googlegroups.com> <
2Z6dncH5P-ml2tPP...@earthlink.com>
> > <
0ab03291-ceb8-496b...@googlegroups.com>
> > Return-Path: <
ne...@google.com>
> > X-Original-To:
aa...@panix.com
> > Delivered-To:
aa...@panix.com
> > Delivered-To:
alt-assass...@moderators.isc.org
> > X-Received: by 10.224.2.68 with SMTP id 4mr28739210qai.1.1380942991271;
> > X-Received: by 10.49.24.132 with SMTP id u4mr501qef.17.1380942991231; Fri, 04
> > In-Reply-To: <
0ab03291-ceb8-496b...@googlegroups.com>
> > Complaints-To:
groups...@google.com
> > Injection-Info:
glegroupsg2000goo.googlegroups.com; posting-host=98.114.105.35;
> > User-Agent: G2/1.0
> > MIME-Version: 1.0
> > Injection-Date: Sat, 05 Oct 2013 03:16:31 +0000
> > NNTP-Posting-Host: 166.84.1.3
> > X-Original-NNTP-Posting-Host: 166.84.1.3
> > X-Trace:
mcadams.posc.mu.edu 1381015594 166.84.1.3 (5 Oct 2013 18:26:34 -0500)
> > X-Original-Trace: 5 Oct 2013 18:26:34 -0500, 166.84.1.3
> > Path: ed8ni296307wic.0!
nntp.google.com!goblin3!
goblin.stu.neva.ru!
mcadams.posc.mu.edu!
panix3.panix.com!not-for-mail
> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252
> > Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
> >
> > On Friday, October 4, 2013 4:27:23 PM UTC-4, BT George wrote:
> >
> > [snipping]
> >
> >> Another is his "honest" and forthright treatment of Z226 where he decline
> >> to clearly admit the self-evident truth that he has no truly *comparable*
> >> REAL HARD CORROBORATING EVIDENCE for his interpretations of the limo.
> >> passengers actions after Z285 as exist to corroborate that JFK is reacting
> >> to his neck wounding at this point.
> >>
> >> No need to provide a specific cite on the above. Just simply look up BT
> >> George and Robert/Bob Harris Z226 in the NG archives and there will be
> >> plenty on the subject. **YOU be the judge of how "forthright" he was on
> >> this matter.**
> >>
> >> More importantly, if you do choose to proceed, please remember going in
> >> that the following "honest" tenets will doubtless apply to any Z285
> >> "debate" with Bob just as they have applied to all previous such
> >> exercises:
> >>
> >> "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."
> >>
> >> BT George
>
>
> > I think I see where you are headed with this, B.T., and I don't think
> > that's fair at all. Robert Harris is the most important researcher working
> > in the field today -- just ask him -- and we cannot expect him to be held
> > to the same standards as mere buffs such as ourselves.
> >
> > Here's a perfect example, from back when Bob was operating his own late,
> > lamented web forum, which I would nostalgically describe as having been a
> > cross between the Algonquin Round Table, CROSSFIRE (the CNN show, not the
> > Jim Marrs book) and CROSSFIRE (the book, not the show).
> >
> > At that time a researcher made some pronouncements about some interesting
> > images he saw in the Moorman Polaroid and other photographic evidence. The
> > researcher (let's call him . . . I dunno . . . "Mike R.") suggested that what
> > he saw in these photographs had to be considered representations of pure,
> > objective truth, unless someone could prove him wrong.
> >
> > Bob's response was blunt but fair:
> >
> > <QUOTE ON>-----------------------------
> >
> > It is NOT someone else's responsibility to prove what we all see. It is
> > YOUR responsibility to prove what you assert.
> >
> > If you had confirmation from professional, disinterested analysts, you
> > would then have a case. And you would at least get consideration from
> > serious researchers.
> >
> > But the fact that you refuse to do that, tells us that you realize as well
> > as we do, that there is nothing there.
> >
> > <QUOTE OFF>-----------------------------
> >
> >
> > I made the mistake of trying to hold Bob to the same standard with his
> > Z285 theory (a theory he, oddly enough -- has repeatedly claimed I refuse
> > to discuss with him).
> >
> > Bob pointed out that he DID have "confirmation from professional,
> > disinterested analysts" -- if, by "professional," you mean that the person
> > has a profession, even it's not relevant to the issue of expert
> > interpretation of events in a motion picture film; and if, by
> > "disinterested," you mean someone Bob chose precisely because this
> > individual's publicly stated opinions indicated to Bob that he would be
> > predisposed to favor Bob's point of view; and if, by "several," you mean,
> > er, one. One guy. Who's not a photographic expert. Who was predisposed to
> > favor Bob's point of view.
> >
> > But see, this is what I mean when I say that Bob is obviously above such
> > petty considerations as holding himself to the same standard he would hold
> > anyone else. This is Robert Harris we're talking about, not some
> > run-of-the-mill YouTube conspiracy buff.
> >
> > I was also being grievously naive when I asked Bob to present verifiable
> > measurements to indicate precisely what occurs in the frames of the Z film
> > he considers so vital, and when I quoted a photographic expert from Itek
> > -- a pioneering developer of photographic innovations -- about why
> > objective measurements are so important in that line of work. I was way
> > out of line. I forgot that this is Robert Harris we're talking about, not
> > some silly buff who needs so-called "experts" to back up his novel claims
> > with testable data.
> >
> > "ROFLMAO!" proclaimed Bob, and rightly so. This was such a poor argument
> > on my part, that I can hardly blame him for forgetting it ever occurred
> > (apparently). I mean, how wrong could I possibly be?
> >
> > As embarrassing as these exchanges are to me now, I would reluctantly
> > invite you to check some of them out in order to learn from my folly:
> >
> >
https://groups.google.com/forum/#!topic/alt.assassination.jfk/sirawJDdATg
> >
> >
https://groups.google.com/forum/#!topic/alt.assassination.jfk/_PkyuOx5uqs
> >
> >
https://groups.google.com/forum/#!topic/alt.assassination.jfk/XJRX0yHt0ag
> >
> > And, of course, I never should have implied that Bob's refusal to take my
> > advice "tells us that [Bob realizes] as well as we do, that there is
> > nothing there." It was absurd for me to suggest that, if Bob really, truly
> > believed in his idiosyncratic hypotheses, he would be vigorously seeking
> > the attention of people of real influence in the world -- prominent
> > members of the mainstream media, the Justice Department, his congressman,
> > his senators, etc. -- instead of mindlessly, incessantly, obsessively
> > arguing with the same JFK assassination hobbyists year after year after
> > tedious year.
> >
> > Clearly, I had no idea what I was talking about. I must have been out of
> > my mind with envy over the way he had solved the puzzle of the John F.
> > Kennedy assassination to the satisfaction of the greatest intellect on the
> > planet -- his own.
> >
> > Speaking of things Bob evaded (again, for reasons that couldn't possibly
> > be less than honorable), I would still kind of like to know where Bob got
> > the idea that it was a "fact" that John McAdams, Barb Junkkarinen, and
> > myself had stayed with Steve Bochan at his home in Arlington, Virginia, on
> > at least one occasion, if not more. While I did meet John McAdams for
> > lunch one day in New York City some years back, I have never had the
> > pleasure of meeting Barb or Steve or visiting either of their homes, and I
> > haven't been in Arlington, Virginia, since I was in the sixth grade.
> >
> > But perhaps I'm mistaken about that, too. Who on earth am I to question
> > Bob?
> >
> > Dave
> >
> > <QUOTE OFF>-----------------------------------
(At Bob's request, no snipping.)
Has Bob replied, B.T.?
I'd hate to think he would just ignore your response.
Dave