DVP's "Posting privileges removed" At The Education Forum

[David Von Pein]

Let's have a look at the private message I received on the morning of May
16, 2015, from Education Forum administrator and moderator James R.
Gordon....


[Quote On:]

Posting privileges removed

David,

I know this should not happen, but you have really got under my skin.

I am really very angry with your sarcastic mockery of myself and your
arrogant self conceit.

I understand this is not the way I should behave, but I am just so angry
at the way you have treated me that I have resorted to something I would
not normally do.

Sorry.

James

[End Quote.]


Here is my reply to James at 12:37 PM EDT on May 16, 2015 (I still have
the ability to write "Private Messages" at Edu. Forum, but I cannot post
in threads)....


[Quote On:]

That's okay, James. I was halfway expecting something like this to occur,
what with you being the head man at The Education Forum.

But to be totally clear, James, you DO realize, of course, that I have not
broken a single forum rule during our discussion about John Connally and
the Single-Bullet Theory. Right? And if "sarcastic mockery" were truly
legitimate grounds for having posting privileges suspended at your forum,
then I dare say that more than half of your current members would have
long ago suffered the same penalty that you just imposed upon me.

Regards,
David Von Pein

[End Quote.]


Here's the discussion that got under Gordon's skin....

http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=21888

[TJ Scully]

Are you surprised? Really? It is not an LN vs. CT mindset. It is a
perverse sense of entitlement that has overtaken them. The folks who you
have displeased are morally bankrupt. This is proven fact. They take what
they want, it is obvious. Oh....and they are always right, just ask them!

http://reopenkennedycase.forumotion.net/t928-the-education-forum-new-ownership-for-nowat-least-is-an-undisclosed-group
The Education Forum new ownership: (for now,at least) is an undisclosed
"group."

[bigdog]

On Saturday, May 16, 2015 at 3:14:32 PM UTC-4, David Von Pein wrote:

Conspiracy hobbyists do tend to get their shorts in a wad when someone
points out the silliness of their beliefs. They have been nitpicking the
WCR for over 50 years but when someone applies even a modest amount of
scrutiny to their pet theories, they get defensive. Not what we would
expect if they really felt secure in their beliefs.

[Robert Harris]

I think it is shameful that they booted you from the forum. I mean that in
all sincerity. During the years when I had a forum, I practically begged
nutters to join in. I genuinely wanted dissenters in order to test various
analyses and theories that were presented (including my own).

And I find it astounding that there are still people who deny that one
bullet passed through Kennedy and Connally. It was back in the 90's (I
think) when I first posted a GIF which made it clear that the jacket was
blown open, exposing much of Connally's white shirt, at precisely frame
223. Kennedy's hand began to rise at 225.

But there are other issues associated with the SBT, which are much more
important. For example, I believe I can prove to you that the 223 shot was
virtually inaudible and certainly didn't come from an unsuppressed, high
powered rifle.

I can now also prove that the doctors were incorrect in where they placed
the entry wound in the back. It was indeed, at the lower position, which
Robert Groden claimed, many years ago.

And we never did settle the question of the legitimacy of CE399.

Since you're out of the Ed forum for now, why not take on some of those
issues?



Robert Harris

[David Von Pein]

"I'm guessing that I'll probably have my posting privileges reinstated very soon at the Edu. Forum, because James Gordon has already admitted he acted too quickly. Gordon later said: "And if truth be told, I am aware I really did act before thinking. I was very angry and it was maybe intemperate to act as I did." .... But that won't undo the act of suspending me in the first place, which even Gordon said in his first message "is not the way I should behave"." -- DVP; 3:59 PM EDT; 5/16/15 (At Facebook)

https://www.facebook.com/groups/449371715190297/permalink/724522217675244/?comment_id=724574824336650

================

"David -- Posting privileges restored." -- James Gordon; 9:45 PM EDT; 5/16/15

================

My crystal ball worked perfectly.

[Mark Florio]

Bob, let me make a suggestion. Everyone can see what you are doing a mile
away. Stop the smary begging. Apparently, no one on here believes your
theory. Nor wants to go any further with such a condescending know-it-all.
Mark Florio

[Bud]

On Saturday, May 16, 2015 at 10:14:06 PM UTC-4, Robert Harris wrote:
> I think it is shameful that they booted you from the forum. I mean that in
> all sincerity. During the years when I had a forum, I practically begged
> nutters to join in. I genuinely wanted dissenters in order to test various
> analyses and theories that were presented (including my own).

What a history rewrite. You opened that forum for the sole purpose of having a vehicle to discuss your pet theory. You tried to dictate the topics your fellow CTers could discuss.

You don`t want to talk about ideas, you want people to listen to your ideas. You don`t hear a thing anyone says to you.

> And I find it astounding that there are still people who deny that one
> bullet passed through Kennedy and Connally. It was back in the 90's (I
> think) when I first posted a GIF which made it clear that the jacket was
> blown open, exposing much of Connally's white shirt, at precisely frame
> 223. Kennedy's hand began to rise at 225.
>
> But there are other issues associated with the SBT, which are much more
> important. For example, I believe I can prove to you that the 223 shot was
> virtually inaudible and certainly didn't come from an unsuppressed, high
> powered rifle.

You imagine you have proven this.

> I can now also prove that the doctors were incorrect in where they placed
> the entry wound in the back. It was indeed, at the lower position, which
> Robert Groden claimed, many years ago.

Luckily there is a photo of the back proving you both to be wrong.

> And we never did settle the question of the legitimacy of CE399.

It is settled to my satisfaction.

> Since you're out of the Ed forum for now, why not take on some of those
> issues?

He has. And predictably you are unaware of this.

>
> Robert Harris

[mainframetech]

On Saturday, May 16, 2015 at 10:14:06 PM UTC-4, Robert Harris wrote:

I'm here to astound you once again, that the SBT is dead, dead, dead. Based on the findings of the prosectors DURING the autopsy, and comments made in the Autopsy Report (AR), and a sworn statement of Jerrol Custer, X-ray Technician, who said that as he raised the body to get a better shot, and he saw a bullet fall out of the back of JFK and be grabbed immediately by Finck, never to be seen again. Sworn testimony is available for the courageous and objective.

You can disprove any 2 of the 3 reasons, and you still have NO bullet that went from JFK to hit Connally!

During the autopsy, the prosectors searched for the bullet from the back wound, and a path for it. After failing in both efforts, they came to a point where they ALL said "There's NO EXIT" from the body of JFK for the back wound bullet. That included Pierre Finck, who was the expert in these things.

While the AR tried to say that the back wound bullet went through JFK and came out the throat wound, it also said that "the pleura was INTACT". The bullet had stopped at the pleura for an unknown reason, and had penetrated only about an inch before being stopped. There was a bruise left on the pleura and the right lung. If the pleura was intact, then nothing tore or punched through it and the lung to go on and go out the throat wound.

In fact ,as the prosectors were probing the back wound wit hthe chropme probe and fingers, James Jenkins, Bethesda Technologist, who was assisting at the operation, looked into the body cavity and saw the probe rubbing on the pleura and being stopped at that point. All statements available for the courageous and objective.

So that's the 3 reasons. The SBT is dead.

And if it helps, the CE399 bullet in FBI custody is not the original bullet found on the wrong gurney at Parkland, it's a test bullet, which can be shown.

Chris

[mainframetech]

Conspiracy denialists have a tendency to nitpick too. Look at the discussions of lapels flipping, and looks on faces and startlement and all sorts of little tiny gestures that are being nitpicked to death. And most using the altered version (proven) of the Z-film...:)

Not only was there a witness to the Z-film having been altered from the original, but there has surfaced another witness who feels also that they saw the original film and then saw the altered version that was put out for the rest of us to argue and nitpick over.

The new witness was Joe O'Donnell, who said he showed a copy of the Z-film to Jackie Kennedy. The reason he thinks he saw the original film was that the Z-film he has seen on multiple occasions on TV was very different to the one he saw with Jackie. "He specifically mentioned a very obvious halo around JFK's head after a headshot that he no longer sees on the current film."

From: "Murder in Dealey Plaza" in the article "Paradoxes of the JFK Assassination" by David W. Mantik, MD, PhD page 243

So now there are 2 witnesses that the Z-film was altered, both of whom had seen the original and knew the current version was changed.

Chris

[Allan G. Johnson]

On Saturday, May 16, 2015 at 3:14:32 PM UTC-4, David Von Pein wrote:

WTG, DVP. To some people the truth really does hurt. He can't win the
game so he'll just fold up the board and go home.

[Robert Harris]

Which do you think is more unethical David?

Censoring a forum member because his views contradict other members,

or

evading critical issues because you know they will prove you wrong?

Tough call, eh? Both amount to the same thing, really.







Robert Harris

[Bud]

On Saturday, May 16, 2015 at 3:14:32 PM UTC-4, David Von Pein wrote:

> Let's have a look at the private message I received on the morning of May
> 16, 2015, from Education Forum administrator and moderator James R.
> Gordon....
>
>
> [Quote On:]
>
> Posting privileges removed
>
> David,
>
> I know this should not happen, but you have really got under my skin.
>
> I am really very angry with your sarcastic mockery of myself and your
> arrogant self conceit.
>
> I understand this is not the way I should behave, but I am just so angry
> at the way you have treated me that I have resorted to something I would
> not normally do.
>
> Sorry.
>
> James

Amazing, the moderator admits that it isn`t so much what DVP did but his
own shortcomings that led to the expulsion. If he can`t be a fair
arbitrator he should be the one stepping down.

[Anthony Marsh]

On 5/16/2015 9:14 PM, Robert Harris wrote:
>
> I think it is shameful that they booted you from the forum. I mean that
> in all sincerity. During the years when I had a forum, I practically
> begged nutters to join in. I genuinely wanted dissenters in order to
> test various analyses and theories that were presented (including my own).
>

And NO ONE wanted to join your forum.

> And I find it astounding that there are still people who deny that one
> bullet passed through Kennedy and Connally. It was back in the 90's (I
> think) when I first posted a GIF which made it clear that the jacket was
> blown open, exposing much of Connally's white shirt, at precisely frame
> 223. Kennedy's hand began to rise at 225.
>

Silly. I debunked that at the time.

> But there are other issues associated with the SBT, which are much more
> important. For example, I believe I can prove to you that the 223 shot
> was virtually inaudible and certainly didn't come from an unsuppressed,
> high powered rifle.
>

There was no high powered rifle. There was no pink elephant.

> I can now also prove that the doctors were incorrect in where they
> placed the entry wound in the back. It was indeed, at the lower
> position, which Robert Groden claimed, many years ago.
>

Talk is cheap. SHOW us.

> And we never did settle the question of the legitimacy of CE399.
>
> Since you're out of the Ed forum for now, why not take on some of those
> issues?
>

Not with you.

>
>
> Robert Harris

[Anthony Marsh]

Didn't there used to be a rule in THIS newsgroup against crossposting? I
think one reason for that rule was that we can't just take someone's word
for what was said in another forum. That's called hearsay. Or gossip or
innuendo. Not facts.

[Anthony Marsh]

I like how you replied to his message before he posted it.
That tells us something.
BTW the Education Forum is not a Usenet Newsgroup.It is a private forum.

[Bud]

On Saturday, May 16, 2015 at 3:14:32 PM UTC-4, David Von Pein wrote:

Just read this and saw that DVP had is posting privileges returned. It
was great to read DVP forcing those dolts to shove their heads up their
own asses to avoid acknowledging the clear indications of the SBT. Some
assclown named Robert Prudhomme keeps threatening to provide a "thrashing"
on the issue but never seems to have anything to contribute. James Gordon
is desperately trying to find justifications to ignore the clear
indications that Connally was shot, and some other mental midget keeps
popping in to say he doesn`t bother arguing with LNers (and it`s clear to
see why not, he might be forced to think and defend his cherished
fantasies). But they will never give in on this point as it would take
them one step closer to the truth, and that is where they fear to tread.

[TJ Scully]

David,

Do you find it at all ironic that you started a thread on MacRae's forum,
protesting the thin skinned reaction of newest forum emperor, James
Gordon, and that MacRae has now gone through your thread and deleted the
memberships and all posts of two forum members who posted negatively about
MacRae's censorship policies?
http://www.jfkassassinationforum.com/index.php/topic,12298.msg383562.html#msg383562

Note that his hypocrisy may even eclipse Simkin's because, on the one hand
he railed about protecting younger readers while leaving visible the "F"
word in a post he included a quote containing the word. He also paid to
register the domain http://reopenkennedycase.com and redirected it to push
traffic to his own forum. http://reopenkennedycase.org "bad" .....
http://reopenkennedycase.com "good"?

I posted in objection to MacRae's deletion of more than 30 of my posts and
more than 90 of Carmine Savastano's. MacRae's response was to delete the
entirety of my 1200 posts on his forum and my membership as well.:

See: http://www.jfk.education/node/6

[Pamela Brown]

Not exactly. There is no "SBT'. There are simply different scenarios.
Read my article:
http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=2372

[Ace Kefford]

On Saturday, May 16, 2015 at 3:14:32 PM UTC-4, David Von Pein wrote:

This "news" definitely falls into the "dog bites man" category, rather
than the "man bites dog". I'm sure you weren't surprised. I'm surprised
you had the stomach to even try reasoning with so many of the "true
believers" on that site.

[bigdog]

In chess, the move is called "knee to the corner of the board".

Works everytime.

[Robert Harris]

I have no idea what you are complaining about. Every word I wrote, was
truthful and sincere.

It gets tiresome being constantly accused of vague, nonspecific, sins -
much like all the mythical "rebuttals" I have been evading:-)






Robert Harris

[Robert Harris]

Bud wrote:
> On Saturday, May 16, 2015 at 10:14:06 PM UTC-4, Robert Harris wrote:
>> I think it is shameful that they booted you from the forum. I mean that in
>> all sincerity. During the years when I had a forum, I practically begged
>> nutters to join in. I genuinely wanted dissenters in order to test various
>> analyses and theories that were presented (including my own).
>
> What a history rewrite. You opened that forum for the sole purpose of having a vehicle to discuss your pet theory. You tried to dictate the topics your fellow CTers could discuss.
>

You know better than that. It is sad indeed Bud, how desperate you have
become to find something, ANYTHING to attack me on.

99% of the postings in that forum, had nothing to do with my discoveries
and analyses.

And you also know I that tried to recruit nutters from this newsgroup,
several times. But like you, they were all terrified that I might
challenged them on the 285 issue:-)




Robert Harris

[Anthony Marsh]

And they have a habit of assuming that if Oswald did something which
everyone else does it means he's guilty. They point to his leaving
behind his wedding ring as proof that he never intended to return alive.
But he didn't do that before the Walker shooting. Then the Nazis here
claim that when he was arrested he raised a clinched fist in a Communist
salute. Some kooks even go so far as to claim he did it in the ambulance
after being shot by Jack Ruby.
They claim he was the ONLY person to not go outside and watch the
motorcade so therefore he MUST have been the shooter. They claim he was
the ONLY TSBD worker who left early therefore he was fleeing. Well, the
DPD did not immediately put out an APB on Oswald, but they did on Givens.

> Not only was there a witness to the Z-film having been altered from the original, but there has surfaced another witness who feels also that they saw the original film and then saw the altered version that was put out for the rest of us to argue and nitpick over.
>

Garbage.

> The new witness was Joe O'Donnell, who said he showed a copy of the Z-film to Jackie Kennedy. The reason he thinks he saw the original film was that the Z-film he has seen on multiple occasions on TV was very different to the one he saw with Jackie. "He specifically mentioned a very obvious halo around JFK's head after a headshot that he no longer sees on the current film."
>

There were lots of bad copies. Some were just in black and white.

> From: "Murder in Dealey Plaza" in the article "Paradoxes of the JFK Assassination" by David W. Mantik, MD, PhD page 243
>

JUNK

> So now there are 2 witnesses that the Z-film was altered, both of whom had seen the original and knew the current version was changed.
>

No. You have nothing.

> Chris
>

[Anthony Marsh]

There is a little bit of irony there. Harris invents a shot at Z-285 to
say that 2 shots so close together alone proves conspiracy, and then
rejects the acoustical evidence because he can't match up its 2 close
shots with his 285 shot.

[Sandy McCroskey]

That's right!

You should stop ignoring what people tell you.

But if you did, you would realize you've wasted years of your life
trying to prove an untenable theory.

[Anthony Marsh]

Don't believe it. It's just a hoax. They're still out to get you.

[David Von Pein]

Amen, Bud. Thank you. Always great to read your posts. You always hit the
bull's-eye with your first shot.

[Robert Harris]

What specifically, did I ignore?

>
> But if you did, you would realize you've wasted years of your life
> trying to prove an untenable theory.

Why do you think three people dropped their heads, and two spun around
at enormous speed, all within a 6th of a second of Zapruder's reaction?

If you still deny that they did exactly that, then let's start a new
thread and discuss the evidence related to that issue.







Robert Harris

[Robert Harris]

David?







Robert Harris

[David Von Pein]

From The Education Forum (5/19/15).......

JAMES GORDON SAID:

There has been no debate on the SBT and John Connally's lapel. David Von
Pein's posts - throughout these 14 pages - have drowned [out] any chance
for fellow members discussing this issue.


DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

Huh? Why on Earth would you say such a thing, James?

How is it that my posts regarding various other issues connected with the
SBT and John Connally's reactions in the Z-Film --- which are issues that
YOU yourself have commented on repeatedly in this thread --- are
prohibiting other members from steering the conversation back to my
thread-starting title -- "John Connally's Lapel"?

Are all other Education Forum members now somehow gagged? And are they
somehow forced to keep quiet about the "lapel" even though this thread --
like all forum threads almost always do -- drifted away from the "lapel"
topic and focused more on Connally's other reactions as seen in the
Z-Film?

I'm afraid I'm forced to do another one of these (and it's almost as
noticeable as the one John Connally can be seen doing in the Zapruder
movie)....

~ SHRUG ~


JAMES GORDON SAID:

This thread is focusing my interest on [an] issue that - at the moment - I
do not have an answer to. The issue is this: at what point does a member's
right to post and discuss limit the rights of other members to also
discuss. Is there a point where the rights of other members override the
rights of any individual member?


DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

Time for another one of these....

~shrug~


JAMES GORDON SAID:

Although this thread has reached 14 pages, there has been no serious
debate on the issues. And what I do not know is where is the line between
every member having his/her right to post and the point where an
individual's right to post in [is???] limiting fellow members right to
debate and discuss. I do not have an answer to this problem at the moment.


DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

I think a better question is:

Why is James Gordon inventing a "problem" where none seems to exist at
all?

Fellow members are still free to post anything they want. (Aren't they,
Jim?)

And fellow posters can steer the debate back to ONLY the topic of "John
Connally's Lapel" if they want to. Right?

So what IS the "problem"? I see none--other than a "problem" being
manufactured by an administrator named James Gordon who seems to have a
desire to FIND some kind of "problem" with an Education Forum member he
vehemently disagrees with named David R. Von Pein.

And, btw, even though I gave this thread the title of "John Connally's
Lapel", everybody can easily see that in the thread-starting post, I talk
about a whole lot of OTHER stuff besides just the "lapel". So, in reality,
this thread HAS remained pretty much on course and on the rails when the
TOTALITY of everything I discuss in my thread-starter is taken into
account (the actual title of the thread notwithstanding).

Everyone is free to disagree with my next comment if they so desire,
but....

Based on the comments I just quoted above by James Gordon, it sounds to me
like James is trying his hardest to steer the topic back to ONLY the area
of "John Connally's Lapel" and keep the discussion AWAY from some of
Connally's other reactions seen in the Z-Film (e.g., the flinching, the
grimace, the arm raising, etc.). And the only reason I can envision James
wanting to do that is because he knows--deep down--that his posts in this
thread have been totally defeated and flattened by my counter-arguments
and various GIF clips proving that James is 100% wrong about his
interpretations concerning Governor Connally's movements in frames 224 to
227 of the Zapruder Film. (IMHO.)

http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=21888&page=15#entry303223

[Anthony Marsh]

Which theory? You mean the one we already proved in 1978? Maybe you were
in a coma then.

[Anthony Marsh]

On 5/18/2015 3:59 PM, TJ Scully wrote:
> David,
>
> Do you find it at all ironic that you started a thread on MacRae's forum,
> protesting the thin skinned reaction of newest forum emperor, James
> Gordon, and that MacRae has now gone through your thread and deleted the
> memberships and all posts of two forum members who posted negatively about
> MacRae's censorship policies?
> http://www.jfkassassinationforum.com/index.php/topic,12298.msg383562.html#msg383562
>

How do you know they aren't all the same person? He kicked me out because
I complained about all his minions using multiple aliases. Just find one
you like and stick with it.

[OHLeeRedux]

Robert Harris
- show quoted text -
David?







Robert Harris


What a pathetic cry for attention, Robert. Yes, that is exactly what it
is, spin as you may.

[Mark OBLAZNEY]

Educating Forums.

Replace the posts erased ! Remember Leon Trotsky, too.

[Mike]

John Connally is reacting to TWO closely spaced shots...

The lapel flip is a red herring, it is a classic red herring.

The following video was created to show John Connally is reacting to two
closely spaced shots.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kmZlfwDZA9M&feature=youtu.be

Here is a gif file which shows the same thing...

https://lh6.googleusercontent.com/-h5M7_T60Z74/VVoC3rD8FjI/AAAAAAAAEHk/nq2gyB0csKY/w190-h147-no/connally_LEFT.gif

[Bud]

Everything that anyone has every said to you that went against what you
desperately wanted to believe.

>
> >
> > But if you did, you would realize you've wasted years of your life
> > trying to prove an untenable theory.
>
> Why do you think three people dropped their heads, and two spun around
> at enormous speed, all within a 6th of a second of Zapruder's reaction?

Why would you think that people who are under attack would stay still?

> If you still deny that they did exactly that, then let's start a new
> thread and discuss the evidence related to that issue.

Arguing with you is like the movie "Groundhog Day".

>
>
>
>
>
>
> Robert Harris

[Mike]

On 5/19/2015 11:18 PM, David Von Pein wrote:

Actually they are not.

There are some fellow members who have been on moderation for two and one
half year at the edforum, they call it an open ended moderation that has
no time limit for expiration, so even if the member never makes a post for
two and one half years they still remain on moderation. Of course this
creates a catch 22 situation where even if the member did post and obeyed
all their rules they could still remain on moderation after two and one
half years because the original intent was always to place that person on
total moderation.

Open ended moderations at an otherwise unmoderated forum should not be
allowed. All moderations should have a time limit, otherwise they should
just ban the person. But to have an open ended moderation where the member
is constantly kept under the thumb of the forum adminsitrators, is wrong,
particularly if it was an administrator who lobbied to have the member put
on moderation to begin with.

I assure that if that member could post freely at the education forum they
would be all over your ass on this subject.

[Sandy McCroskey]

Ha ha ha.
The "acoustic evidence."
What a joke.

[Anthony Marsh]

No. Who said there is Freedom of Speech? The US Constitution?
The Supreme Court? Doesn't apply to a private newsgroup.

> And fellow posters can steer the debate back to ONLY the topic of "John
> Connally's Lapel" if they want to. Right?
>

No, not if you don't want them to.

> So what IS the "problem"? I see none--other than a "problem" being
> manufactured by an administrator named James Gordon who seems to have a
> desire to FIND some kind of "problem" with an Education Forum member he
> vehemently disagrees with named David R. Von Pein.
>
> And, btw, even though I gave this thread the title of "John Connally's
> Lapel", everybody can easily see that in the thread-starting post, I talk
> about a whole lot of OTHER stuff besides just the "lapel". So, in reality,
> this thread HAS remained pretty much on course and on the rails when the
> TOTALITY of everything I discuss in my thread-starter is taken into
> account (the actual title of the thread notwithstanding).
>
> Everyone is free to disagree with my next comment if they so desire,
> but....
>
> Based on the comments I just quoted above by James Gordon, it sounds to me
> like James is trying his hardest to steer the topic back to ONLY the area
> of "John Connally's Lapel" and keep the discussion AWAY from some of
> Connally's other reactions seen in the Z-Film (e.g., the flinching, the
> grimace, the arm raising, etc.). And the only reason I can envision James
> wanting to do that is because he knows--deep down--that his posts in this
> thread have been totally defeated and flattened by my counter-arguments
> and various GIF clips proving that James is 100% wrong about his
> interpretations concerning Governor Connally's movements in frames 224 to
> 227 of the Zapruder Film. (IMHO.)
>

How can anyone avoid making fun of it when certain deadheads rely on it?

> http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=21888&page=15#entry303223
>
>

[Anthony Marsh]

Harris?
You're replying to yourself replying to yourself replying to yourself?
Because no one wants to talk to you?

[Anthony Marsh]

On 5/20/2015 12:16 AM, Robert Harris wrote:

Because the limo suddenly slowed down.

> If you still deny that they did exactly that, then let's start a new
> thread and discuss the evidence related to that issue.
>
>

Why don't you start a new board where you are the only poster?
It's called a BLOG.

>
>
>
>
>
> Robert Harris
>
>

[Sandy McCroskey]

You ignore *everything*.

>
>>
>> But if you did, you would realize you've wasted years of your life
>> trying to prove an untenable theory.
>
> Why do you think three people dropped their heads, and two spun around
> at enormous speed, all within a 6th of a second of Zapruder's reaction?
>
>
> If you still deny that they did exactly that, then let's start a new
> thread and discuss the evidence related to that issue.
>

Bob, I've discussed this with you. Many, many times.

I have other things to do now.

/sm

[Bud]

The one that showed that Oswald fired all the bullets that hit Kennedy?

[mainframetech]

Could it be they also got irritated at all the advertising you do
everywhere of your own website, which could take patrons away from HIS
forum? I know all your constant advertising bugs me, but it's not my
forum, so I put up with it.

Chris