Was there a shot at Z285?

[Robert Harris]

Dr. Luis Alvarez, who was one of the greatest physicists of the
twentieth century, and a consultant to Bell & Howell (the company that
built Zapruder's camera) determined that Zapruder was startled by a
loud noise, at precisely Zapruder frame 285.

In his papers, Alvarez never expressed even the slightest doubt about
that, although he was quite unsure about the nature of the startling
noise. After acknowledging that frame 285 was too close to the known
shot at 312, for both to have been fired by Oswald, he speculated that
a siren might have been the cause.

But on that theory, Alvarez stated that he was quite uncertain. In
fact, among all the witnesses that day, including those who operated
the sirens, not one claimed that the sirens went on until after the
shooting ended.

Perhaps even more importantly, the overwhelming majority of witnesses
that day, who said the final shots were closely bunched, had no doubts
at all, that they were hearing shots then, and not a siren.

We might still be uncertain about this, were it not for several other
important facts, the first of which is, that Zapruder was not the only
person to be startled by the sharp noise at Z285. Every nonvictim in
the limousine reacted within one third of a second following Z-285, at
precisely the same instant that Zapruder blurred the first in a series
of frames that convinced Alvarez about the noise.

http://jfkhistory.com/shot.gif

Of course, we know that our resident, Warren Commission pitbulls will
see those reactions as totally unrelated to a gunshot, but the key here
has nothing to do with our personal interpretations. Each of the
reactions, by Jackie, Nellie, Kellerman and Greer has a very specific
*beginning* frame. And every one of them began within 1-2 Zapruder
frames (1/18th of a second each), of Zapruder's blurred frames at
Z290-291.

Of course, all five of those startle reactions, which began in the same
sixth of a second, were in reaction to the sharp noise that Alvarez
uncovered.

More proof comes from witnesses like Charles Brehm, who heard the first
of a series of shots as the limo passed "15-20 feet" in front of him -
exactly where it was at Z285. To his left, Jean Hill recalled the limo
as "almost abreast" of her position. Not surprisingly, Jean can be
clearly seen in the Zapruder film, snapping her head at extreme speed,
to her right and then back toward Kennedy, as the limo passes in front
of her. Look at the following animation:

http://jfkhistory.com/mhfull.gif

There is much more about this of course, much of which is covered in
the following article:

http://jfkhistory.com/k/answers.html

Robert Harris

[Drumrolls3]

NO!!!!!!!!!!!

[Russ Burr]

In article <reharris1-2FB5C...@individual.net>, Robert Harris
says...

Boy. I haven't seen this retread in awhile....as usually there wasn't any
shot at Z-285

RB

[Russ Burr]

In article <20040826161035...@mb-m27.wmconnect.com>, Drumrolls3
says...
>
>
> NO!!!!!!!!!!!

Steve, Ditto;-)

All the best.

Russ

mailto:rdc...@netscape.net
>

[Andrew Mason]

Drumrolls3 wrote:
> NO!!!!!!!!!!!
>

Right. It was at z270

Andrew Mason

[Robert Harris]

In article <cglh6...@drn.newsguy.com>,
Russ Burr <Russ_...@newsguy.com> wrote:

"as usually there wasn't any shot at Z-285"??

Wow, so this must be what McAdams meant by a *rebuttal*!!

Robert Harris

>
>
> RB
>
>

[Robert Harris]

In article <20040826161035...@mb-m27.wmconnect.com>,
drumr...@wmconnect.com (Drumrolls3) wrote:

> NO!!!!!!!!!!!
>

More indepth analysis and evidence from the nutters.

And of course, everything that they can't handle is snipped, which of
course, turns out to be everything:-)

Robert Harris

[Robert Harris]

Drumrolls3 wrote:
> NO!!!!!!!!!!!
>

Finally!! I get my comupance with this brilliant, indepth analysis by
our favorite drummer.

Nothing snipped, BTW:-)




Robert Harris

[BT George]

You're right Bob. And since silence is approval, that means you've
convinced even your toughest critics.

Only one thing left to do now as we approach the momentous 50th
anniversary of this horrible event....put the doubts of the American
people to rest and FINALLY achieve a measure of justice for our slain
leader of long ago!

So please tell us Bob:

1) What progress have you made in taking your FACTS to the authorities to
get something done about this?

2) What scientific bodies or journals have you recently submitted your
PROOFS too that have endorsed them or called for further study?

3) What historians, or prominent journalists have you taken your
"irrefutable" evidence to and did you manage to interest them in your
ideas?

4) What EQUIVALENT evidence do you have for your shot at Z285 for
Kennedy’s reaction at Z226?

The American people---not to mention the world and enquiring minds, want
to know!

...Just sayin'.

BT George.

[Robert Harris]

BT George wrote:
> Drumrolls3 wrote:
>> NO!!!!!!!!!!!
>>
>
> Finally!! I get my comupance with this brilliant, indepth analysis by
> our favorite drummer.
>
> Nothing snipped, BTW:-)
>
>
> Robert Harris
>
>
> You're right Bob. And since silence is approval, that means you've
> convinced even your toughest critics.

Silence is not approval. In this case, silence is proof that most of the
people in this forum do not want to address the question of how many
assassins were involved in the attack.







Robert Harris

[Dave Reitzes]

Right, it couldn't possibly be because you've proven for nearly two
decades now that you can't produce the same, exact sort of evidence you'd
quite reasonably expect from anyone else, and you mindlessly attack anyone
who dares disagree with you.

Just a few examples:

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

Dave

"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

"Ad hominem is the absolute admission of utter and total defeat."
-- Robert Harris

[Robert Harris]

Dave Reitzes wrote:
> On Sunday, October 6, 2013 6:44:26 PM UTC-4, Robert Harris wrote:
>> BT George wrote:
>>
>>> Drumrolls3 wrote:
>>
>>>> NO!!!!!!!!!!!
>>
>>>>
>>
>>>
>>
>>> Finally!! I get my comupance with this brilliant, indepth analysis by
>>
>>> our favorite drummer.
>>
>>>
>>
>>> Nothing snipped, BTW:-)
>>
>>>
>>
>>>
>>
>>> Robert Harris
>>
>>>
>>
>>>
>>
>>> You're right Bob. And since silence is approval, that means you've
>>
>>> convinced even your toughest critics.
>>
>>
>>
>> Silence is not approval. In this case, silence is proof that most of the
>>
>> people in this forum do not want to address the question of how many
>>
>> assassins were involved in the attack.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> Robert Harris
>
>
> Right, it couldn't possibly be because you've proven for nearly two
> decades now that you can't produce the same, exact sort of evidence you'd
> quite reasonably expect from anyone else, and you mindlessly attack anyone
> who dares disagree with you.

David, you have been demanding "measurements" that you claim I've failed
to produce, but you will not tell me what measurements you are looking
for. When I asked, you replied,

"The measurements necessary to prove your premise about everyone in the
car appearing to react to an external stimulus at Z285. That's your
premise, isn't it??

I think it's pretty obvious that you have no clue about what you are
demanding:-) If you did, you would have said something specific like, "I
want to see the measurements of how far these people dropped their
heads.", which I answered with a low res gif back in the 90's and again
more recently.

http://jfkhistory.com/angles285.jpg

Or you could have said, "I want to see the measurements which prove that
those people reacted in the same 1/6th of a second.", which I have also
proven, quite clearly.

http://jfkhistory.com/simultaneous.gif

Your demand is nonsensical David. Not only is it ambiguous and
nonspecific, but it is ridiculous to request "measurements" related to
"everyone in the car appearing to react".

Measurements are objective facts, David. Appearance is purely
subjective. Appearance is not subject to measurement. Height, width,
depth, angles, velocity, etc. are, but not appearance.

Now, if you want measurements on something which is tangible and
measureable, I will be happy to comply to the best of my ability. But
please make your request *SPECIFIC*.





Robert Harris

[BT George]

BT George wrote:
> Drumrolls3 wrote:
>> NO!!!!!!!!!!!
>>
>
> Finally!! I get my comupance with this brilliant, indepth analysis by
> our favorite drummer.
>
> Nothing snipped, BTW:-)
>
>
> Robert Harris
>
>
> You're right Bob. And since silence is approval, that means you've
> convinced even your toughest critics.

Silence is not approval. In this case, silence is proof that most of the
people in this forum do not want to address the question of how many
assassins were involved in the attack.


Robert Harris

Silence is actually golden when you *manifestly* have no intention of
doing anything much more significant than your average Internet troll
does. But since you WON'T put your money where your
mouth...err...keyboard is, let give you something else you should be able
to handle with all the free time you have to post the same arguments you
do here day after day after day after day....

You recently asked "nutters" to produce their case for LHO acting alone.
I have no intention or time to regurgitate a tome already in print.
However the essence of Bugliosi's massive book Reclaiming History is
distilled by him into a list of 53 arguments for Oswald's guilt and 32
arguments that he acted alone. For reference, these link to a site where
they are listed---and even---debated:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/11354552

http://www.democraticunderground.com/11354786


I hereby challenge you Bob Harris to take up the same guantlett I laid
down to a real troll Ralph Yates at Amazon who endlessly attacks LN
favorable reviews with what he (claims) to be irrefutable proof of
conspiracy in the JFK case.

***START AMAZON POST***

Thank you for your kind words of "encouragement" Mr. Yates. From what I
have seen you troll around on the reviews of this book and "pounce" on
anyone who dares to agree that Bugliosi presents a pretty strong case for
LHO's sole guilt. I see that you have again followed your typical pattern
in raving about the "coup d'etat", about Alan Dulles, and setting up your
pet "factoid" about the brain weight issue. Tell you what my friend, I
will spend additional time corresponding with you and giving you my take
on your "The brain weight discrepancy proves all my wildest beliefs to be
true scenario." (Though as a little hint "mistakes do happen sometimes.")
but first you will have to answer my challenge.

In my review, I make the rather bold assertion that even if 70% of Vincent
Bugliosi's points against Oswald and against there having been a
conspiracy could be successfully refuted or rendered unimportant by the CT
community, there would still be plenty of good reasons to conclude LHO was
guilty and that there was no conspiracy. My challenge to you: Show me
*convincing* refutation of enough of these points to reduce Bugliosi's
case to ashes & I will engage with your own peculiar obsessions.

What's enough? Well I suggest you plan on whittling it down to single
digits in both lists and then show that whatever's left is pretty
non-compelling. A lot to ask? Maybe. But it shouldn't be too hard to do if
the WC really was the complete Dulles-led scam you seem to believe it was.
...And "no" pointing me to a website maintained by another CTer like James
DiEugenio will not suffice...you should be able to present your own
point-by-point arguments if you are so adamant that there was a conspiracy
in the JFK Case.

***END POST FROM AMAZON***

Well Bob, here is your chance to debunk the *CUMULATIVE* case for LHO's
sole guilt. The floor is yours...

BT George

[Robert Harris]

BT George wrote:
> BT George wrote:
>> Drumrolls3 wrote:
>>> NO!!!!!!!!!!!
>>>
>>
>> Finally!! I get my comupance with this brilliant, indepth analysis by
>> our favorite drummer.
>>
>> Nothing snipped, BTW:-)
>>
>>
>> Robert Harris
>>
>>
>> You're right Bob. And since silence is approval, that means you've
>> convinced even your toughest critics.
>
> Silence is not approval. In this case, silence is proof that most of the
> people in this forum do not want to address the question of how many
> assassins were involved in the attack.
>
>
> Robert Harris
>
>
> Silence is actually golden when you *manifestly* have no intention of
> doing anything much more significant than your average Internet troll
> does.

Sorry BT, but you shouldn't have made that candid admission that no one
has been able to refute my analysis, proving that Oswald did not act alone.

If that's what you think an "average Internet troll" does, then I guess
you've got me pegged:-)

> But since you WON'T put your money where your
> mouth...err...keyboard is,

Umm.. what money are you talking about BT?

> let give you something else you should be able
> to handle with all the free time you have to post the same arguments you
> do here day after day after day after day....
>
> You recently asked "nutters" to produce their case for LHO acting alone.
> I have no intention or time to regurgitate a tome already in print.
> However the essence of Bugliosi's massive book Reclaiming History is
> distilled by him into a list of 53 arguments for Oswald's guilt and 32
> arguments that he acted alone. For reference, these link to a site where
> they are listed---and even---debated:

For the sake of the lurkers and my lack of patience, why don't you just
tell everyone about the best two or three arguments that Oswald acted alone?

As you stated yourself,

"And 'no' pointing me to a website maintained by another CTer like James

DiEugenio will not suffice...you should be able to present your own
point-by-point arguments if you are so adamant that there was a
conspiracy in the JFK Case."

I have posted a zillion "points", right here in the newsgroup. You can
do the same in support of your own theories.

Please be concise and *VERY* specific.



Robert Harris

[Ott Rovgeisha]

Bugliosi has always been a prosecutor, never an objective researcher. His
job was what any prosecutor's job is: to interpret the evidence so as to
prove the defendant guilty. Objectivity does not add into it.

Bugliosi's approach does not impress me at all. I would have been
impressed if he were objective. Bugliosi's book (though very factual and
thorough) just reeks of demagogy, and this is typical for someone like
him.

His main point is that a guy cannot have some 50 pieces of evidence
against him and still be innocent is just one of HUNDREDS of demagogic
ventures in his book.

It is also a well known fact, that if one has too much evidence pointing
towards this person's guilt, then there must be more to the story and
every so often it proves exactly the opposite what people assume.

Oswald was smart enough not to start lying about being in TSBD while the
shots were fired. He was smart enough to have special missions in MC and
smart enough to use demagogy HIMSELF in his famous radio debate. Smart
enough to learn Russian.. NOT an easy task for an American. He was
obviously supported financially by the governmental power for his trip to
USSR. He was familiar of different tactics for not being caught learned in
CAP and MC alone. His favorite hero is a double agent.

And suddenly he is so utterly STUPID to leave some 50 pieces of
ridiculously overwhelming evidence behind him? Ask every unbiased criminal
profiler and he or she would say that it just does NOT add up.

Judging by the personal facts alone, this does not add up at all.

And this is just for starters.

Bugliosi uses "smart by association method": If you believe me (Bugliosi),
the hero, the invincible, then you are a sensible, smart person".

But everybody wants to be smart, sensible...

And all of his evidence is presented through that prism. So after reading
it for a while, I really felt nauseated to be honest.

What is amusing however, is the way he unwittingly presents facts that
actually prove that there is something very wrong with WC conclusions.

Sometimes the best evidence DOES come from the opponents...

[Anthony Marsh]

On 10/8/2013 1:01 PM, Robert Harris wrote:
> BT George wrote:
>> BT George wrote:
>>> Drumrolls3 wrote:
>>>> NO!!!!!!!!!!!
>>>>
>>>
>>> Finally!! I get my comupance with this brilliant, indepth analysis by
>>> our favorite drummer.
>>>
>>> Nothing snipped, BTW:-)
>>>
>>>
>>> Robert Harris
>>>
>>>
>>> You're right Bob. And since silence is approval, that means you've
>>> convinced even your toughest critics.
>>
>> Silence is not approval. In this case, silence is proof that most of the
>> people in this forum do not want to address the question of how many
>> assassins were involved in the attack.
>>
>>
>> Robert Harris
>>
>>
>> Silence is actually golden when you *manifestly* have no intention of
>> doing anything much more significant than your average Internet troll
>> does.
>
> Sorry BT, but you shouldn't have made that candid admission that no one
> has been able to refute my analysis, proving that Oswald did not act alone.
>

Twisted logic. You're trying to put words in people's mouths. Because I am
not allowed to call you a liar and a kook you'll use my silence to claim
that I agree with you.

[Sandy McCroskey]

On 10/8/13 3:13 PM, Ott Rovgeisha wrote:

Actually, Bugliosi has also defended people, in private practice, one
such being Stephanie Stearns, whose trial is recounted in VB's book
(written with Bruce Henderson) "And the Sea Will Tell."

Bugliosi says that though he believes everyone has a right to a lawyer,
he would never defend someone he did not sincerely believe to be
innocent; he is sure, after all, that there are plenty of other lawyers
out there who would not be so scrupulous.

[BT George]

On Tuesday, October 8, 2013 12:01:10 PM UTC-5, Robert Harris wrote:
> BT George wrote:
>
> > BT George wrote:
>
> >> Drumrolls3 wrote:
>
> >>> NO!!!!!!!!!!!
>
> >>>
>
> >>
>
> >> Finally!! I get my comupance with this brilliant, indepth analysis by
>
> >> our favorite drummer.
>
> >>
>
> >> Nothing snipped, BTW:-)
>
> >>
>
> >>
>
> >> Robert Harris
>
> >>
>
> >>
>
> >> You're right Bob. And since silence is approval, that means you've
>
> >> convinced even your toughest critics.
>
> >
>
> > Silence is not approval. In this case, silence is proof that most of the
>
> > people in this forum do not want to address the question of how many
>
> > assassins were involved in the attack.
>
> >
>
> >
>
> > Robert Harris
>
> >
>
> >
>
> > Silence is actually golden when you *manifestly* have no intention of
>
> > doing anything much more significant than your average Internet troll
>
> > does.
>
>
>
> Sorry BT, but you shouldn't have made that candid admission that no one
>
> has been able to refute my analysis, proving that Oswald did not act alone.
>
>

***Lurkers and viewers***

Let's define terms a bit. REFUTE = To DISprove something.
ESTABLISH/CONFIRM = to PROVE something. I did NOT say Robert Harris'
Z285 theory has ever been ESTABLISHED or CONFIRMED. I said it has not
(positively) been REFUTED.

I have also said *repeatedly* that he has *no* REAL HARD CORROBORATING
FORENSIC or BALLISTICAL evidence to support of *his* interpretations of
the meaning and significance of the limo. passengers movements and aspects
of certain witnesses' testimonies.

>
> If that's what you think an "average Internet troll" does, then I guess
>
> you've got me pegged:-)
>
>
>

I said he had no intention of DOING anything more SIGNIFICANT that the
average Internet troll does. *YOU* decide if his repeated spam posting in
this NG and other Forums + a few YouTube videos is in any MEANINFUL way
contributing to furthering his claims to have "absolute" "irrefutible" or
even "highly convincing" prove of conspiracy in this case.

>
>
> > But since you WON'T put your money where your
>
> > mouth...err...keyboard is,
>
>
>
> Umm.. what money are you talking about BT?
>
>
>
>
>
> > let give you something else you should be able
>
> > to handle with all the free time you have to post the same arguments you
>
> > do here day after day after day after day....
>
> >
>
> > You recently asked "nutters" to produce their case for LHO acting alone.
>
> > I have no intention or time to regurgitate a tome already in print.
>
> > However the essence of Bugliosi's massive book Reclaiming History is
>
> > distilled by him into a list of 53 arguments for Oswald's guilt and 32
>
> > arguments that he acted alone. For reference, these link to a site where
>
> > they are listed---and even---debated:
>
>
>
> For the sake of the lurkers and my lack of patience, why don't you just
>
> tell everyone about the best two or three arguments that Oswald acted alone?
>
>

Lurkers and viewers please notice that now he wants to now CHANGE the
subject rather than take up MY challenge. *Interestingly* you will notice
that when others do that to HIM he calls that EVASION. :-)

However, Bob's lack of patience doesn't interest me anymore than mine does
to him. Also, my guess is that most of you are as SICK and TIRED of his
endless Z285 threads and boasting that by it not being DISproved, he has
therefore PROVED it. It seems to have escaped his notice that I have just
linked to 85 points of evidence/argument that CLEARLY include just about
LNer's top 2 or 3 (or 5 or 10) arguments that Oswald acted alone in
killing Kennedy.

Now just what would be GAINED by my listing my personal favorites and
maybe putting them into my own words, is beyond
me...except....Ohhh...that's right! That way HE can turn MY challenge to
HIM back on ME.

Yepper. I *NEVER* would have seen THAT coming. :-)

>
> As you stated yourself,
>
>
>
> "And 'no' pointing me to a website maintained by another CTer like James
>
> DiEugenio will not suffice...you should be able to present your own
>
> point-by-point arguments if you are so adamant that there was a
>
> conspiracy in the JFK Case."
>
>
>
> I have posted a zillion "points", right here in the newsgroup. You can
>
> do the same in support of your own theories.
>
>

So, I link to a couple sights that CONCISELY distill the main points made
by fellow LNer Vince Bugliosi in his massive book Reclaiming History and
Bob thinks there would be something to be GAINED by my taking time to
regurgitate some of those same points again in my own words? NO INDEED.

Let us see Bob Harris---who's certainly had endless TIME to post those
"zillion" points (or more like 5 or 6 main points reposted a ZILLION
times:-))take some of that seemingly endless reservoir of time and take up
MY challenge to HIM. :-)

>
> Please be concise and *VERY* specific.
>
>
>

Sure. When BOB gets *VERY* specific in addressing MY challenge for him to
stop *ISOLATING* the evidence and take on the *CUMULATIVE* case against
Oswald, then I will be a lot more willing to take more of my time (which I
have FREELY admitted is fairly limited at this time) to debate some of
these points with him more *specificaly*. But first, he needs to get
serious with addressing that list.

Heck! If he really could knock down the LN case laid out by VB to a few
unimportant points, then I can guarantee I would be a LOT closer to
granting that Bob's Z285 theory is LIKELY as opposed to merely POSSIBLE.

BT George

[BT George]

TOP POST:

I know and agree that Bugliosi is prosecutor and that that tends to color
his overall approach. Also in my review of his book I "dissed" his
repetative overuse of sarcasm against CT's in general, in what he himself
felt was a scholarly "Magnum Opus".

That having been said, Bugliosi comes as close as just about humanly
possible to covering *ALL* the conpiracy bases either by direct or
indirect argumentation. You can quibble with "this" conclusion, or "this"
piece of evidence, or "that" testimony/observation, presented by Bugliosi.
However, I say that the *CUMULATIVE* case he presents is simply
*overwhelming* against LHO is *very* strong making the case that he acted
alone.

Also, your belief that there was simply "too much" evidence against Oswald
for the case to be honest or that Oswald was too smart to be "that stupid"
is simply not an argument sufficient to overturn the MASS of evidence and
reasons provided by Bugliosi to make the LN case. To put this into
perspective, even if a CT leaning person were to successfully debunk or
minimize 70% of the 85 points VB makes in RC, that would still leave 16
good reasons to believe LHO killed Kennedy and 10 good arguments that he
acted alone.

BT George

[Anthony Marsh]

On 10/8/2013 7:13 PM, BT George wrote:
> On Tuesday, October 8, 2013 2:13:19 PM UTC-5, Ott Rovgeisha wrote:

Maybe you weren't here at the time and did not read the letter I handed to
Bugliosi after his lecture at the Brattle Theater. I called him a liar to
his face and here are a couple of examples:


Vincent Bugliosi

Why do you continue to lie to the public about this case?

It is your lies and those of the other Warren Commission defenders which
have caused 89% of the public to believe it was a conspiracy. The public
sees that you lie about the evidence and thinks that, ?Well, if they are
lying about all the evidence, maybe there really was a conspiracy.

On pages 484-485 you cite the Itek report as proving that JFK's head
snapped forward by 2.3 inches between frames 312 and 313. Several people
have since pointed out their error and that what Itek was really measuring
was the BLUR of frame 313.

You dishonestly misrepresent Josiah Thompson by citing his book Six
Seconds in Dallas. He has since repudiated that study for the same reason
as other researchers have pointed out why the Itek report was wrong. He no
longer believes that there was a head shot from behind. He was impressed
by David Wimp's very careful analysis of the Zapruder film which showed
that EVERYONE in the limo moved forward. Were they all hit by bullets from
behind? His animated GIF allows you to see that the other occupants
continued to move forward after the head shot, especially noticeably
Kellerman. My own study had shown that everyone was moving forward.

Several Warren Commission defenders are confused about when you claim the
Single Bullet Theory shot happened. In your book all your diagrams depict
it at Z-210, but in your endnotes you say frame 223-224. So, which is it?
Or is your claim that frame 210 is exactly the same as frame 224 and
Connally never changed position, despite the fact that he testified that
he was in the process of turning when he was hit?

You are a sloppy researcher. On page 434 you discuss a box seen in photos
of the reinterment and claim that no one knows what it contained and
speculate that it contained the brain. Wrong. You got that CIA
disinformation from Gus Russo. I know, because I bothered to actually
research it. The box had an empty bottom and held nothing. It was placed
over a flower to cover and protect it.

You create a lot of strawman arguments, such as why would the Warren
Commission members cover up a conspiracy for the Mafia, or the CIA or the
KGB. What you withhold from your readers are the Pedro Charles letters and
the fact that they are the reason for the cover-up. Not because they were
genuine (they were a CIA hoax), but because Hoover and LBJ continued to
think they were real and could lead to WWIII. That is the leverage that
LBJ used to blackmail the Warren Commission into participating in the
cover-up.

[Robert Harris]

The problem with your attempts to out me, is that you are always vague
and nonspecific. You *NEVER* address specific issues. For example,

Why don't you address the fact that every surviving passenger in that
limo, reacted simultaneously, with each other and with Abraham Zapruder?
That's *SIX* people BT.

Or the fact that the large majority of witnesses in DP that day,
including four of the limo passengers reported closely bunched shots at
the end of the attack?

Or the fact that only one of the early shots was even noticed by most
witnesses and none of them were loud enough to startle anyone?

Of the limo passengers *NONE* reported hearing more than one shot prior
to the very end or after events that were post-223?

Or the conclusion of both Drs. Alvarez and Stroscio, that there was a
loud, startling noise at 285 and that Zapruder reacted to it at 291 -
*EXACTLY* the same instant when the other reactions began!

Or the fact that Charles Brehm heard the first of three shots at the
very end of the attack, as the limo passed within 15-20 feet of him,
which is exactly where it was at 285? He was corroborated by J Hill and
Mary Moorman who said essentially, the same thing he did.

Or that Greer heard the second and third shots that were almost
simultaneous, or that Kellerman heard a "flurry" of shots or that Mrs.
Kennedy heard two shots after Connally began to shout or that Nellie
heard two shots after looking back at frame 258.

And on and on and on and on.

YOUR theory has *ZERO* evidence to support it and almost zero witness
support - certainly none that can be time stamped in the Zapruder film
or other films and photos.

This is why you have to be vague, isn't it BT?






Robert Harris

[Ott Rovgeisha]

Need i start to mention TENS ans TENS of cases, were people have acted
alone and nobody doubts that?

There are cases where the culprit himself claims he is just a part of a
conspiracy and they are not taken seriously.

There have been presidential murders before and there is no huge
controversy.

So my question is:

If this is really plain and simple, and hundred times proven that the
murder of JFK happened the way the WC presented it happened, then why are
here people who are living their life for the purpose of convincing the
public that Oswald acted alone? Why is there such an amazing effort to
STILL convince people of that. Some efforts are down right pathetic.

If it is so plain and simple, logical and proven, then why is there any
need to still convince people?

I also like the tactics used: if there is only ONE STUPID alternative
theory to the WC's, then it automatically means that EVERY OTHER SINGLE
THEORY is ALSO wrong (wrong to say the least, there are other words used).

This has by far crossed the barrier of honest tactics.

This forum has long reached the point where there is no actual discussion,
open, HONEST discussion.

If someone says: sry, I don't see the reactions after z285, then this is
all they have to say to end the discussion.

It reminds me of cornered culprits. What is the last thing they say, when
it is obvious that they are busted? They say: "where is your evidence? Ha
Ha Ha!".

Underneath that laugh, there is fear, fear of being exposed.

And when the evidence is presented, the next phase is denial and insults.

So sadly, the situation here does not surprise me.

Bugliosi offers LOTS OF THINGS in his book, some of which are really good.
But what it does NOT offer, is sensible proof that would cover all the
aspects of this case, sensible proof that Oswald really did act alone and
really did have this obsession of killing the president of USA.

Criminal profiling and background analysis is very important and very
common in solving crimes. It is widely accepted and regarded as science on
his own. The psychology have to be consistent with the facts: also a very
important aspect.

And this is case is nowhere NEAR consistent with the background of Oswald
or his motives. And this ALONE raises doubts.

I also resent the way there is this tendency to badmouth mr Harris that he
has a "pet theory". I know people who have pet theories, mr Harris is not
one of them.

In fact he has asked for numerous times to debunk him. In this every
forum. To present evidence against his case, to present evidence, NOT
assessments like "I do not know what reactions are you talking about" and
"witnesses are unreliable" etc etc etc. Evidence that would finally make
him run out of arguments. Few have tried and failed. Even more few have
tried. Most of the time there are childish insults.

Many people clearly have personal issues with mr Harris and use that as a
shield.

Robert has stated to me numerous times during our conversations that he is
willing to be wrong and he has talked about the many times he HAS been
mistaken and being open and honest about it. Being mistaken is part of
progress in getting to the right answer.

I have repeatedly asked John McAdams to answer some of the questions
bothering me about this case. Those questions came to me SEPARATELY from
mr Harris. Those questions have been haunting me for some years now.

John McAdams stated that he is not going to answer them, because they are
"Robert Harris like questions". This says something more about mr McAdams
than it does about me or Robert Harris.

This is the answer I get from an honest colleague professor.

I could have been one of his students in his JFK classes asking those
questions.

I wonder what would he do then, when I publicly DURING his lecture, ask
those questions?

It is not too late yet. I could sign up for his classes...

I have discussed these issues with many people by now, and they too, have
similar questions. Most of them have never read any conspiracy literature
or watched any documentaries that talk about JFK.

[Mike]

Josiah Thompson should not have repudiated the shot from behind. There
was a shot from behind but it struck the top of the presidents head, not
the back of the presidents head.

You told Posner that when the public see that he lies about the evidence
they think well there must be something to this conspiracy stuff.

Well, most people when they look at the Zapruder film, intuitively know
that there was a shot from behind. When you tell them there was no such
shot they see that as a statement which conflicts with the evidence.

Josiah Thompson should never have repudiated his statement. He should
have modified his belief that the shot struck near the top of the head
because that is what the evidence indicates. Instead he went overboard
and completely disavowed any shot from behind.

[Robert Harris]

BT George wrote:
> On Tuesday, October 8, 2013 2:13:19 PM UTC-5, Ott Rovgeisha wrote:

Really?

What did he say about these reactions?

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

What did he say about the conclusions of Drs. Alvarez and Stroscio, that
there was a loud noise at frame 285?

What did he say about the overwhelming consensus of the people who
actually heard the shots, that there was only one audible, early shot
and closely bunched shots at the end?

What did he say about Mrs. Connally's statement that she heard the
second shot, after looking back at JFK and about her obvious reaction to
that shot at frame 291??

What did he say about Charles Brehm who heard the first of three shots
as the President was 15-20 feet from him, exactly where he was at 285?

I sent him a presentation on this, long before his book ever came out. I
am still waiting for his reply.




Robert Harris

[BT George]

TOP POST:

Because Bob snipped just about EVERYTHING I said in my last post, I feel
no compulsion to address directly his various questions.

However, I will here highlight the following HILARIOUS statements by Mr.
Harris regarding "my" theory (REALLY the *LN* THEORY) that Lee Harvey
Oswald killed Kennedy and (almost) certainly acted alone.

Bob said:

YOUR theory has *ZERO* evidence to support it and almost zero witness
support - certainly none that can be time stamped in the Zapruder film
or other films and photos.


This is why you have to be vague, isn't it BT?

BT answers:

I think this is probably the most *ludicrous* statement I've ever "heard"
Bob's keyboard "utter"! Does he REALLY think that the LN theory has
*ZERO* evidence and little or no witness support? ...Well having
thoroughly *EVADED* my challenge to tackle the *CUMULATIVE* case against
LHO and for his sole guilt...perhaps he really does believe that.

***Lurkers and Viewers***

Regardless of your opinion about whether the LN theory is actually CORRECT
and regarless of your opinion about any *given* piece of evidence or
*given* argument, I ask you to judge if the following lists can
**honestly** be said to provide *ZERO* evidence for the LN case?

NOTE 1: The raw lists were taken from the website I already linked above,
now imbedded with a few of my own clarifying comments added here and there.

Note 2: These lists are a SUMMARY only. Vince Bugliosi devoted 1,600+
pages and another 900+ pages of endnotes "fleshing" these points out.

Note 3: Keep in mind that Bugliosi's lists are intended to work in
*concert*. The 1st list of 53 reasons for LHO's guilt summarize why the
OVERALL *evidence* suggests that Oswald---and Oswald alone---pulled any
triggers on 11-22-63.

His 2nd list of 32 arguments to reject conspiracy, build on the notion
that the evidence and aguments from the 1st list (especially as fleshed
out in the book) prove beyond ALL doubt that Oswald killed JFK and that
there was no *credible* evidence of other triggermen firing any shots that
day. Thus the anti-conspiracy list focuses *exclusively* on arguments
that there was no larger conspiracy BEHIND Oswald.

-----------------------------Start Lists----------------------------------

Bugliosi: 53 Reasons It Was Lee Harvey Oswald:

(1) Oswald always visited Marina in Irving on a Friday. Nov 21 was the first Thursday visit ever.

(2) Oswald's claim to be getting curtain rods in Irving was an implausible lie.

(3) Oswald told Frazier he would NOT be coming back to Irving on Friday night.

(4) That night Oswald avoided Kennedy talk with Marina, a subject it was their custom to discuss.

(5) Friday morning, Oswald left almost all his cash and his wedding ring in Irving.

(6) On Friday morning, Oswald placed a long paper-wrapped package in the back seat of Frazier's car.

(7) Frazier noticed that for the first time on a return trip from Irving, Oswald brought no lunch.

(8) On arrival at the TSBD, Oswald walked faster and ahead of Frazier for the first time ever.

(9) For the first time ever, Oswald didn't read the paper in the TSBD domino room.

(10) Oswald's pretense with a co-worker that he didn't know JFK's route

(11) Howard Brennan saw Lee Harvey Oswald fire the third shot that killed the President.

(12) Kennedy's assassin was at the now-infamous sixth-floor window.

(13) During interrogation, Oswald put himself on the sixth floor at the time of the assassination.

(14) Oswald's story of getting a Coke after hearing commotion of assassination is not sensible.

(15) It makes no sense that Oswald the "political animal" had no interest in the President's death.

(16) After the assassination, only Oswald missed a roll call at the TSBD.

(17) Oswald walked past his normal bus stop and walked seven blocks to board a different line.

(18) Oswald left the Marsalis bus when it got caught in traffic.

(19) Oswald's not speaking to the cab driver about the assassination is striking.

(20) Oswald had the cab drive past his residence, dropping him off down the road.

(21) Oswald's behavior at his boarding house indicates a flight in progress.

(22) Oswald retrieved his revolver at the rooming house.

(23) In addition to getting a coat and his gun, Oswald changed trousers.

(23a) Oswald's clipboard was found later. He'd filled no orders. He'd done no TSBD work that day.

***NOTE*** The above NOT one of Bugliosi's main points, but to me it speaks (circumstantial) VOLUMES as to Oswald's REAL activities the morning of 11-22-63.

(24) Lee Harvey Oswald murdered J.D. Tippit.

(Witnessed directly or indirectly by several witnesses.)

(25) A store manager saw Oswald evading police sirens in front of his store.

(27) When approached by police in the Texas Theater, Oswald said "Well, it is all over now."

(Or he said something to that effect.)

(28) Oswald then fought the police and tried to pull his revolver out.

(29) After arrest, Oswald refused to even give his name to arresting officers.

(30) Oswald made a clenched-fist salute to reporters. (A political gesture is support of Marxism is the argument VB is employing.)

(31) Oswald refused a lie detector test.

(32) After visiting him on Saturday, Marina came away convinced of Oswald's guilt.

(33) Oswald's Mannlicher-Carcano rifle was found on the sixth floor of the TSBD.

(34) The mostly intact bullet (CE 399) and two of the fragments (CE567 and CE569) were fired from this rifle.

(35) The three expended shells on the sixth floor were "fired in and ejected from" Oswald's rifle.

(36) A handmade paper bag large enough to carry Oswald's rifle was found in the sniper's nest.

(37) Oswald's prints were found on boxes that comprised the sniper's nest.

(38) Oswald was the sole owner of the revolver found in his possession on arrest.

(39) The bullets recovered from Tippit's body were consistent with being fired from Oswald's .38.

(40) The four cartridge shells found at the Tippit murder scene were fired from Oswald's revolver.

(41) A paraffin test on Oswald's hands showed he'd fired a revolver just before his arrest.

(42) Oswald left his blue jacket behind in the TSBD.

(43) Oswald's tan jacket was found along the path Tippit's killer took.

(44) Oswald's work clipboard was found on the sixth floor of the TSBD.

(45) Oswald lied about owning a rifle, and about owning the Mannlicher-Carcano specifically.

(46) Oswald lied about being in the backyard photo where he was holding his rifle.

(47) Oswald lied about having seen the picture before.

(48) Oswald lied about living at the place where the picture with the rifle was taken.

(49) Oswald lied about telling Wesley Frazier the curtain rod story. n/t

(50) Oswald lied about putting a long package into Frazier's car that morning.

(51) Oswald told police the only thing he'd brought to work that morning was his lunch.

(52) Oswald lied about having lunch on the first floor with two other employees.

(53) Oswald lied about where he'd bought his revolver.


***Now kind Viewers and Lurkers.***

Let us review the list of reasons Bugliosi summarized for rejecting the notion that Oswald was part of a conspiracy. Again *YOU* decide if this looks like *ZERO* reasons to believe the LN theory:


32 Reasons and Arguments There Was No Conspiracy Behind Oswald Killing Kennedy

(1) There is no credible evidence, direct or circumstantial, that any suspected group actually did.

(VB makes the case that this so in his tome, taking on the CIA, FBI, Mob, KGB, Castro, Anti-Castro, Military-Industrial Complex, et. al. arguments.)

(2) Any entertainment of a conspiracy by them would have been "reckless, irrational, and dangerous."

(In short, killing the President of the USA is NOT like killing the mayor of Peoria or the president of your average Banana Republic.)

(3) Since there's no credible evidence against the "usual suspects," who else?

(4) The implausibility of keeping such a conspiracy secret.

(5) The complexity of any proposed JFK assassination conspiracy argues against it working.

(6) If Oswald was part of a conspiracy, they waited a long time to bring him aboard.

(7) Oswald's conduct in the month before the assassination (until Nov 19) precludes a conspiracy.

(8) Oswald's actions on the evening of November 22 preclude a conspiracy.

(9) Oswald wasn't the kind of person anyone would hire to be the point person.

(10) Oswald wasn't the kind of person who would work with or for a conspiracy.

(11) Those who then knew Oswald and Ruby rejected the idea either acted in concert with others.

(12) The Warren Commission's conclusions were supported by JFK's brothers and son.

(13) Oswald never showed any evidence of having a mysterious source of money.

(14) Oswald's rifle is evidence of no conspiracy.

(Adequate for the job, but FAR from ideal as an assassination weapon of choice.)

(15) No group would have let Oswald use a rifle so easily traceable to him.

(16) Any group who hired Oswald would want him to escape, but no silencer?

(17) The use of a military rifle that could not use soft-point bullets argues against conspiracy.

(18) Conspirators would not have chosen someone with Oswald's shooting expertise.

(19) Oswald had no track record as a hit man with any suspected organization.

(20) Oswald's attempt to kill Edwin Walker argues against conspiracy.

(No discernible commonality of purpose for this attempted killing of a right wing political figure and a left-wing leaning JFK. The same cannot be said so easily of LHO's motives that were extreme left-wing---thus opposed to Walker---yet also pro-Marxist and Castro---thus opposed by JFK who was obviously an enemy of both these causes.)

(21) Oswald's desire to blow up the Dallas FBI office argues against conspiracy.

(22) Oswald would not have done anything to draw attention to himself before the hit.

(23) Oswald's many applications for employment in October preclude a conspiracy.

(24) Oswald could easily have been assigned to a different TSBD building.

(25) Oswald applied for another job at the beginning of November.

(26) The oft-noted tree in Oswald's sight line argues against conspiracy.

(27) Oswald's extreme isolation in the weeks before the assassination argue against conspiracy.

(28) A conspiracy would have made sure Oswald was unavailable for any interrogation.

(29) Oswald not bringing his revolver to work on Thursday is evidence of his acting alone.

(30) Oswald never offering to turn state's evidence supports no conspiracy.

(31) Almost all of the "usual suspects" would have to have enlisted the others.

(32) Oswald had no extensive contact with any of the "usual suspects."


-------------------------------END LISTS----------------------------------

Again I ask *REGARDLESS* of your feelings for/against a conspiracy, is it really fair---or even sensible---for Bob Harris to claim that there is *ZERO* evidence for the LN case? I wouldn't make that claim except against the very most *numbskull* of CT arguments and it reeks of intellectual dishonesty when someone tries to make it against the basic LN claim.

BT George

[BT George]

Ott,

What can I say? If you don't see Z285 and many of Bob's various "Attack
in Dealey Plaza" theories as his own "pet theories" then you've simply
have failed to appreciate how FEW people whether LNers OR CT's at ANY
forum have come to adopt them or be won over to them. Indeed the lack of
converts in the CT Research community is STUNNING given how many theories
that IMO are far more CRACKPOT have generally received much wider
support.

Of course, all that alone proves nothing. Perhaps he/you really are onto
something. Say. Since you seem to have a the closest relationship with
him of anyone on this site, I have a suggestion. Could you please kindly
help our viewers and lurkers understand the answers to a few questions
that an honest researcher like Bob Harris would *surely* be willing to
cover in a clear and credible manner if "only" he could find the time
between Z posts?

Specifically, as we approach the 50th anniversary of this horrible event,
please answer the following so that they can understand just what
effective actions Bob is "doubtless" undertaking EVEN NOW to finally end
this whole sole assassin travesty and obtain justice for Kennedy and the
American people he served valiantly for much of his short life:

1) What progress have you made in taking your FACTS to the authorities to
get something done about this?

2) What scientific bodies or journals have you recently submitted your
PROOFS too that have endorsed them or called for further study?

3) What historians, or prominent journalists have you taken your
"irrefutable" evidence to and did you manage to interest them in your
ideas?

4) What EQUIVALENT evidence do you have for your shot at Z285 for
Kennedy’s reaction at Z226?

Note: I left in number 4 'cause even though YOU once admitted there really
is no equivalent evidence, *BOB* never has. Maybe you can speak for him
and kindly tell the viewers and lurkers why you thing that is? Much
obliged!

BT George

[BT George]

On Wednesday, October 9, 2013 5:39:30 PM UTC-5, Robert Harris wrote:
> BT George wrote:
>

SNIPPAGE

>
> > TOP POST:
>
> >
>
> > I know and agree that Bugliosi is prosecutor and that that tends to color
>
> > his overall approach. Also in my review of his book I "dissed" his
>
> > repetative overuse of sarcasm against CT's in general, in what he himself
>
> > felt was a scholarly "Magnum Opus".
>
> >
>
> > That having been said, Bugliosi comes as close as just about humanly
>
> > possible to covering *ALL* the conpiracy bases either by direct or
>
> > indirect argumentation.
>
>
>
> Really?
>
>
>
> What did he say about these reactions?
>
>
>
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7GH5pGQy6yI
>
>
>
> What did he say about the conclusions of Drs. Alvarez and Stroscio, that
>
> there was a loud noise at frame 285?
>
>

Well Bob. I've honestly not memorized EVERY one of the claims he
*directly* takes on in RH, but it numbers in the hundereds AT LEAST.
However, I'm quite sure Z285 was not even on his radar screen to take on
*directly*. Why?

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?

However, he does address some of the key underlying basis' for your theory
indirectly:

1) He notes the lack of HARD CORROBORATING FORENSIC OR BALLISTICAL
evidence for any other shooters than Oswald.

2) He rejects "Startle Reactions" as a sufficiently reliable film analysis
technique for making definitive conclusions about when shots were fired in
the Z film. This comes from a footnote in Reclaiming History that's
already been pointed out to you before by DVP (first) in this thread:

https://groups.google.com/forum/#!msg/alt.conspiracy.jfk/QPLrhg7_xrQ/L3p7wkYXWAoJ

The relevant footnote---which you summarily dismissed in the above with a
little ad hominem (THE UTTER ADMISSION OF DEFEAT I ONCE HEARD QUOTED.)
against Bugliosi :-)---is as follows:

"The CBS experiment [in 1967] proves that a gunshot will
normally cause a cameraman’s neuromuscular system to go into, as Dr.
[Luis] Alvarez put it, “a temporary spasm.”

"So the three gunshots that day [November 22, 1963] would have
almost assuredly caused a startled reaction in Zapruder and, hence, a
blur on his film. And we find blurs around Z160 (the first shot),
around Z220–228 (which clearly coincides with Kennedy’s and Connally’s
reactions to the second shot), and Z313 (the third shot).

"The demonstrable defect in blur or jiggle analysis is that
although a gunshot will produce a blur (and hence, the absence of a
blur is very strong circumstantial evidence of the absence of a
gunshot), a blur obviously does not necessarily have to be caused by a
gunshot.

"Any number of other things--a cough, an unintentional nudge
(Zapruder’s secretary was right next to him), a gust of wind, movement
of Zapruder’s feet, even his efforts to keep an object in frame--could
also cause a blur.

"Zapruder himself testified before the Warren Commission that
his images weren’t very clear for the simple reason that his camera
movements were magnified by the telephoto lens setting he was using.
“Did you ever have binoculars,” he asked, “and every time you move,
everything is exaggerated in the move? That’s one reason why they’re
kind of blurred, the movement” (7 H 572).

"Further, the emotional reaction of what one sees through the
viewfinder could also easily cause a startled reaction. Indeed,
Zapruder testified how he reacted to the sight of the impact of the
bullet on Kennedy’s head (“I started...yelling, ‘They’ve killed
him.’”) (7 H 571–572).

"This would explain the fact that Alvarez, Hartmann, and Scott
all detected blurs in the Zapruder film not only around the time of
the head shot at Z313, but also around Z330–334, a second later, when
he was fully absorbing the horrific sight of the president’s head
having exploded in front of him.

"In fact, though the overwhelming weight of the evidence shows
that only three shots were fired in Dealey Plaza, the two experts from
the HSCA photographic panel saw six blurs on the Zapruder film, the
weakest of which was around Z290–292, a time when there is no evidence
at all that a shot was fired (6 HSCA 30).

"Because of all of the above variables and imponderables, and
because there is no known way to distinguish a blur or jiggle caused
by an involuntary reaction from one caused by, for instance, a
voluntary pan/search movement, blur or jiggle analysis can never be
conclusive on the number or timing of the shots fired in Dealey Plaza
and should not be given great weight." -- Vincent Bugliosi; Pages
335-336 of "Reclaiming History: The Assassination Of President John F.
Kennedy" (Endnotes)(c.2007)

---------------------------End Footnote---------------------------------

It really was a fascinating book. I didn't agree with everything in it
either. But Bob. Why don't you stop your mindless posting of the
10,278th set of "facts" for the "shot" at Z285 and do what you should
EASILY be able to do with a goofball like VB who in your own words "can
barely spell Physics, let alone understand it"?

Come on. Right here. Right now. Start taking on the *CUMULATIVE* case he
makes in favor of the LN conclusion. Should be like taking candy from a
baby since, as you so "honestly" noted there's *ZERO* evidence for it!
:-)

Yepper. Here he goes folks.... Right Bob? :-)

BT George
k

[Anthony Marsh]

Not exactly. I quoted my letter to Bugliosi. I did not have handy all my
messages to Posner. I think they are in storage or on an old Commodore 64
disk. It would take several years to find them. The general thrust of my
criticism of Posner at the time he was writing his book was that he was so
new to the subject that he would need to do many more years of research.

> Well, most people when they look at the Zapruder film, intuitively know
> that there was a shot from behind. When you tell them there was no such
> shot they see that as a statement which conflicts with the evidence.
>

Which shot from behind? YOu didn't specify head shot.

> Josiah Thompson should never have repudiated his statement. He should
> have modified his belief that the shot struck near the top of the head
> because that is what the evidence indicates. Instead he went overboard
> and completely disavowed any shot from behind.
>

Nonsense. You didn't even bother watching David Wimp's presentation or
read my article.

http://www.the-puzzle-palace.com/headshot.txt

[Mike]

I analyzed David Wimps presentation and I think I might be the only person
who has taken the time to do that.
https://groups.google.com/forum/#!topic/alt.conspiracy.jfk/aBW_0i4qCoo

Most of David Wimp's presentation is gone from the Internet. I put my
calls out to Josiah Thompson and others to get a copy of it but I got no
response.

There were TWO shots to the head. The acoustic evidence is WRONG.

The photographic evidence shows there were two shots to the head.

You over-reatcted to the conclusions of the acoustic analysis.

I will be saying more on this in the future.

I will repeat, Josiah Thompson and You should not have repudiated the shot
at 313 coming from behind. That was a mistake. It did come from behind but
it came from above as well. It struck the President on the top of his
head. It pushed the head down and forward. The second shot struck the head
280 milli-seconds later.

[Dave Reitzes]

On Wednesday, October 9, 2013 9:11:26 PM UTC-4, BT George wrote:
> TOP POST:
>
>
>
> Because Bob snipped just about EVERYTHING I said in my last post, I feel
>
> no compulsion to address directly his various questions.
>
>
>
> However, I will here highlight the following HILARIOUS statements by Mr.
>
> Harris regarding "my" theory (REALLY the *LN* THEORY) that Lee Harvey
>
> Oswald killed Kennedy and (almost) certainly acted alone.
>
>
>
> Bob said:
>
>
>
> YOUR theory has *ZERO* evidence to support it and almost zero witness
>
> support - certainly none that can be time stamped in the Zapruder film
>
> or other films and photos.
>
>
>
>
>
> This is why you have to be vague, isn't it BT?

Just a little note before your response, B.T.

Bob references the intriguing concept of eyewitness testimony that can be
"time stamped in the Zapruder film." This is hardly an original concept of
Bob's, but it deserves a mention.

I believe he's referring to an attempt to link a specific piece of
photographic evidence, like a photograph or a frame or portion of a motion
picture -- with something an eyewitness has said. For example, if Witness
X says he heard a shot when the limousine was in a certain position, and
we can identify that position, more or less, in a piece of evidence like
the Z film, then -- voila! -- we have now "time-stamped" the gunshot and
the Z film.

Unfortunately, there is no such thing as "time-stamped" evidence. As
decades of research has shown, witnesses cannot reliably recall such
details as specific moments in time when an event occurred, or the proper
sequence of events in a series of incidents. See some of the examples and
resources cited here:

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

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

That's one reason you can use the many eyewitness statements to support
practically any hypothesis you want to about the shooting -- all you have
to do is cherry-pick the witnesses who fit your hypothesis. And if they
don't fit all that well, just fudge a little. (Why not? Bob certainly
does, and he's the most honest person around, according to him.)

You want to prove the first shot missed? Cite witnesses who thought the
first shot missed. (Anyone need a repost?)

You want to prove the second or third shots missed? Cite the witnesses
that support either or those cases.

You want to prove there were more than three shots? No problem -- there
are a few witnesses to back you up. You want to prove there were only two
shots? No problem -- even more people heard only two shots than heard more
than three.

You want to prove the shots came from the front of the car? No problem.
You want to prove the shots came from in back of the car? No problem. You
want to prove the shots came from right inside the car? Can do -- there
are three witnesses you can use to prove that. You want to say the shots
came from more than one direction? You can do that, too.

John McAdams discusses this in his excellent book, JFK ASSASSINATION
LOGIC. Bob could learn a lot from that book, but something tells me it's
not on his Amazon.com Wish List.

Okay, back to you, B.T.

Dave

[Dave Reitzes]

That's one possibility, of course. Another is that, by his own admission, Bugliosi doesn't use a computer or conduct research on the internet. Therefore I am grateful that someone sent him hard copies of some of my own internet research articles, a few of which he cites in his book, and which -- pardon me if I sound immodest -- led him to call me one of the most important researchers in our field. (I promise it's not going to my head TOO much. I mean, Jim DiEugenio and James Fetzer made the list, too.)

So it's very possible that Bugliosi has never even heard of Bob Harris. Perhaps Bob just wasn't as lucky as I was. Or, perhaps, you're right that no one of any significance is impressed with Bob's research or hypotheses. This would explain why no pro-conspiracy book or documentary I'm aware of has cited Bob's arguments, with which he's been flogging every hobbyist in sight for almost 20 years.

I mean -- again, not to sound immodest -- but my research has been cited in at least half a dozen books (only one of which was authored by John McAdams, BTW \:^) and I don't even claim to have discovered anything original or particularly important. (Hell, even my early, pro-conspiracy research has been cited in at least a couple of books.) Several other researchers at this newsgroup have been anthologized or cited in prominent books, including Pamela Brown and Anthony Marsh. A number of internet-based researchers have presented at one or more JFK assassination conferences. Has Bob ever been invited to speak at COPA or NID, for example? Will he be speaking at Cyril Wecht's symposium in Pittsburgh or any of the other conferences going on this most important anniversary?

Bob says he's cracked the case wide open. EVERYONE should be talking about his landmark work. So how can it be that nobody agrees with him? Why is he badgering you and me, of all the people in the world, to validate him?

Maybe Bob should call Vincent Bugliosi and ask him personally what the snub was all about. Maybe he can even win Vince over, and then Vince can write a 10,000-page book about HIM.

Wouldn't that be wonderful? RECLAIMING BULLSHIT, he can call it.

Back to you, B.T.

[Robert Harris]

BT George wrote:
> On Wednesday, October 9, 2013 5:39:30 PM UTC-5, Robert Harris wrote:
>> BT George wrote:
>>
> SNIPPAGE
>>
>>> TOP POST:
>>
>>>
>>
>>> I know and agree that Bugliosi is prosecutor and that that tends to color
>>
>>> his overall approach. Also in my review of his book I "dissed" his
>>
>>> repetative overuse of sarcasm against CT's in general, in what he himself
>>
>>> felt was a scholarly "Magnum Opus".
>>
>>>
>>
>>> That having been said, Bugliosi comes as close as just about humanly
>>
>>> possible to covering *ALL* the conpiracy bases either by direct or
>>
>>> indirect argumentation.
>>
>>
>>
>> Really?
>>
>>
>>
>> What did he say about these reactions?
>>
>>
>>
>> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7GH5pGQy6yI
>>
>>
>>
>> What did he say about the conclusions of Drs. Alvarez and Stroscio, that
>>
>> there was a loud noise at frame 285?
>>
>>
>
> Well Bob. I've honestly not memorized EVERY one of the claims he
> *directly* takes on in RH, but it numbers in the hundereds AT LEAST.
> However, I'm quite sure Z285 was not even on his radar screen to take on
> *directly*. Why?

Good question, since I sent him a presentation on 285, on CD long before
his book came out.

Not surprisingly, he refused to reply:-)

>
> 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 and the vast majority of
people who rated my videos, gave me approvals.

But why do you care?

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.

How do you explain the fact that most witnesses only heard one of the
earlly shots, prior to the very end of the attack?

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?

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?

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?

I have asked you these questions many times before. Why don't you go
ahead and answere them now, David?

In fact, let's hold the presses and give you a chance to post
*specific*, and (hopefully) concise answers to those questions.




Robert Harris

(Please do not snip any text. I can't stand the whining)

[BT George]

No Bob. The purpose of engagement is to actually accomplish something.
There is not a single argument from you that has not been posted and
reposted (literally I am sure) 1,000 or more on this very NG. There are
probably few counter arguments that have not been posted at LEAST hundreds
of times as well.

You have screamed time and time for me (and others) to get specific and
each time I have you usually flatly reject any counter notions and *EVADE*
what you have no good counter to. **The lurkers and viewers here are very
well able to see this for themselves.** It is to *THEM* and their good
judgement that I leave the IMMENSE body of interaction that already exists
between us and between you and others to draw the following conclusions:

1) Does Robert Harris have GOOD, HARD, CORROBORATING EVIDENCE, befitting
the acceptance and certainty he demands for his theories?

2) Does he behave consistently honestly and forthrightly with valid
objections?

3) Is debating him in any great detail worth the effort after 15-20 years
of his declaring that he has found "irrefutable" proof of conspiracy in
the Z film and having found little to no support for his ideas?

4) Does he have any REAL intention of putting his money where his mouth is
by addressing the following reasonable questions, showing concrete
actions?

1) What progress have you made in taking your FACTS to the authorities to
get something done about this?

2) What scientific bodies or journals have you recently submitted your
PROOFS too that have endorsed them or called for further study?

3) What historians, or prominent journalists have you taken your
"irrefutable" evidence to and did you manage to interest them in your
ideas?

4) What EQUIVALENT evidence do you have for your shot at Z285 for
Kennedy’s reaction at Z226?

I am sure effective action is even now OTW!


BT George

[Sandy McCroskey]

On 10/10/13 11:23 AM, Robert Harris wrote:
> In fact, let's hold the presses and give you a chance to post
> *specific*, and (hopefully) concise answers to those questions.

You want Dave to be both "specific" and "(hopefully) concise" when he
replies, which may be mutually contradictory requests. In any case, since
you ask him to be detailed ("specific") in his response, isn't it a bit
much to also suggest that he should be as brief as possible ("concise")?
Isn't it especially impertinent coming from Robert Harris?

I suppose you know (well, maybe not...) that something shorter can take
more time to write than something long.

This is aside from the fact that Dave has repeatedly answered each and
every one of your questions as specifically as a reasonable person could
expect.

[Anthony Marsh]

Absolutely worthless. They also approve the cat playing the piano.

[Robert Harris]

Dave Reitzes wrote:
> On Wednesday, October 9, 2013 9:11:26 PM UTC-4, BT George wrote:
>> TOP POST:
>>
>>
>>
>> Because Bob snipped just about EVERYTHING I said in my last post, I feel
>>
>> no compulsion to address directly his various questions.
>>
>>
>>

v>> However, I will here highlight the following HILARIOUS statements by

Mr.
>>
>> Harris regarding "my" theory (REALLY the *LN* THEORY) that Lee Harvey
>>
>> Oswald killed Kennedy and (almost) certainly acted alone.
>>
>>
>>
>> Bob said:
>>
>>
>>
>> YOUR theory has *ZERO* evidence to support it and almost zero witness
>>
>> support - certainly none that can be time stamped in the Zapruder film
>>
>> or other films and photos.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> This is why you have to be vague, isn't it BT?
>
>
> Just a little note before your response, B.T.
>
> Bob references the intriguing concept of eyewitness testimony that can be
> "time stamped in the Zapruder film." This is hardly an original concept of
> Bob's, but it deserves a mention.
>
> I believe he's referring to an attempt to link a specific piece of
> photographic evidence, like a photograph or a frame or portion of a motion
> picture -- with something an eyewitness has said. For example, if Witness
> X says he heard a shot when the limousine was in a certain position, and
> we can identify that position, more or less, in a piece of evidence like
> the Z film, then -- voila! -- we have now "time-stamped" the gunshot and
> the Z film.
>
> Unfortunately, there is no such thing as "time-stamped" evidence. As
> decades of research has shown, witnesses cannot reliably recall such
> details as specific moments in time when an event occurred, or the proper
> sequence of events in a series of incidents.

David, you are totally off the mark - surprise, surprise:-)

Your difficulties with analytical issues like this are legendary. If you
really want to understand me, you can simply send me an email and I will
do my best to help you out.

The concept here is really quite simple. When a witness describes a
particular event related to the shooting, it is often important to "time
stamp" that part of his or her testimony - that is, to determine *when*
the event took place.

For example, Mrs. Connally said she looked back and saw JFK in distress,
just prior to hearing a shot that she believed, wounded her husband. We
can time stamp that event by studying her in the Zapruder film and
confirm that she looked back at about frame 258.

We can also time stamp her reaction to that shot in which she said she
turned back to her husband and pulled him to her. That happened at
precisely frame 291, when she reacted in perfect unison with every other
surviving passenger in the limo.

Kellerman said he heard a "flurry" of shots at the end of the attack. We
can time stamp that event by watch his startle reactions which began
within an eighteenth of a second of Nellie's.

http://jfkhistory.com/kellerman2.gif

Greer said the second and third shots were fired "just simultaneously,
one behind the other". We can time stamp his reactions to both of those
shots in the Zapruder film, as he spun around at almost inhuman speed,
in unison with the other passengers, within a third of a second
following 285 and then 313.

There are many others. For example, we can time stamp events in the
Altgens photo which confirm that several Secret Service agents have not
not yet completed actions which preceded two gunshots, which obviously,
were the ones at 285 and 313.

SA Warren Taylor said that as he stepped out of the car he heard two
more shots. But we can see that by 255, when the Altgens photo was
snapped, he has not yet stepped out.

http://jfkhistory.com/altgenswitnesses.jpg

SA George Hickey said he heard a noise and then turned to look to the
rear, before turning back to the front to examine the President. Only
then did he hear two shots. But in the Altgens photo we can time-stamp
his turn to the rear which is quite obvious. So he is yet to turn back
toward the President and yet to hear those two shots which he described
as having "almost no time element" between them.

SA Glen Bennett said he was looking off to his right when he heard a
noise. Sometime after that, he also turned to the front and like Hickey,
heard two more shots, stating "A second shot followed immediately". But
in the Altgens photo (frame 255), we can see him still looking to his
right and is yet to turn to the front and hear the two shots that he
described.

David, I hope that helps in your understanding of what I mean by "time
stamping". The process is quite simple, but incredibly important in
determining when the shots were fired.

In almost 20 years, I have yet to see a single case in which actions or
witnesses can be time stamped in support of Posner/WC theory which
includes the early shots being closer together than the final ones - not
even one.






Robert Harris

[Anthony Marsh]

You didn't ask me. I put it on my Web site.

[Lanny]

On Thursday, October 10, 2013 11:23:45 AM UTC-4, Robert Harris wrote:

>
>
>
> 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?
>

False positives.

>
> In fact, let's hold the presses and give you a chance to post
>
> *specific*, and (hopefully) concise answers to those questions.
>
>

Done.

>
>
>
>
>
>
> Robert Harris
>
>
>
> (Please do not snip any text. I can't stand the whining)

Too bad.

[Dave Reitzes]

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

[Dave Reitzes]

That's flattering. I had no idea I was a legend.

If you
>
> really want to understand me, you can simply send me an email and I will
>
> do my best to help you out.
>
>
>
> The concept here is really quite simple. When a witness describes a
>
> particular event related to the shooting, it is often important to "time
>
> stamp" that part of his or her testimony - that is, to determine *when*
>
> the event took place.

You seem to be dodging the point I made in my previous post, Bob. I'm sure
it's not intentional.

Post your proof for the idea that such "time-stamping" can be considered
reliable.

Be specific, and cite your expert sources.

As soon as you do, we can proceed.

Dave

"There is no question an honest man will evade."
-- Robert Harris

[Sandy McCroskey]

On 10/10/13 5:22 PM, Sandy McCroskey wrote:
> On 10/10/13 11:23 AM, Robert Harris wrote:
>> In fact, let's hold the presses and give you a chance to post
>> *specific*, and (hopefully) concise answers to those questions.
>
> You want Dave

Excuse me, you were actually talking to BT here.
Easy to get confused.

[Robert Harris]

In article <5256...@mcadams.posc.mu.edu>,

Sandy McCroskey <gwmcc...@earthlink.net> wrote:

> On 10/10/13 11:23 AM, Robert Harris wrote:
> > In fact, let's hold the presses and give you a chance to post
> > *specific*, and (hopefully) concise answers to those questions.
>
> You want Dave to be both "specific" and "(hopefully) concise" when he
> replies, which may be mutually contradictory requests.

If you had read more of his posts, you'd know that David is one of those
types who never uses three words when a hundred will suffice:-)




Robert Harris

[Sandy McCroskey]

Pot, meet kettle.

[Ott Rovgeisha]

Actually, mr Reitzes, that copy paste long text does no good, most people
just skip it, they really do.

You should stop that kind of thing, because it says more about you than
Robert Harris.

And it is so typical to say things:

"what startle reactions?, Bob STOP DREAMING."
"this is not a fact that is a hypothesis"
"I do not see any reactions at all"
etc etc

Mr Marsh says the same thing essentially.
His counter arguments are like this:

"NO!"
"Not true"
etc

As for z285...

Most people agree that there are some very peculiar movements exhibited by
the people in the limo. Virtually EVERYBODY sees them. All of my students,
all of my colleagues. Nobody denies seeing them. Most of them explain them
as:

"strange twitches as if there were frames missing from the film"

10 of my students actually asked about Greer:
"what is wrong with this guy, why is he jerking like that?"

Today, during my lecture, I posed a question:

"Too bad the Z-film is silent.
How on earth could we determine when there were shots fired.

Any ideas?"

And couple of people (young people) actually said this: "Riffle shots are
very loud. Maybe we could see people shake or twitch in response of that"

Funny they would propose a thing like that and here are grown-ups saying
things like: "what reactions?".

To say that there are no reactions, is a bit strange to be honest.

It is only a desperate argument by a defense attorney of a culprit who is
OBVIOUSLY guilty that "we cannot convict him, because we are not really
sure that the victim himself / herself did not run into his / her knife"

Another desperate argument is that perhaps it was something else that
caused those reactions, not gunshots.. Yeah...sure.. in the middle of the
assassination and considering the witness testimony of those VERY PEOPLE
who reacted...

[Anthony Marsh]

Tourette Syndrome.

[Dave Reitzes]

On Thursday, October 10, 2013 5:30:16 PM UTC-4, Robert Harris wrote:

> Dave Reitzes wrote:
> > On Wednesday, October 9, 2013 9:11:26 PM UTC-4, BT George wrote:
> >> TOP POST:
> >> Because Bob snipped just about EVERYTHING I said in my last post, I feel
> >> no compulsion to address directly his various questions.

Bob,

When I Google the term "time stamp," this is what I find:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timestamp


<QUOTE ON>-------------------

A timestamp is a sequence of characters or encoded information identifying
when a certain event occurred, usually giving date and time of day,
sometimes accurate to a small fraction of a second.

[...]

Other meanings

Timestamp can also refer to:

A time code (in networking or video technology)

Unix time, the number of seconds since 00:00:00 UTC on January 1, 1970

ICMP Timestamp

A digitally signed timestamp whose signer vouches for the existence of the
signed document or content at the time given as part of the digital
signature

The modification or access time of a file or directory in a computer file
system or database

A proof of authenticity of a person (if a picture is timestamped it proves
the image isn't a download) on sites such as 4chan

<QUOTE OFF>------------------


http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/time%20stamp


<QUOTE ON>-------------------

Definition of TIME STAMP

: a device for recording the date and time of day that letters or papers are received or sent out

<QUOTE OFF>------------------


Further searches tend to corroborate the above definitions.

This tends to reinforce my impression that you and Bob are misusing the
term "time stamp." But, of course, I could be wrong.

Kindly provide me with a link where I can verify that the way you are
using the term "time stamp" is consistent with the way forensic experts
use the term.

[snipping BT's citations from Bugliosi, which Harris evaded]

Dave

[Anthony Marsh]

I had the same problem with Todd Vaughan. I was explaining the 1978 test
shots done for the HSCA and mentioned that shot #1 was probably just a
fouling shot. Well, he said there is no such word in his junior high
Webster dictionary so I must be making it up. I had to go to the library
and copy the page from the huge Oxford dictionary which included the
definition of "fouling shot."

Your problem is lack of experience. You may not know the jargon of a
particular trade. So when you look up the word the meaning doesn't seem to
make any sense in the context of the subject being discussed. I called the
local consumer affairs hotline to complain about a telephone scam and some
young kid answered. He had absolutely no idea what I meant by the words
bunko squad, dangle, and boiler room. Neither would you if you had never
worked in the trade.

[Dave Reitzes]

As Bob has not responded, I have decided to take him up on his offer to
explain his evidence to me via email (see below). At about 5:45 PM Eastern
time on 10/23, I sent the following email to Bob:


<QUOTE ON>---------------------------

Here is the email you requested (see below).

No response from Bob.

Bob,

You previously said (see above):

> David, you are totally off the mark - surprise, surprise:-)
>
> Your difficulties with analytical issues like this are legendary. If you
> really want to understand me, you can simply send me an email and I will
> do my best to help you out.

Okay, Bob, here's my email. Help me out. I will post your response at the
newsgroup.

<QUOTE OFF>---------------------------


I will post his response ASAP.

Dave

[Dave Reitzes]

Quick review. Bob said:


> David, you are totally off the mark - surprise, surprise:-)
>
> Your difficulties with analytical issues like this are
> legendary. If you really want to understand me, you can
> simply send me an email and I will do my best to help you out.

I think we here understand you all too well, Bob.

Dave

[Dave Reitzes]

Is there no question Robert Harris will not evade?

Dave