Blurtation of the month!

[Robert Harris]

The award goes to (drum roll please) John McAdams, for stating, "Bob
won't answer. He just fusses and fumes.", in regard to him asking me if
I think a shot was fired from the north storm drain.

Of course, Bob has answered his question countless times, and in great
detail, providing facts and evidence that he will not even try to refute.

Congratulations John! Due to your silence, you were trailing several of
your buds, until you came up with that one:-)



Robert Harris

[BT George]

Don't worry Bob. They'll never surpass your record-breaking Z285
blurtation # 19,900!

....Zero *real* endorsement or *scientific* validation for your arguments.
:-)

....Zero REAL, HARD, CORROBORATING EVIDENCE. :-)

....Zero *credible* anwers to *those* questions; I always ask you! :-)

BT George

[Robert Harris]

BT George wrote:
>
> On Monday, July 28, 2014 10:36:33 AM UTC-5, Robert Harris wrote:
>> The award goes to (drum roll please) John McAdams, for stating, "Bob
>>
>> won't answer. He just fusses and fumes.", in regard to him asking me if
>>
>> I think a shot was fired from the north storm drain.
>>
>>
>>
>> Of course, Bob has answered his question countless times, and in great
>>
>> detail, providing facts and evidence that he will not even try to refute.
>>
>>
>>
>> Congratulations John! Due to your silence, you were trailing several of
>>
>> your buds, until you came up with that one:-)
>>
>>
>>
>
> Don't worry Bob. They'll never surpass your record-breaking Z285
> blurtation # 19,900!

As I carefully explained, "blurtations" are devoid of evidence and
reason. I have posted a small mountain of evidence as well as reason,
which even you have confirmed, has never been refuted and "probably
never will".

What you are doing, is trying to find isolated evidence types which you
think are not relevant to the issues, all the while, ignoring perfectly
valid evidence that would hold up in any courtroom.

Sadly, you have failed, even to do that.

>
> ....Zero *real* endorsement or *scientific* validation for your arguments.
> :-)

Utter nonsense. I sent a paper on the 285 shot to Dr. Michael Stroscio,
whose qualifications are similar to Alvarez's, and he gushingly,
endorsed me. Years later, he also endorsed a more detailed, online
article on the subject.

quoting:

Dear Sir,

I was good to hear from you again and to see that you have continued
your marvelous work.

Clearly, you have made great contribution to understanding what actually
happened in President Kennedy's assassination. You have made so many
points that I would have to be very brave to even try to comment on each
one. Your work is truly extensive and it makes a lot of sense.
However, I can tell you that reading your work gives me a sense of
satisfaction derived from getting a view of the truth. Your technique
of looking at a large amount of testimony for consistency and coupling
this to visual evidence is extremely powerful.

quote off

And Alvarez corroborated the loud and startling noise at 285, even
though he was obviously, mistaken about it being a siren.

You will not find better or more qualified experts on this kind of
thing, than these two, who both wrote extensive papers on the Zapruder film.

>
> ....Zero REAL, HARD, CORROBORATING EVIDENCE. :-)

As opposed to unreal, soft evidence:-)

The visible reactions in the Zapruder film constitute valid, "hard"
evidence, just as a surveillance video from a convenience store holdup does.

And that video confirms that every surviving passenger in the limo,
carried out textbook startle reactions in the same 1/6th of one second.

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

Why can't we stop playing games, BT? It is utterly insane, to deny what
is going on here. It is the equivalent of arguing that the Earth is
flat. The witness statements, the science, and the ridiculously obvious,
visible reactions, *ALL* lead to the same conclusion.

Meanwhile, you have ZERO evidence, hard, soft or anything else,
supporting the theory that Oswald acted alone.

Are you absolutely, 100% certain that you are not arguing as you do,
because of what you *want*, rather than what the evidence proves?



Robert Harris

[OHLeeRedux]

Stroscio is a priest who drove demons from Mother Teresa. Good for him. But that in no way makes him an expert on the JFK assassination.

I have a startle, reaction every, time I read, one of your, posts.

[Sandy McCroskey]

On 7/29/14, 12:36 PM, OHLeeRedux wrote:
> Stroscio is a priest who drove demons from Mother Teresa. Good for him. But that in no way makes him an expert on the JFK assassination.
>
> I have a startle, reaction every, time I read, one of your, posts.
>

I don't think anyone takes seriously your deliberate misidentifications of
the physicists Harris always cites, and I know you're just doing it to get
Bob's goat, but someone wandering in here might get the impression that
you don't have your facts straight.

Since I happen to agree with you that Oswald killed Kennedy etc., I find
this unfortunate. (Especially when it's so easy to show how Bob misuses
the real McCoys.)

[Anthony Marsh]

On 7/29/2014 12:36 PM, OHLeeRedux wrote:
> Stroscio is a priest who drove demons from Mother Teresa. Good for him. But that in no way makes him an expert on the JFK assassination.
>
> I have a startle, reaction every, time I read, one of your, posts.
>

No, that's called acid reflux.

[Robert Harris]

Sandy McCroskey wrote:
> On 7/29/14, 12:36 PM, OHLeeRedux wrote:
>> Stroscio is a priest who drove demons from Mother Teresa. Good for
>> him. But that in no way makes him an expert on the JFK assassination.
>>
>> I have a startle, reaction every, time I read, one of your, posts.
>>
>
> I don't think anyone takes seriously your deliberate misidentifications
> of the physicists Harris always cites, and I know you're just doing it
> to get Bob's goat, but someone wandering in here might get the
> impression that you don't have your facts straight.

OR... young people and newbies to the case, might get the impression
that he is right. Of course, that is what he is hoping for.

>
> Since I happen to agree with you that Oswald killed Kennedy etc., I find
> this unfortunate. (Especially when it's so easy to show how Bob misuses
> the real McCoys.)

Well, if it's that easy, what has been holding you back?

Tell everyone how I misrepresented Alvarez and Stroscio.

Or do you just say things like that for the same reason Mr. REDUX does?







Robert Harris

[BT George]

On Monday, July 28, 2014 9:07:30 PM UTC-5, Robert Harris wrote:
> BT George wrote:
>
> >
>
> > On Monday, July 28, 2014 10:36:33 AM UTC-5, Robert Harris wrote:
>
> >> The award goes to (drum roll please) John McAdams, for stating, "Bob
>
> >>
>
> >> won't answer. He just fusses and fumes.", in regard to him asking me if
>
> >>
>
> >> I think a shot was fired from the north storm drain.
>
> >>
>
> >>
>
> >>
>
> >> Of course, Bob has answered his question countless times, and in great
>
> >>
>
> >> detail, providing facts and evidence that he will not even try to refute.
>
> >>
>
> >>
>
> >>
>
> >> Congratulations John! Due to your silence, you were trailing several of
>
> >>
>
> >> your buds, until you came up with that one:-)
>
> >>
>
> >>
>
> >>
>
> >
>
> > Don't worry Bob. They'll never surpass your record-breaking Z285
>
> > blurtation # 19,900!
>
>
>
> As I carefully explained, "blurtations" are devoid of evidence and
>
> reason. I have posted a small mountain of evidence as well as reason,
>
> which even you have confirmed, has never been refuted and "probably
>
> never will".
>
>

Well Bob. By your own admission we are dealing with a word you just made
up. Since there is no accepted English dictionary we can consult, others
are pretty much free to determine just what a "blurtation" means in their
eyes.

The reason *I* call your Z285 theories "blurtations" is because they are
long on *arguments* and Bob Harris *interpretations*, they are all but
*devoid* of any actual *EVIDENCE* that would likely to be accepted as such
by a judge, jury, or court of law.

Nor would you be able to submit your "facts" to a body of *recognized*
experts on the subject of *involuntary* startle reactions and have any
real hope of gaining their endorsement.

Indeed here---time and again---you have been challenged on these very
points and have never been able to mount *credible* responses. We *BOTH*
know that's the truth, because if you had such responses, those familiar
questions of mine could have *long* since been dispatched with. :-)

>
> What you are doing, is trying to find isolated evidence types which you
>
> think are not relevant to the issues, all the while, ignoring perfectly
>
> valid evidence that would hold up in any courtroom.
>
>

Wrongo. Your utter *lack* of peer-reviewed scientific support for your
*claims* that what we are seeing at this point on the Z Film are
*involuntary* *shot* startle reactions is *PERFECTLY* "relevant" to the
issue at hand.

Your claims that this would hold up in court are unwarranted---if not
downright laughable. 'Else you *ought* to be able to answer those "hard"
questions I am always putting to you. :-)

>
> Sadly, you have failed, even to do that.
>
>

Sadly, your perspective fails you---again. :-)

>
> >
>
> > ....Zero *real* endorsement or *scientific* validation for your arguments.
>
> > :-)
>
>
>
> Utter nonsense. I sent a paper on the 285 shot to Dr. Michael Stroscio,
>
> whose qualifications are similar to Alvarez's, and he gushingly,
>
> endorsed me. Years later, he also endorsed a more detailed, online
>
> article on the subject.
>
>
>
> quoting:
>
>
>
> Dear Sir,
>
>
>
> I was good to hear from you again and to see that you have continued
>
> your marvelous work.
>
>
>
> Clearly, you have made great contribution to understanding what actually
>
> happened in President Kennedy's assassination. You have made so many
>
> points that I would have to be very brave to even try to comment on each
>
> one. Your work is truly extensive and it makes a lot of sense.
>
> However, I can tell you that reading your work gives me a sense of
>
> satisfaction derived from getting a view of the truth. Your technique
>
> of looking at a large amount of testimony for consistency and coupling
>
> this to visual evidence is extremely powerful.
>
>
>
> quote off
>
>

Bob. I hate to break it to you. But that letter contains no *specific*
*SCIENTIFIC* "endorsement" of any of your ideas in *particular*.

Rather, it honestly reads more like a glorified "Thanks for sharing."
letter that the pro-CT Dr. Stroscio would send to a fellow CT who had
presented him with some interesting *ideas*. ....Ideas that Dr. Strocio
the "CT proponent" can endorse (generally), but that Dr. Stocio the
"physicist" could not comment on with *scientific* authority.

(Much as there are two Cyril Wechts. One the CT proponent, who spouts off
speculative and ill-supported anti-SBT theories, the other the "forensic
pathologist", who is forever returning to agree with the other FP's that
have reviewed the autopsy evidence that the "available" medical evidence
does not support any theories of gunshots from the front.)

How can we know this, other than sheer speculation, you ask? Simple.

If Dr. Strocio the *physicist* had been prepared to *scientifically*
endorse your theories do your *REALLY* suppose all that would have come of
it is your nice little "Thanks for sharing." letter? Of course not!

We can be certain beyond *all* *reasonable* doubt that a man of Strocio's
stature would do more than this *if* he was prepared *SCIENTIFICALLY* to
endorse your theories that---in your own words----constitute "absolute"
"proof" of conspiracy in the JFK case.

>
> And Alvarez corroborated the loud and startling noise at 285, even
>
> though he was obviously, mistaken about it being a siren.
>
>
>
> You will not find better or more qualified experts on this kind of
>
> thing, than these two, who both wrote extensive papers on the Zapruder film.
>
>

Yes. Two well-qualified experts who respectively "disagreed" (Alverez)
with your shot a Z285 conclusion or failed to *definitively* *ENDORSE*
(Stroscio) that conclusion. As both men were confronted with the same
basic fact patterns, their respective differences in view as to the
*likely* cause only serves to demonstrate that---no matter how brilliant
the respective analyzers are---this whole endeavor is fraught with the
*bias* and *interpretive* risk.


...Which is *precisely* why NO ONE---but Bob Harris---has ever tried to
declare that such analysis is able to establish with any *certainty* that
a shot has (or has not), in fact, occurred at a given time on the Z Film
based solely on such considerations.

>
> >
>
> > ....Zero REAL, HARD, CORROBORATING EVIDENCE. :-)
>
>
>
> As opposed to unreal, soft evidence:-)
>
>

Yes. Exactly. As I've said time and again. You don't understand the
differences between concepts like "arguments" and "interpretations" and
"soft" evidence (testimony and inference) vs. actual facts that can be
established beyond all *reasonable* doubt via an appeal to "hard" evidence
(like ballistics and fingerprint matches, autopsy and medical findings,
etc.).

This is *patently* obvious by the next "blutation" you are about to make.

:-)

>
> The visible reactions in the Zapruder film constitute valid, "hard"
>
> evidence, just as a surveillance video from a convenience store holdup does.
>
>

No Bob. They are not, because they rest on your own unsupported (by
peer-reviewed scientific literature) *interpretations* of the limo
passengers movements as being *conclusively* related to *involuntary*
*shot* startle reactions.

Indeed, not only can you produce *NO* recognized expert testimony in
support of your "blurtatious" declarations on the subject. Your opponents
*CAN* produce a contra-declaration from recognized experts as follows.
(All emphasis mine.):


"A fifth episode (E) possibly associated with a shot occurs at frames
290-293. Although it contains a very *small* blur detected by both
Hartmann and Scott, as well as a more substantial blur in Alvarez's data,
the (HSCA Photographic) Panel found NO *VISUAL* INDICATIONS of reaction to
a shot by the limousine's occupants coinciding with this segment of the
blur in the film."


...A rather strange fact-pattern---to say the least---when the "hard"
evidence is supposedly on one's side. :-)

>
> And that video confirms that every surviving passenger in the limo,
>
> carried out textbook startle reactions in the same 1/6th of one second.
>
>
>
> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7GH5pGQy6yI
>
>
>
> Why can't we stop playing games, BT? It is utterly insane, to deny what
>
> is going on here. It is the equivalent of arguing that the Earth is
>
> flat. The witness statements, the science, and the ridiculously obvious,
>
> visible reactions, *ALL* lead to the same conclusion.
>
>

Yepper. That you have *NO* REAL, HARD, CORROBORATING EVIDENCE. ....Just
like I said. :-)

>
> Meanwhile, you have ZERO evidence, hard, soft or anything else,
>
> supporting the theory that Oswald acted alone.
>
>
>
> Are you absolutely, 100% certain that you are not arguing as you do,
>
> because of what you *want*, rather than what the evidence proves?
>
>

Oh. I think it is *quite* obvious to all (except maybe you and Ott) who it
really is who desperetly "wants" their ideas to be true despite what the
most *credible* evidence actually supports. :-)

BT George

[Jason Burke]

On 7/29/2014 6:58 PM, Robert Harris wrote:
> Sandy McCroskey wrote:
>> On 7/29/14, 12:36 PM, OHLeeRedux wrote:
>>> Stroscio is a priest who drove demons from Mother Teresa. Good for
>>> him. But that in no way makes him an expert on the JFK assassination.
>>>
>>> I have a startle, reaction every, time I read, one of your, posts.
>>>
>>
>> I don't think anyone takes seriously your deliberate misidentifications
>> of the physicists Harris always cites, and I know you're just doing it
>> to get Bob's goat, but someone wandering in here might get the
>> impression that you don't have your facts straight.
>
> OR... young people and newbies to the case, might get the impression
> that he is right. Of course, that is what he is hoping for.

No, Bob, no. I'm guessing that the main thrust of OHLee's comments (as
related to young people and newbies,) is to show that YOU should not be
taken seriously.

>
>>
>> Since I happen to agree with you that Oswald killed Kennedy etc., I find
>> this unfortunate. (Especially when it's so easy to show how Bob misuses
>> the real McCoys.)
>
> Well, if it's that easy, what has been holding you back?
>
> Tell everyone how I misrepresented Alvarez and Stroscio.
>
> Or do you just say things like that for the same reason Mr. REDUX does?
>

C'mon, Bob. Even YOU must realize that everyone's not laughing *with* you.

>
>
>
>
>
>
> Robert Harris
>
>
>

[Jason Burke]

Or, as I believe Mr. Marsh has pointed out, be accepted by anyone in
this quadrant of the galaxy.

[OHLeeRedux]

Robert Harris

Sandy McCroskey wrote:
> On 7/29/14, 12:36 PM, OHLeeRedux wrote:
>> Stroscio is a priest who drove demons from Mother Teresa. Good for
>> him. But that in no way makes him an expert on the JFK assassination.
>>
>> I have a startle, reaction every, time I read, one of your, posts.
>>
>
> I don't think anyone takes seriously your deliberate misidentifications
> of the physicists Harris always cites, and I know you're just doing it
> to get Bob's goat, but someone wandering in here might get the
> impression that you don't have your facts straight.

OR... young people and newbies to the case, might get the impression
that he is right. Of course, that is what he is hoping for.

>

> Since I happen to agree with you that Oswald killed Kennedy etc., I find
> this unfortunate. (Especially when it's so easy to show how Bob misuses
> the real McCoys.)

Well, if it's that easy, what has been holding you back?

Tell everyone how I misrepresented Alvarez and Stroscio.

Or do you just say things like that for the same reason Mr. REDUX does?

Robert Harris


Theay also might get the impression that commas should be sprinkled to
taste like black pepper. No commas after verbs, Robert. And the the word
"that" is not a conjunction. Whatever rinky-dink web grammar tool you use
is seriously misleading you.

[JOHN BIRCH]

The grammar has been altered.