Ping Robert Harris

[mainframetech]

Hi! I've been waiting a few days for you to take your turn in the thread called:

"Robert Harris - Single argument to be discussed - unfinished business ".

I generally take my turn the same day I see that you have commented in a thread we're working on.

We can accomplish much if we stay at it, don't you think?

Chris

[Bud]

You must be thinking of a different hobby, conspiracy hobbyists
accomplish nothing.

[Robert Harris]

Sorry man, when you said Humes and Boswell carved up the head to make
false wounds, I decided to turn you over to the nutters.

They need to get off their asses and do something constructive, anyway:-)




Robert Harris

[mainframetech]

It would be more appropriate to inform me that you were running away from the discussions because you didn't believe something I said, rather than leaving me hanging and waiting for you to do your part. But of course, as I told you, I have sworn testimony of 3 people that SAW the damage being done, with a bone saw no less. Are you so invested in your ideas that you must run when someone says 'sworn testimony'? Are you so locked into your incorrect beliefs that you don't dare even read the contradicting evidence? Where's the seriously objective guy?

I await your comments, though it would appear that you're not able at this point to be 'objective' and judge evidence after you read it, and not before.

If you feel safer reading the evidence on your own research quietly so no one knows that you looked into it, then read up on the ARRB testimony of Tom Robinson, Edward Reed, and Jerrol Custer. They all mention the bone saw and the work on the skull, BEFORE the 'official' autopsy, and the efforts to lie about hat they had done later.

Let me know.

Chris


>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Robert Harris

[Anthony Marsh]

HSCA, ARRB, JFK Records Act.

[Bud]

I didn`t need you to support what I said.

[BT George]

Hey! Chris. Pssst! You ought to know by now that our resident dean of
"abosolute objectivity" isn't *actually* interested in engaging anything
at length that detracts from his primary Raison d'être.

Robert is simply a man on a mission right now to get to that all-important
Z285 post 20K by *any* means possible. ...And spending too much dealing
with a fellow CT's (even more) wayward JFK theories is simply *NOT* a part
of that core mission. :-)

BT George

[cmikes]

On Monday, August 18, 2014 5:26:22 PM UTC-4, Anthony Marsh wrote:

And it must have been very disappointing for the CTs when all this still
confirmed the original finding that Lee Oswald fired three shots, hitting
with two, at JFK and caused all the damage during the assassination. And
with no evidence of any conspiracy except for the hail mary, easily
debunked "acoustic evidence" from Robert Blakey.

[Anthony Marsh]

Garbage.

[mainframetech]

LOL! "Even more wayward"...:) Then why don't you have answers for the
questions I pose, or any consistent opposing views?

Chris

[mainframetech]

You haven't been paying attention. The conspiracy was proved when Humes
and Boswell made the damage on the body of JFK and were seen by 3 people
who stated what they saw in sworn testimony...:)

Chris

[cmikes]

Yes, all the CT "evidence", and using that word is very generous for what
the CTs have produced, is garbage. The question is why anybody is fooled
by it.

[BT George]

But I *have* provided answers before and exchanged them (+ ideas) with you
more than once. However, as I also told you clearly in some our last
exchanges, we simply have an almost entirely different opinion of what
forms *credible* evidence and even what is *remotely* feasible in terms of
any alleged conspiracy.

Others may find it worth their time and effort to keep engaging your
notions about such matters at length. I don't. We simply lack too much
common ground for it to even be potentially fruitful AFAIAC.

While I suspect he also has his own uniquely Bob Harris motives for
disengaging with you (Gotta', gotta', gotta' get to Z285 20K!), I cannot
say I honestly blame him if part of his motivation is that he's drawn the
same basic conclusion about the overall fruitlessness of continuing the
effort.

BT George

[cmikes]

Lifton never even got his theory off the ground. There's a reason that
even people that truly believe in a conspiracy and believe all kinds of
crazy things laugh at Lifton.

[mainframetech]

You've read many of the things I've written here, much from sworn
testimony. Are you able to refute even a tenth of it? Nope. And why
would you think so low of someone who believes sworn testimony often? Or
is it that your beliefs are "garbage" rather than my quotes of testimony?
My 40+ proofs of a 'large hole' in the BOH of JFK? Hmm?

Chris

[mainframetech]

Ah, so you too are afraid to face testimony! A sad day for the
sworn...:) Amazing that many different people swear to tell the truth,
and you disbelieve them all. THAT'S going to enhance your view of things,
for sure...:)

You have now put yourself into Bob Harris' group. He has certain LN
leanings that show when he's against the wall, as he was recently.

Chris

[mainframetech]

LOL! Lifton was one of the ones that got the current movement going,
although he didn't figure out a few things, his basic direction turns out
to be right. True, he was wrong about a few things, but I think he has
probably corrected those things since writing his book "Best Evidence".

I personally go along more with Douglas Horne and his 5 volume set that
draws on his experience in interviewing for the ARRB. Much great new
information came from their work, and it has helped solve many parts of
the case, such as the phony work done at the 'autopsy'.

Chris

[Bud]

Does that testimony actually mean what you represent it to mean? Nope.

[Bud]

Or so you figure. But what you figure doesn`t count for anything.

[Anthony Marsh]

I don't know what you mean by "current movement" but you are not in it.
You belong in the Fetzer camp. You don't know David Lifton. I do. I have
talked to him and worked with him many times. To me the most important
contribution he made was publishing the autopsy photos in Best Evidence. I
don't give a fig about his theories. But his dogged pursuit of evidence
and interviews is a fine example for all researchers.

[Anthony Marsh]

So, just because WC defenders can quote hundreds of witnesses you have
to believe the WC? I hope not. Learn to think for yourself.

> Chris
>
>

[BT George]

Uh-huh. Sure. Even as you ingore pretty much *all* contra-data and
*TESTIMONY* that contradicts your scenarios whenever it suits your
purposes to do so.

But far worse for me, you ignore *COMMON SENSE* and stubbornly *refuse* to
deal *credibly* with the number of conspirators (active and passive) who
have been over a period of many decades now, needed for to make your
theories work.


***For our Interested Viewers and Lurkers***

Below are several links to some of my posts from our previous exchanges.
*Please* feel free to look at the *ENTIRE* context of the exchanges in
question to make sure you get a flavor for the whole exchange.

It is to *YOUR* good judgement that I leave to decide if you believe I am
"running" from the type of "evidence" that Chris/MFT finds so compelling,
or if I am actually showing *good judgment* regarding who and what ideas
are worth my personal time and energy to debate:


https://groups.google.com/d/msg/alt.assassination.jfk/80Q8gyImPPw/7YEQmW7_pAcJ
https://groups.google.com/d/msg/alt.assassination.jfk/80Q8gyImPPw/XT1TkWF-jhwJ
https://groups.google.com/d/msg/alt.assassination.jfk/Ahj1q-l-eFE/qULrv9nvbdQJ
https://groups.google.com/d/msg/alt.assassination.jfk/AU6xO-qr-eE/CC_J0aCBA1EJ
https://groups.google.com/d/msg/alt.assassination.jfk/ERt66UmWzjo/ejmmCY83D3kJ
https://groups.google.com/d/msg/alt.assassination.jfk/ERt66UmWzjo/GceUenR6rBIJ
https://groups.google.com/d/msg/alt.assassination.jfk/MQxz160Ebjc/MrPnPUxdKf4J
https://groups.google.com/d/msg/alt.assassination.jfk/NF_pf4Pqwmg/HA4EsZ0HM30J
https://groups.google.com/d/msg/alt.assassination.jfk/NF_pf4Pqwmg/LJKsSKCk6ykJ
https://groups.google.com/d/msg/alt.assassination.jfk/NF_pf4Pqwmg/Tc_P9-Q3RcUJ
https://groups.google.com/d/msg/alt.assassination.jfk/-pPVP7FmJzc/E54ThW2PEUIJ
https://groups.google.com/d/msg/alt.assassination.jfk/voB9Sqw0FUI/Ddw6DKBrRKkJ
https://groups.google.com/d/msg/alt.assassination.jfk/voB9Sqw0FUI/ensQs6zCExsJ
https://groups.google.com/d/msg/alt.assassination.jfk/voB9Sqw0FUI/WnHnp56iS-gJ

And one more thing...

It seems that Chris delights to have the last word in virtually every
exchange. No sin in that. I prefer it that way too. Doubtless, he feels
that when his opponents stop responding to him that he has finally
silenced them.

Again *YOU* be the judge of whether it is primarily the *credibility* of
his beleifs/arguments/proofs that cause them to let him have the last
word, or whether it is more likely that they realize almost *NO* (ZERO)
ulitimate hope of getting through to him or accomplishing anything else
useful through continuing the exchange and simply tire of the effort.

BT George

[cmikes]

Do you think Lifton will appreciate you giving Horne credit for all his
"work"? Again, prove or even find ANY hint that someone could operate on
a corpse and make it look like the wounds happened pre-mortem and we'll go
from there.

[Bud]

Is that what you think he wrote? Seemed to me he was saying your ideas
were to infantile to bother with.

[Bud]

When you are dealing with someone who believes explosive were snuck into
three skyscrapers and were coordinated with plane strikes to bring those
buildings down you are dealing with someone who`s damage to their own
credibility is both self inflicted and fatal.

[mainframetech]

Of course, there is always the chance that I'm right and will argue it
until someone has made some sense to me that something is NOT true...:)
But I doubt you consider that possibility, since you only deal with
'common sense', which is (of course) subjective.

Chris

[mainframetech]

Tell me if these are familiar sounds:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w7dlw53fOJs

Chris

[mainframetech]

Please try to think a bit here. I don't give Horne credit for Lifton's
work. But Horne has gone a bit beyond where Lifton was in my eyes, and I
give him credit for his own work. He has shown himself to be a good
researcher and is able to put together many of the facts of the case,
hidden as some of them have become. I will give credit to anyone that I
think is uncovering parts of this case, including Gil Jesus, who has shown
himself to be an excellent researcher. What Gil's beliefs are, I have no
idea, but his research in many instances is excellent, and well
documented.

Chris

[BT George]

Top Post:

I meant to add these two to the above list of linked prior posts:

https://groups.google.com/d/msg/alt.assassination.jfk/8KtJyYSwd0U/PBdPQEIXLvgJ
https://groups.google.com/d/msg/alt.assassination.jfk/8KtJyYSwd0U/pxF54ZfIiacJ

BT George

[Anthony Marsh]

Now you've moved the goalposts. It used to be "operate on a corpse and no
one notice." But I showed that Humes noticed what he THOUGHT was surgery
to the top of the head. So you had to change your claim and wash it down.
But it doesn't matter. Because in this case the doctors were incompetent
and didn't even notice the throat wound. THAT operation was not post
mortem, but it did change the appearance of a wound so much that The Three
Stooges did not even know it was a bullet wound. YOU FAIL.

[Bud]

See what I mean?

[mainframetech]

The gist of your complaint seems to be whether I chose sworn testimony,
or non-sworn testimony.

If that's the case, then eliminate all the non-sworn testimony and see
how many people you get, then fill in for them from the 26 or so people in
the gallery at the autopsy, none of whom I counted in the witness tally.

Whatever number of witnesses you come up with, it will be far and away
much higher a number than the number of people that were recorded as
saying that they saw ONLY a small bullet hole except the 2 prosectors.

And sworn testimony is a bit more reliable than general statements
because of the punishment for perjury. Doesn't stop folks from lying, but
it lends a bit more security...ask any politician...:)

If this doesn't help, let me know.

Chris

[BT George]

> The gist of your complaint seems to be whether I chose sworn testimony,
>or non-sworn testimony.

> If that's the case, then eliminate all the non-sworn testimony and see
how many people you get, then fill in for them from the 26 or so people in
the gallery at the autopsy, none of whom I counted in the witness tally.

> Whatever number of witnesses you come up with, it will be far and away
>
> much higher a number than the number of people that were recorded as
>
> saying that they saw ONLY a small bullet hole except the 2 prosectors.
>
>
>
> And sworn testimony is a bit more reliable than general statements
>
> because of the punishment for perjury. Doesn't stop folks from lying, but
>
> it lends a bit more security...ask any politician...:)
>
>
>
> If this doesn't help, let me know.
>
>

Final Comments:

The "gist" of my complaint has NOTHING to do with sworn vs. non-sworn
testimony. It has *more* to do with your *interpretation and selectivity*
in what you choose to accept. And it has EVERYTHING to do with your
attitude about what constitutes *CREDIBLE* evidence and *REALISTIC*
scenarios.

On the latter score, there is simply a divide that is simply too
unbridgeable for my time and taste.

BT George

[mainframetech]

Well of course you need an excuse to avoid having to go against 40+
people all seeing the same thing. And effectively NONE seeing a small
bullet hole in the same BOH!

Think of the difficulties you would have if you actually tried to
explain that anomaly of a 'large hole' with 40+ witnesses vs a 'small
bullet hole' with ONLY the 2 prosectors. Rough indeed!

Chris

[BT George]

...Not nearly so much as you need an excuse to *always* try to get in the last word :-)

At any rate, my postion is firm and clear. Absurd scenarios remains absurd scenarios, no matter how many witness statements you try to pick and choose to underwrite them.

Now go ahead and have the last word in this thread too. ...I won't be posting anything else.

BT George

>
> Chris

[mainframetech]

Thank you, I will. There are many possible scenarios that would fit this murder. The only thing we have is the evidence, and much od that has been proven to have been messed with mostly by the FBI. Witness statements have been changed, some witnesses have been intimidated into not making statements or testifying, and evidence has been 'created' to give the appearance of a guilty party who would take all the blame and free up the conpirators to enjoy their lives without being hounded to the end of their days.

I see the murder one way, and though there are times, as in ANY murder investigation that I have speculated to fill in a missing piece of information, that speculation is dependent on what most people would do in a circumstance.

Whatever you believe, if you want to debate it, that's fine with me, and I'll be there to do that. I won't run away any time as I've seen some folks do who pretend to be objective gurus of the case, and in that you might get the idea I need to have the last word. While it's nice, there is no reason to have the last word unless I haven't convinced someone of what I see as the right scenario. THAT is my reason for continuing. Watch and see if I need the last words with someone that believes what I say.

Chris

[Bud]

Imagine the trouble you would have showing that any of these people got
a good look at the back of Kennedy`s head.

>
>
> Think of the difficulties you would have if you actually tried to
>
> explain that anomaly of a 'large hole' with 40+ witnesses vs a 'small
>
> bullet hole' with ONLY the 2 prosectors. Rough indeed!

We have everyone who made a careful examination to determine the facts
about the wounds on our side. You have casual views.

>
>
> Chris