Emotion vs Reason

[Robert Harris]

There is nothing that warms my heart more than the vicious
barrage of insults that John mcadams resposts for his
friends. When adversaries have to sink to that level, they
are tacitly admitting that they cannot defend their position
through evidence and reason.

One of the more common insults is the claim that I am on some
kind of ego trip, demanding that everyone agree with "my theory".

In all honesty, I really wish this was my theory, but as I
have stated many times, the credit for this rests entirely,
with two brilliant, award winning physicists. Dr. Alvarez
discovered a loud and startling noise at frame 285 and Dr.
Stroscio suggested that this was the gunshot that caused
James Tague's minor wound.

My contribution was in finding massive corroboration for
their theories. And even that, wasn't much of an achievement.
It was ridiculously easy.

The WC told us that "most" of the witnesses who described the
shots, heard only one early shot and then closely bunched
shots at the end.

Perhaps even more importantly, the people in the President's
limo, not only told us that they heard the same thing the
others heard, but we can see exactly when they reacted to
each of the closely bunched shots at the end.

Of equal importance, we can see when they didn't react. The
absence of startle reactions to the earlier shots, proves
conclusively, that they were not nearly as loud as the later
ones. And in fact, only one of them was even audible to most
witness.

I know it doesn't make you guys happy, but the simple truth
is, that Oswald could not have fired the early shots. If he
had, they would have all been not just audible, but would
have have been ear shattering to the limo occupants. They
would have been heard as louder than the ones at the end, to
which they did respond.

And Oswald couldn't have fired both of the shots at 285 and
313. Tests conducted by the FBI and HSCA proved that beyond
reasonable doubt.

The fact that so many of you get furious and insulting about
this, makes it clear that emotion is driving you - not
reason. The ONLY thing you should be concerned about is the
evidence.




Robert Harris

[Anthony Marsh]

On 2/11/2017 3:31 PM, Robert Harris wrote:
> There is nothing that warms my heart more than the vicious barrage of
> insults that John mcadams resposts for his friends. When adversaries
> have to sink to that level, they are tacitly admitting that they cannot
> defend their position through evidence and reason.
>
> One of the more common insults is the claim that I am on some kind of
> ego trip, demanding that everyone agree with "my theory".
>
> In all honesty, I really wish this was my theory, but as I have stated
> many times, the credit for this rests entirely, with two brilliant,
> award winning physicists. Dr. Alvarez discovered a loud and startling

No, he didn't. He thought it was a siren, not a gun shot.

> noise at frame 285 and Dr. Stroscio suggested that this was the gunshot
> that caused James Tague's minor wound.
>

Silly. He's a moron. He thinks the miss hit the curb.
But the mark showed no trace of the copper jacket. It was only a smear
of bullet lead from the core.

> My contribution was in finding massive corroboration for their theories.

Nope.

> And even that, wasn't much of an achievement. It was ridiculously easy.
>
> The WC told us that "most" of the witnesses who described the shots,
> heard only one early shot and then closely bunched shots at the end.
>

So what? Never rely on witnesses.

> Perhaps even more importantly, the people in the President's limo, not
> only told us that they heard the same thing the others heard, but we can
> see exactly when they reacted to each of the closely bunched shots at
> the end.
>

No, they didn't. Connally didn't hear the shot that hit him.
Jackie heard a motorcycle backfire.

> Of equal importance, we can see when they didn't react. The absence of
> startle reactions to the earlier shots, proves conclusively, that they
> were not nearly as loud as the later ones. And in fact, only one of them
> was even audible to most witness.
>

Maybe.

> I know it doesn't make you guys happy, but the simple truth is, that
> Oswald could not have fired the early shots. If he had, they would have
> all been not just audible, but would have have been ear shattering to
> the limo occupants. They would have been heard as louder than the ones
> at the end, to which they did respond.
>

And yet you pretend to believe in the Single Bullet Theory.

> And Oswald couldn't have fired both of the shots at 285 and 313. Tests
> conducted by the FBI and HSCA proved that beyond reasonable doubt.
>

No.

> The fact that so many of you get furious and insulting about this, makes
> it clear that emotion is driving you - not reason. The ONLY thing you
> should be concerned about is the evidence.
>
>

Where did I just insult you?
I just point out where you are wrong.
Did you come here just for the insults?
Maybe that's your game.
If people insult you that proves that you must be right.

>
>
> Robert Harris

[David Von Pein]

ROBERT HARRIS SAID:

The ONLY thing you should be concerned about is the evidence.

DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

Then why aren't you, Bob, more "concerned" about all of that evidence that
points directly at Lee Oswald and NOBODY ELSE?

If the truth be told, I think Bob Harris is more concerned about promoting
his own unique rewriting of the "evidence" in the case than he is about
the *actual* evidence.

The actual evidence is too mundane and straightforward for most CTers like
Bob. He thinks he needs to *add* something to it --- like a make-believe
gunshot at Z285, or a phantom bullet that falls off of Governor Connally's
stretcher at Parkland.

I'm beginning to think that a better term for "JFK Conspiracy Theorist"
might be "JFK Conspiracy Craftsman". They "craft" and "mold" their
theories by hand until the desired amount of "conspiracy" is reached.

What a silly hobby indeed. (Don't you think so, Bob?)

And now a couple of CTers over at The Education Forum have informed me of
their belief that the person we see in the photo below might not be John
F. Kennedy at all! It's apparently some imposter posing for the autopsy
picture. (Yes, I've heard that preposterous theory before, but not for
quite some time. I thought maybe it was a theory that might have been too
nutty for even most Internet CTers. But I guess I was wrong. See the
second link below for today's belly laugh.)

http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-QfsQW0gVsl8/UolUnPbdgII/AAAAAAAAw3k/YzyrV14nCX4/s1600/00e.+JFK+Autopsy+Photo.jpg

http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?/topic/23250-david-lifton-teases-final-charade-on-the-night-fright-show/&page=8#comment-343602

[bigdog]

On Saturday, February 11, 2017 at 3:31:25 PM UTC-5, Robert Harris wrote:
> There is nothing that warms my heart more than the vicious
> barrage of insults that John mcadams resposts for his
> friends. When adversaries have to sink to that level, they
> are tacitly admitting that they cannot defend their position
> through evidence and reason.
>
> One of the more common insults is the claim that I am on some
> kind of ego trip, demanding that everyone agree with "my theory".
>

Gee, Bob. I wonder why that's so common.

> In all honesty, I really wish this was my theory, but as I
> have stated many times, the credit for this rests entirely,
> with two brilliant, award winning physicists. Dr. Alvarez
> discovered a loud and startling noise at frame 285 and Dr.
> Stroscio suggested that this was the gunshot that caused
> James Tague's minor wound.
>

Interesting that you would cite somebody who disagrees with your premise
of a gunshot at Z285.

> My contribution was in finding massive corroboration for
> their theories. And even that, wasn't much of an achievement.
> It was ridiculously easy.
>

Thanks from a grateful nation. <chuckle>

> The WC told us that "most" of the witnesses who described the
> shots, heard only one early shot and then closely bunched
> shots at the end.
>
> Perhaps even more importantly, the people in the President's
> limo, not only told us that they heard the same thing the
> others heard, but we can see exactly when they reacted to
> each of the closely bunched shots at the end.
>

ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ

> Of equal importance, we can see when they didn't react. The
> absence of startle reactions to the earlier shots, proves
> conclusively, that they were not nearly as loud as the later
> ones. And in fact, only one of them was even audible to most
> witness.
>

ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ

> I know it doesn't make you guys happy, but the simple truth
> is, that Oswald could not have fired the early shots. If he
> had, they would have all been not just audible, but would
> have have been ear shattering to the limo occupants. They
> would have been heard as louder than the ones at the end, to
> which they did respond.
>

ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ

> And Oswald couldn't have fired both of the shots at 285 and
> 313. Tests conducted by the FBI and HSCA proved that beyond
> reasonable doubt.
>

ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ

> The fact that so many of you get furious and insulting about
> this, makes it clear that emotion is driving you - not
> reason. The ONLY thing you should be concerned about is the
> evidence.
>

ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ............Excuse me. I nodded off there. Love
those afternoon catnaps. Did I miss anything?

[BOZ]

You called the professor sewage.

[BOZ]

How about JFK conspiracy Daftsman?

[Robert Harris]

David Von Pein wrote:
> ROBERT HARRIS SAID:
>
> The ONLY thing you should be concerned about is the evidence.
>
>
> DAVID VON PEIN SAID:
>
> Then why aren't you, Bob, more "concerned" about all of that evidence that
> points directly at Lee Oswald and NOBODY ELSE?

I didn't know that such evidence existed.

Why don't you tell us about it?

>
> If the truth be told, I think Bob Harris is more concerned about promoting
> his own unique rewriting of the "evidence" in the case than he is about
> the *actual* evidence.

If the truth be told, you ALWAYS try to turn the discussion away from
evidence, to ad hominem and attacks and personal insults.

This is not about Robert Harris, no matter how hard you try to make it
that way:-)

>
> The actual evidence is too mundane and straightforward for most CTers like
> Bob. He thinks he needs to *add* something to it --- like a make-believe
> gunshot at Z285, or a phantom bullet that falls off of Governor Connally's
> stretcher at Parkland.

So far, you have posted nothing but insults and blurtations which you
couldn't prove if your life depended on it.

When does everyone get to see this evidence, that Oswald acted alone?

And when do you intend to post a refutation to my 285 analysis? If it is
as bad as you claim, it should be easy to put me in my place. So, why is
it that NO-ONE has ever been able to do that?

And finally, when do you intend to prove that John Connally, DA Henry
Wade, officer Nolan and nursing supervisor Audrey Bell were all full of
crap?

And when do you intend to explain the absence of the initials carved
into the Tomlinson bullet, on CE399, by agents Johnsen and Todd?

Oh wait!! I almost forgot.

You only do trashtalk and insults.

You don't do evidence, do you David?

>
> I'm beginning to think that a better term for "JFK Conspiracy Theorist"
> might be "JFK Conspiracy Craftsman". They "craft" and "mold" their
> theories by hand until the desired amount of "conspiracy" is reached.

Many do, I'm sure.

But if I did that, you would be able to refute me quite easily. Why is
it that you won't even try?

>
> What a silly hobby indeed. (Don't you think so, Bob?)

Beats the hell out of reviewing Hanna Barbera cartoons, don't you think:-)

Actually, this has been a fascinating murder mystery and there are still
parts that I have yet to figure out.

>
> And now a couple of CTers over at The Education Forum have informed me of
> their belief that the person we see in the photo below might not be John
> F. Kennedy at all!

Yes David, and there are people who think they see Jesus in their pancakes.

And some who pretend there is evidence which isolates Oswald as the only
shooter.

At least the holy pancakes folks have some kind of evidence to show:-)

> It's apparently some imposter posing for the autopsy

David, all this blather is a waste of time and bandwidth. Do you realize
that throughout your entire post, you have referenced NO evidence, NO
testimony, and NO analysis of any kind.

You have posted pure BS, with no foundation in any kind of evidence.

That's exactly the kind of poor thinking that you accuse your
adversaries of.




Robert Harris

[Robert Harris]

Anthony Marsh wrote:
> On 2/11/2017 3:31 PM, Robert Harris wrote:
>> There is nothing that warms my heart more than the vicious barrage of
>> insults that John mcadams resposts for his friends. When adversaries
>> have to sink to that level, they are tacitly admitting that they cannot
>> defend their position through evidence and reason.
>>
>> One of the more common insults is the claim that I am on some kind of
>> ego trip, demanding that everyone agree with "my theory".
>>
>> In all honesty, I really wish this was my theory, but as I have stated
>> many times, the credit for this rests entirely, with two brilliant,
>> award winning physicists. Dr. Alvarez discovered a loud and startling
>
> No, he didn't. He thought it was a siren, not a gun shot.

Tony, is there someone who can help you read the passages you are
responding to?

I'm sure they will tell you that I said Alvarez discovered a "loud and
startling noise".

>
>> noise at frame 285 and Dr. Stroscio suggested that this was the gunshot
>> that caused James Tague's minor wound.
>>
>
> Silly. He's a moron.

He is an award winning physicist with a Phd. from Yale.

I have spoken to him and he was a brilliant man. What are your
qualifications, Tony?

> He thinks the miss hit the curb.

No he didn't. You just made that up.

He never mentioned a bullet hitting the curb.

Don't you think your credibility has sunk low enough?

> But the mark showed no trace of the copper jacket. It was only a smear
> of bullet lead from the core.

That's because the bullet hit the pavement first, and shattered, sending
a tiny piece of debris to hit Tague and a chunk of lead to smear on the
Main St. curbing.

>
>> My contribution was in finding massive corroboration for their theories.
>
> Nope.

Damn!! How do I compete with brilliant analysis like that :-)

>
>> And even that, wasn't much of an achievement. It was ridiculously easy.
>>
>> The WC told us that "most" of the witnesses who described the shots,
>> heard only one early shot and then closely bunched shots at the end.
>>
>
> So what? Never rely on witnesses.

And why not, Tony?

I believe the people who heard the shots, especially, since their
statements match perfectly with the empirical evidence of the reactions
and the scientific analyses of Alvarez and Stroscio.

>
>> Perhaps even more importantly, the people in the President's limo, not
>> only told us that they heard the same thing the others heard, but we can
>> see exactly when they reacted to each of the closely bunched shots at
>> the end.
>>
>
> No, they didn't. Connally didn't hear the shot that hit him.

That's right. He only heard ONE early shot, just like all the others.

Unlike the others however, he only heard one of the final shots, which
was undoubtedly because he was seconds from losing consciousness.

> Jackie heard a motorcycle backfire.

Why do I do this, Tony??

I ignore you 90% of the time, but now and then, check in just for grins.

I think you've been doing this too long, my friend. None of us are
getting any younger and I don't think we are getting any smarter either.
There comes a time when we must decide whether we are part of the
solution or part of the problem.



Robert Harris

[mainframetech]

What evidence are you speaking of? Most evidence I've heard of from
the many LN kooks out there is not specific to Oswald. What's your list
of that stuff?

Chris

[Jason Burke]

And Harris *actually* thinks he's serious???

[Anthony Marsh]

On 2/12/2017 8:29 PM, Robert Harris wrote:
> Anthony Marsh wrote:
>> On 2/11/2017 3:31 PM, Robert Harris wrote:
>>> There is nothing that warms my heart more than the vicious barrage of
>>> insults that John mcadams resposts for his friends. When adversaries
>>> have to sink to that level, they are tacitly admitting that they cannot
>>> defend their position through evidence and reason.
>>>
>>> One of the more common insults is the claim that I am on some kind of
>>> ego trip, demanding that everyone agree with "my theory".
>>>
>>> In all honesty, I really wish this was my theory, but as I have stated
>>> many times, the credit for this rests entirely, with two brilliant,
>>> award winning physicists. Dr. Alvarez discovered a loud and startling
>>
>> No, he didn't. He thought it was a siren, not a gun shot.
>
> Tony, is there someone who can help you read the passages you are
> responding to?
>
> I'm sure they will tell you that I said Alvarez discovered a "loud and
> startling noise".
>

Did you actually read his article>? No.
He thought it was a siren.

>>
>>> noise at frame 285 and Dr. Stroscio suggested that this was the gunshot
>>> that caused James Tague's minor wound.
>>>
>>
>> Silly. He's a moron.
>
> He is an award winning physicist with a Phd. from Yale.
>

Yeah, that and $20 Will get you a cop of coffee at Starbucks.
If you rely on Argument by Authority then you have to believe everything
that McAdams says because he also has a PhD.

> I have spoken to him and he was a brilliant man. What are your
> qualifications, Tony?
>

40 years of research. BA degree. At least I graduated from college. Most
of the Nazis here did not even graduate from high school.

>> He thinks the miss hit the curb.
>
> No he didn't. You just made that up.
>

Yes, Strocio does.

> He never mentioned a bullet hitting the curb.
>

Does he think the bullet hit Tague directly? No, he's not THAT stupid.
You just misrepresent what he said.

You have never posted a direct statement from him.

> Don't you think your credibility has sunk low enough?
>
>> But the mark showed no trace of the copper jacket. It was only a smear
>> of bullet lead from the core.
>
> That's because the bullet hit the pavement first, and shattered, sending
> a tiny piece of debris to hit Tague and a chunk of lead to smear on the
> Main St. curbing.
>

Pavement? Show me.

>>
>>> My contribution was in finding massive corroboration for their theories.
>>
>> Nope.
>
> Damn!! How do I compete with brilliant analysis like that :-)
>
>
>>
>>> And even that, wasn't much of an achievement. It was ridiculously easy.
>>>
>>> The WC told us that "most" of the witnesses who described the shots,
>>> heard only one early shot and then closely bunched shots at the end.
>>>
>>
>> So what? Never rely on witnesses.
>
> And why not, Tony?
>

Loftus. Any expert on law will tell you to never rely on witnesses.

> I believe the people who heard the shots, especially, since their
> statements match perfectly with the empirical evidence of the reactions
> and the scientific analyses of Alvarez and Stroscio.
>

You believe what you want to believe and then misrepresent it to make it
fit your kook theories.

>
>>
>>> Perhaps even more importantly, the people in the President's limo, not
>>> only told us that they heard the same thing the others heard, but we can
>>> see exactly when they reacted to each of the closely bunched shots at
>>> the end.
>>>
>>
>> No, they didn't. Connally didn't hear the shot that hit him.
>
> That's right. He only heard ONE early shot, just like all the others.
>

You can't speak for ALL the witnesses.

> Unlike the others however, he only heard one of the final shots, which
> was undoubtedly because he was seconds from losing consciousness.
>

Maybe. Fun to guess. He SAW and felt the effects of the head shot.


Which should be after your Z-285 shot unless you believe the head shot
did not happen at Z-313.

>> Jackie heard a motorcycle backfire.
>
> Why do I do this, Tony??
>
> I ignore you 90% of the time, but now and then, check in just for grins.
>

Because no one else will bother arguing with you. Unlike you, I don't do
it for the grins. I do it for the innocent lurkers who may wander in
here and think you know what you are talking about.

> I think you've been doing this too long, my friend. None of us are
> getting any younger and I don't think we are getting any smarter either.
> There comes a time when we must decide whether we are part of the
> solution or part of the problem.
>

Legacy. You didn't get the HSCA. I helped Mark Lane get the HSCA.

>
>
> Robert Harris
>

[bigdog]

The rifle belonging to Oswald was not specific to Oswald.

The bullets fired from that rifle where not specific to Oswald.

The shells from that rifle were not specific to Oswald.

Oswald's palmprint on that rifle were not specific to Oswald.

Oswald's fingerprints on the rifle bag were not specific to Oswald.

Fibers on the butt plate of the rifle matching Oswald's shirt were not
specific to Oswald.

Fibers in the rifle bag matching Oswald's rifle blanket were not specific
to Oswald.

Oswald's fingerprints in the sniper's nest were not specific to Oswald.

The witness who IDed Oswald as the shooter was not specific to Oswald.

The above are examples of what passes for logical thinking in
Conspiracyland.

[OHLeeRedux]

On Sunday, February 12, 2017 at 5:27:53 PM UTC-8, Robert Harris wrote:
> David Von Pein wrote:
> > ROBERT HARRIS SAID:
> >
> > The ONLY thing you should be concerned about is the evidence.
> >
> >
> > DAVID VON PEIN SAID:
> >
> > Then why aren't you, Bob, more "concerned" about all of that evidence that
> > points directly at Lee Oswald and NOBODY ELSE?
>
> I didn't know that such evidence existed.
>
> Why don't you tell us about it?
>

Can you prove that John Hinckley -- AND NOBODY ELSE -- was involved in the
attempt to assassinate Reagan?

Of course you can't. Nobody can, because that would be proving a negative,
which is impossible. You can't prove that the Easter Bunny doesn't exist,
either.

Lack of evidence of co-conspirators and/or multiple shooters is what
establishes that Oswald acted alone. Your obsession with Z-285, as
entertaining as it is for you, does not even come close to evidence of a
conspiracy. That would only come with a coherent theory with accompanying
evidence that covers all the aspects of the assassination, not just a few
seconds of a home movie.

But keep obsessing, Robert. It keeps you off the streets, I suppose.

[Anthony Marsh]

On 2/14/2017 12:53 PM, OHLeeRedux wrote:
> On Sunday, February 12, 2017 at 5:27:53 PM UTC-8, Robert Harris wrote:
>> David Von Pein wrote:
>>> ROBERT HARRIS SAID:
>>>
>>> The ONLY thing you should be concerned about is the evidence.
>>>
>>>
>>> DAVID VON PEIN SAID:
>>>
>>> Then why aren't you, Bob, more "concerned" about all of that evidence that
>>> points directly at Lee Oswald and NOBODY ELSE?
>>
>> I didn't know that such evidence existed.
>>
>> Why don't you tell us about it?
>>
>
>
>
> Can you prove that John Hinckley -- AND NOBODY ELSE -- was involved in the
> attempt to assassinate Reagan?
>

Sorta. I have seen no evidence that Hinckley had any help.
Cutler thought there was another shooter, but it was just a ricochet off
the limo frame.

> Of course you can't. Nobody can, because that would be proving a negative,
> which is impossible. You can't prove that the Easter Bunny doesn't exist,
> either.
>

You can't say that. You can't say that nothing can ever be proven.

> Lack of evidence of co-conspirators and/or multiple shooters is what
> establishes that Oswald acted alone. Your obsession with Z-285, as

No. How can Oswald fire the shot from the grassy knoll?

[Robert Harris]

First of all, you "corrected" a claim that I never made, when
you said, "No, he didn't. He thought it was a siren..".

As you know, I never said otherwise, or that the noise was a
gunshot.

Perhaps more importantly, he didn't state with any certainty
that it was a siren. This had nothing to do with his
scientific analysis and was purely guesswork.

And since you don't think it was a siren either, why would
you even raise this issue? Alvarez's speculation about a
siren would only be relevant if it were true.

>
>>>
>>>> noise at frame 285 and Dr. Stroscio suggested that this
>>>> was the gunshot
>>>> that caused James Tague's minor wound.
>>>>
>>>
>>> Silly. He's a moron.
>>
>> He is an award winning physicist with a Phd. from Yale.
>>
>
> Yeah, that and $20 Will get you a cop of coffee at Starbucks.
> If you rely on Argument by Authority then you have to believe
> everything that McAdams says because he also has a PhD.

Utter nonsense.

YOU are the one who accused this man of being a "moron" - not
exactly a common attribute of Nobel prize winners or folks
with a Phd in Physics.

There is a difference between relying on everything a
brilliant scientist believes and saying he is not a moron.

>
>> I have spoken to him and he was a brilliant man. What are your
>> qualifications, Tony?
>>
>
> 40 years of research. BA degree.

Tony, I read some of your articles from the 70's and at least
one or two were impressive.

But we change over the years. What you are putting out now is
on par with Deagle or Steve Barber.

We all pass our prime sometime.

> At least I graduated from
> college. Most of the Nazis here did not even graduate from
> high school.
>
>>> He thinks the miss hit the curb.
>>
>> No he didn't. You just made that up.
>>
>
> Yes, Strocio does.
>
>> He never mentioned a bullet hitting the curb.
>>
>
> Does he think the bullet hit Tague directly? No, he's not
> THAT stupid.

That's correct. He probably believed as I do, that the bullet
hit the pavement and shattered, sending a piece of lead to
hit the curbing and a tiny piece of debris to nick Tague.

Or perhaps he wasn't sure whether it hit the pavement or the
curbing first, and decided to leave that open.

But either way, he NEVER stated that a whole bullet struck
the curb. You need to stop making thins up, Tony.

> You just misrepresent what he said.

Well, one of us did, that's for sure:-)

You can settle the issue by simply citing him verbatim,
stating that a bullet struck the burb.

>
> You have never posted a direct statement from him.

I have cited him many times, from his articles and even a
personal letter he wrote to me.

When are you going to cite him stating that a whole bullet
hit the curb?

>
>> Don't you think your credibility has sunk low enough?
>>
>>> But the mark showed no trace of the copper jacket. It was
>>> only a smear
>>> of bullet lead from the core.
>>
>> That's because the bullet hit the pavement first, and
>> shattered, sending
>> a tiny piece of debris to hit Tague and a chunk of lead to
>> smear on the
>> Main St. curbing.
>>
>
> Pavement? Show me.

Ok, drive on down to Dallas and wait for me. I'll be there, I
promise:-)

>
>>>
>>>> My contribution was in finding massive corroboration for
>>>> their theories.
>>>
>>> Nope.
>>
>> Damn!! How do I compete with brilliant analysis like that :-)
>>
>>
>>>
>>>> And even that, wasn't much of an achievement. It was
>>>> ridiculously easy.
>>>>
>>>> The WC told us that "most" of the witnesses who described
>>>> the shots,
>>>> heard only one early shot and then closely bunched shots
>>>> at the end.
>>>>
>>>
>>> So what? Never rely on witnesses.
>>
>> And why not, Tony?
>>
>
> Loftus. Any expert on law will tell you to never rely on
> witnesses.

I'd like to hear a verbatim citation.

Neither Loftus nor anyone else has ever demonstrated that
such a large number and preponderance of witnesses would
"mistakenly" hear exactly the same thing.

If you think otherwise, the post a citation.

>
>> I believe the people who heard the shots, especially, since
>> their
>> statements match perfectly with the empirical evidence of
>> the reactions
>> and the scientific analyses of Alvarez and Stroscio.
>>
>
> You believe what you want to believe and then misrepresent it
> to make it fit your kook theories.

I misrepresented what I want to believe??

If I misrepresented anything, you would be able to cite me
verbatim.

Why don't you go ahead and to that Tony?

>
>>
>>>
>>>> Perhaps even more importantly, the people in the
>>>> President's limo, not
>>>> only told us that they heard the same thing the others
>>>> heard, but we can
>>>> see exactly when they reacted to each of the closely
>>>> bunched shots at
>>>> the end.
>>>>
>>>
>>> No, they didn't. Connally didn't hear the shot that hit him.
>>
>> That's right. He only heard ONE early shot, just like all
>> the others.
>>
>
> You can't speak for ALL the witnesses.

Yes I can Tony.

I can cite their sworn testimonies which I have done many times.

>
>> Unlike the others however, he only heard one of the final
>> shots, which
>> was undoubtedly because he was seconds from losing
>> consciousness.
>>
>
> Maybe. Fun to guess. He SAW and felt the effects of the head
> shot.

Yes he did.

And it is not guesswork that he didn't hear one of the final
shots, which almost everyone else in DP heard.

>
>
> Which should be after your Z-285 shot unless you believe the
> head shot did not happen at Z-313.

Yes, he felt the debris from the 313 shot. That has nothing
to do with the fact that as he was about to pass out, he
thought he only heard one shot.

>
>>> Jackie heard a motorcycle backfire.
>>
>> Why do I do this, Tony??
>>
>> I ignore you 90% of the time, but now and then, check in
>> just for grins.
>>
>
> Because no one else will bother arguing with you.

Perhaps listening to you, confirms their worst fears about
what will happen if they do:-)

> Unlike you,
> I don't do it for the grins.
> I do it for the innocent lurkers
> who may wander in here and think you know what you are
> talking about.

The why don't you just post a detailed rebuttal?

Do what the nutters can't do, and put me in my place:-)

Show me no mercy, amigo!




Robert Harris

[Robert Harris]

OHLeeRedux wrote:
> On Sunday, February 12, 2017 at 5:27:53 PM UTC-8, Robert Harris wrote:
>> David Von Pein wrote:
>>> ROBERT HARRIS SAID:
>>>
>>> The ONLY thing you should be concerned about is the evidence.
>>>
>>>
>>> DAVID VON PEIN SAID:
>>>
>>> Then why aren't you, Bob, more "concerned" about all of that evidence that
>>> points directly at Lee Oswald and NOBODY ELSE?
>>
>> I didn't know that such evidence existed.
>>
>> Why don't you tell us about it?
>>
>
>
>
> Can you prove that John Hinckley -- AND NOBODY ELSE -- was involved in the
> attempt to assassinate Reagan?

I'm glad you asked that question Mr. Redux, because it gives
me a good opportunity to point out an horrendous fallacy on
the part of the nutters, which is particularly common in the
"skeptic" forum, where your heroes abide.

If I said my theory must be correct because you can't prove
it isn't, then you would be correct, that I was the one at fault.

But if YOU said that the evidence proves there were no others
involved, they YOU bear the burden of documenting your assertion.

Mr. Von Pein said the evidence "points directly at Lee Oswald
and NOBODY ELSE."

He therefore bears the burden of presenting the evidence
"that nobody else" was involved.

Yes, it is often difficult or impossible to prove a negative,
which is why he should never have said it. But he did and
that was his fault, not mine.




Robert Harris

[OHLeeRedux]

On Wednesday, February 15, 2017 at 8:42:15 AM UTC-8, Anthony Marsh wrote:
> On 2/14/2017 12:53 PM, OHLeeRedux wrote:
> > On Sunday, February 12, 2017 at 5:27:53 PM UTC-8, Robert Harris wrote:
> >> David Von Pein wrote:
> >>> ROBERT HARRIS SAID:
> >>>
> >>> The ONLY thing you should be concerned about is the evidence.
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> DAVID VON PEIN SAID:
> >>>
> >>> Then why aren't you, Bob, more "concerned" about all of that evidence that
> >>> points directly at Lee Oswald and NOBODY ELSE?
> >>
> >> I didn't know that such evidence existed.
> >>
> >> Why don't you tell us about it?
> >>
> >
> >
> >
> > Can you prove that John Hinckley -- AND NOBODY ELSE -- was involved in the
> > attempt to assassinate Reagan?
> >
>
> Sorta. I have seen no evidence that Hinckley had any help.
> Cutler thought there was another shooter, but it was just a ricochet off
> the limo frame.

Again -- I was not talking to you. Learn to follow a conversation or go
somewhere else.

>
> > Of course you can't. Nobody can, because that would be proving a negative,
> > which is impossible. You can't prove that the Easter Bunny doesn't exist,
> > either.
> >
>
> You can't say that. You can't say that nothing can ever be proven.

Actually, I not only can say that, I just did. You can't prove a negative.
There, I said it again. Now go back to your nap.

>
> > Lack of evidence of co-conspirators and/or multiple shooters is what
> > establishes that Oswald acted alone. Your obsession with Z-285, as
>
> No. How can Oswald fire the shot from the grassy knoll?

Is there ever a moment in your life in which you actually comprehend what
is going on around you?

[OHLeeRedux]

No he does not. He begins, as we all should, with the null stance -- He
believes only what is proven and what can be directly inferred from that.
What is proven is that JFK was assassinated and Oswald fired the shots. If
you want to add another facet to the assassination narrative, such as
co-conspirators and/or multiple shooters, you need to prove their
existence. You have not even come close.

>
> Yes, it is often difficult or impossible to prove a negative,
> which is why he should never have said it. But he did and
> that was his fault, not mine.

You proved at the ISF that you have no understanding of the concept of
burden of proof, apart from some simplistic slogan you read on a restroom
wall.


>
>
>
>
> Robert Harris

[Anthony Marsh]

I have the article. He said it was a siren.

> And since you don't think it was a siren either, why would you even
> raise this issue? Alvarez's speculation about a siren would only be
> relevant if it were true.
>

I raise the issue, because if this is a contest to see who is most
qualified in his guess, you would have to step aside because he won the
Nobel Prize and you didn't. Therefore you have to yield to his guess that
it was a siren. Once you start down the Argument by Authority path you
have to accept EVERYTHING your source claims. So you have to agree that an
asteroid wiped out the dinosaurs, not Global Cooling.

>>
>>>>
>>>>> noise at frame 285 and Dr. Stroscio suggested that this
>>>>> was the gunshot
>>>>> that caused James Tague's minor wound.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Silly. He's a moron.
>>>
>>> He is an award winning physicist with a Phd. from Yale.
>>>
>>
>> Yeah, that and $20 Will get you a cop of coffee at Starbucks.
>> If you rely on Argument by Authority then you have to believe
>> everything that McAdams says because he also has a PhD.
>
> Utter nonsense.
>

You wanted to worship the PhDs so now you're stuck with McAdams.

> YOU are the one who accused this man of being a "moron" - not exactly a
> common attribute of Nobel prize winners or folks with a Phd in Physics.
>

Stroscio? Nobel Prize in what?

> There is a difference between relying on everything a brilliant
> scientist believes and saying he is not a moron.
>
>
>>
>>> I have spoken to him and he was a brilliant man. What are your
>>> qualifications, Tony?
>>>
>>
>> 40 years of research. BA degree.
>
> Tony, I read some of your articles from the 70's and at least one or two
> were impressive.
>
> But we change over the years. What you are putting out now is on par
> with Deagle or Steve Barber.
>

So you do think that the Zapruder film is fake.
Then stop making any claims based on it.
Please point out any errors in my article debunking Fezter et al.
Patiently waiting. Till Hell freezes over. I just looked outside and it
certainly looks like Hell just froze over.

> We all pass our prime sometime.
>

The documents have dried up, but I keep digging.

>
>> At least I graduated from
>> college. Most of the Nazis here did not even graduate from
>> high school.
>>
>>>> He thinks the miss hit the curb.
>>>
>>> No he didn't. You just made that up.
>>>
>>
>> Yes, Strocio does.
>>
>>> He never mentioned a bullet hitting the curb.
>>>
>>
>> Does he think the bullet hit Tague directly? No, he's not
>> THAT stupid.
>
> That's correct. He probably believed as I do, that the bullet hit the
> pavement and shattered, sending a piece of lead to hit the curbing and a
> tiny piece of debris to nick Tague.
>

Fun to guess. But your solution is physically impossible too.
Almost as bad as Posner's Magic Twig Theory.

> Or perhaps he wasn't sure whether it hit the pavement or the curbing
> first, and decided to leave that open.
>
> But either way, he NEVER stated that a whole bullet struck the curb. You
> need to stop making thins up, Tony.
>

Just said the shot hit the curb. That means the intact bullet.
Physically impossible.

>
>> You just misrepresent what he said.
>
> Well, one of us did, that's for sure:-)
>
> You can settle the issue by simply citing him verbatim, stating that a
> bullet struck the burb.
>
>>
>> You have never posted a direct statement from him.
>
> I have cited him many times, from his articles and even a personal
> letter he wrote to me.
>

Nope. Just your mischaracterizations. No scans.

> When are you going to cite him stating that a whole bullet hit the curb?
>

He said the missed shot hit the curb.
That means the whole bullet.
He did not say a fragment from the head shot hit the curb.
That's Ken and Larry.

>>
>>> Don't you think your credibility has sunk low enough?
>>>
>>>> But the mark showed no trace of the copper jacket. It was
>>>> only a smear
>>>> of bullet lead from the core.
>>>
>>> That's because the bullet hit the pavement first, and
>>> shattered, sending
>>> a tiny piece of debris to hit Tague and a chunk of lead to
>>> smear on the
>>> Main St. curbing.
>>>
>>
>> Pavement? Show me.
>
> Ok, drive on down to Dallas and wait for me. I'll be there, I promise:-)
>

Photos?

>>
>>>>
>>>>> My contribution was in finding massive corroboration for
>>>>> their theories.
>>>>
>>>> Nope.
>>>
>>> Damn!! How do I compete with brilliant analysis like that :-)
>>>
>>>
>>>>
>>>>> And even that, wasn't much of an achievement. It was
>>>>> ridiculously easy.
>>>>>
>>>>> The WC told us that "most" of the witnesses who described
>>>>> the shots,
>>>>> heard only one early shot and then closely bunched shots
>>>>> at the end.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> So what? Never rely on witnesses.
>>>
>>> And why not, Tony?
>>>
>>
>> Loftus. Any expert on law will tell you to never rely on
>> witnesses.
>
> I'd like to hear a verbatim citation.
>
> Neither Loftus nor anyone else has ever demonstrated that such a large
> number and preponderance of witnesses would "mistakenly" hear exactly
> the same thing.
>

Of course she has. And demonstrated it on TV.

> If you think otherwise, the post a citation.
>

48 Hours.

>>
>>> I believe the people who heard the shots, especially, since
>>> their
>>> statements match perfectly with the empirical evidence of
>>> the reactions
>>> and the scientific analyses of Alvarez and Stroscio.
>>>
>>
>> You believe what you want to believe and then misrepresent it
>> to make it fit your kook theories.
>
> I misrepresented what I want to believe??
>

You start with your conclusion and then misrepresent the evidence to
make it fit your conclusion.

> If I misrepresented anything, you would be able to cite me verbatim.
>

I have, several thousand time. Brehm.

> Why don't you go ahead and to that Tony?
>

It's archived.

>>
>>>
>>>>
>>>>> Perhaps even more importantly, the people in the
>>>>> President's limo, not
>>>>> only told us that they heard the same thing the others
>>>>> heard, but we can
>>>>> see exactly when they reacted to each of the closely
>>>>> bunched shots at
>>>>> the end.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> No, they didn't. Connally didn't hear the shot that hit him.
>>>
>>> That's right. He only heard ONE early shot, just like all
>>> the others.
>>>
>>
>> You can't speak for ALL the witnesses.
>
> Yes I can Tony.

No. You misrepresent them.

>
> I can cite their sworn testimonies which I have done many times.
>

And misrepresent them.

>>
>>> Unlike the others however, he only heard one of the final
>>> shots, which
>>> was undoubtedly because he was seconds from losing
>>> consciousness.
>>>
>>
>> Maybe. Fun to guess. He SAW and felt the effects of the head
>> shot.
>
> Yes he did.
>
> And it is not guesswork that he didn't hear one of the final shots,
> which almost everyone else in DP heard.
>

You are guessing. You have no way of proving that. Connally didn't hear

the shot that hit him.

>>
>>

>> Which should be after your Z-285 shot unless you believe the
>> head shot did not happen at Z-313.
>
> Yes, he felt the debris from the 313 shot. That has nothing to do with
> the fact that as he was about to pass out, he thought he only heard one
> shot.
>

Guessing again.
He said he heard two shots so close together that it sounded like an
automatic.

>
>>
>>>> Jackie heard a motorcycle backfire.
>>>
>>> Why do I do this, Tony??
>>>
>>> I ignore you 90% of the time, but now and then, check in
>>> just for grins.
>>>
>>
>> Because no one else will bother arguing with you.
>
> Perhaps listening to you, confirms their worst fears about what will
> happen if they do:-)
>
>> Unlike you,
>> I don't do it for the grins.
>> I do it for the innocent lurkers
>> who may wander in here and think you know what you are
>> talking about.
>
> The why don't you just post a detailed rebuttal?
>

I did, several times. Point by point.

> Do what the nutters can't do, and put me in my place:-)
>

They do not even try to argue the facts.
I don't care if you can't play the guitar, but I do care about ANYONE
misrepresenting witnesses or evidence.

[Anthony Marsh]

That's not true. And what you call a negative is just your straw man.

>
>>
>>> Lack of evidence of co-conspirators and/or multiple shooters is what
>>> establishes that Oswald acted alone. Your obsession with Z-285, as
>>
>> No. How can Oswald fire the shot from the grassy knoll?
>
>
> Is there ever a moment in your life in which you actually comprehend what
> is going on around you?
>

Is that the best insult you can come up with?

[OHLeeRedux]

Anthony Marsh
- show quoted text -

That's not true. And what you call a negative is just your straw man.

>
>>
>>> Lack of evidence of co-conspirators and/or multiple shooters is what
>>> establishes that Oswald acted alone. Your obsession with Z-285, as
>>
>> No. How can Oswald fire the shot from the grassy knoll?
>
>
> Is there ever a moment in your life in which you actually comprehend what
> is going on around you?
>

Is that the best insult you can come up with?

Not as good as some I've slapped you with, but it will do. And you've
earned every one them.

[Anthony Marsh]

That is your only purpose in being here.

[BT George]

...LOL! Evidence?!? Says the man who hasn't any REAL, HARD,
CORROBORATING stuff to back up his theories. Only *interpretations* and
*claims*. Not a single shell casing, nor a bullet fragment, nor a
fingerprint, nor a weapon. And beyond career (nonviolent) criminal James
Braden, not even the name of a single on of his other proposed 2 or 3
non-LHO shooters on 11-22-63.

Just stuff he has dreamed up from his own pseudo scientific (mis)
understandings of involuntary vs. voluntary startle reactions, and then
further "supported" by *reading back into* (or "onto") various eyewitness
testimonies, so he carry on now for about 23 years and 17,250 posts+. Even
his ringing "endorsement" from Dr. Strocio is not what Bob imagines it to
be, as I pointed out to him a few years ago right here:

https://groups.google.com/d/msg/alt.assassination.jfk/y26xKIg5djM/B-dEuPss0PYJ