More corroboration from Charles Brehm

[Robert Harris]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0cHg4qeh2_M




Robert Harris

[Steve Barber]

On Sunday, September 24, 2017 at 8:16:14 AM UTC-4, Robert Harris wrote:
> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0cHg4qeh2_M
>
>
>
>
> Robert Harris

You're impatient for a response, you've got one! We were NOT impressed
with your fist post earlier this week re: this video. Why post it again?
Face it, Harris. Mo one in here will ever agree with your theory no
matter how many times you post it here!

[David Emerling]

On Sunday, September 24, 2017 at 8:16:14 AM UTC-4, Robert Harris wrote:
> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0cHg4qeh2_M

It seems to me that Brehm is describing the president being hit based on
the president's REACTION - not necessarily referencing a sound. If Brehm
is having a specific recollection of hearing a sound at Z-285 then, one
would think, he would interject something like, "... but the president
ALREADY seemed to be hit".

The president's and Connally's reaction from being hit Z-223 was a
"process". I doubt many people thought, the instant the president was hit
at Z-223 ... "Look! He's been hit!" About the only person who recalls it
in that way was Secret Service Agent Glen Bennett who was in the follow-up
car. Here's his statement on 11-23-1963:

"The motorcade continued down this grade enroute to the Trade Mart. At
this point I heard what sounded like a fire-cracker. I immediately looked
from the right/crowd/physical area/and looked towards the President who
was seated in the right rear seat of his limousine open convertible. At
the moment I looked at the back of the President I heard another
fire-cracker noise and saw the shot hit the President about four inches
down from the right shoulder. A second shot followed immediately and hit
the right rear high of the President's head."

He describes PRECISELY what the wide consensus is today regarding the
number of shots and what the consequences were of each of those shots.

Brehm's 11-24-63 statement to the FBI describes only three shots.

It took people a moment to fully digest that something was clearly wrong
with the president after he was hit at Z-223. Brehm is simply describing
that the president was clearly by the time he passed him. I think you're
reading far too much into his statement, desperately hanging on to your
Z-285 theory like a cat with its claws in the carpet. I can understand
your desperate need to find more than three shots.

David Emerling
Memphis, TN

[bigdog]

On Sunday, September 24, 2017 at 8:16:14 AM UTC-4, Robert Harris wrote:
> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0cHg4qeh2_M
>

ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ

[Anthony Marsh]

On 9/24/2017 8:16 AM, Robert Harris wrote:
> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0cHg4qeh2_M
>
>
>
>

> Robert Harris
>



And you misrepresent Brehm too.

[OHLeeRedux]

Steve Barber

Hunched over his keyboard, giggling and snorting with self-admiration,
Harris plays to an audience of one.

[Anthony Marsh]

But if he repeats the same thing a million times, that makes it true,
doesn't it? That's what you WC defenders do when you claim that Oswald
was the shooter.

[Robert Harris]

Steve Barber wrote:
> On Sunday, September 24, 2017 at 8:16:14 AM UTC-4, Robert Harris wrote:
>> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0cHg4qeh2_M
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> Robert Harris
>
> You're impatient for a response, you've got one!

I'm not impatient at all. I already know that among you
hardcore nutters there will be NO responses that deal with
the evidence presented in this video.

> We were NOT impressed

Who exactly is "we"?

Approvals for this presentation were almost 90% positive:-)

> with your fist post earlier this week re: this video. Why post it again?
> Face it, Harris. Mo one in here will ever agree with your theory no
> matter how many times you post it here!

How did you determine that, Steve?

Did you ask everyone who views this forum if they would ever
agree with me?

If you are correct, then I guess I need to post more
evidence, because this issue should not be in dispute. Isn't
that why in over 20 years, you have *NEVER* addressed this
evidence:-)




Robert Harris

[Robert Harris]

17 million views, amigo.

BTW, thanks again for confirming the startle reactions to
285, although they obviously, weren't caused by Greer hitting
the brakes.

But you certainly put McAdams and a lot of his cohorts in
their place:-)


Robert Harris

[Robert Harris]

David Emerling wrote:
> On Sunday, September 24, 2017 at 8:16:14 AM UTC-4, Robert Harris wrote:
>> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0cHg4qeh2_M
>
> It seems to me that Brehm is describing the president being hit based on
> the president's REACTION - not necessarily referencing a sound. If Brehm
> is having a specific recollection of hearing a sound at Z-285 then, one
> would think, he would interject something like, "... but the president
> ALREADY seemed to be hit".

JFK was *NOT* hit at 285. Neither was Connally. That was the
missed shot that went on to strike the pavement, where it
shattered and sent a small piece of debris to nick James
Tague and chunk of lead to smear on the Main St. curbing.

It was the second audible shot that day, which matched
perfectly with Tague's testimony that it was the second shot
that nicked his cheek.

>
> The president's and Connally's reaction from being hit Z-223 was a
> "process".

It was a silent process. No one heard that shot. The WC
concluded that "most" witnesses only heard one of the early
shots. The same is true of ALL the surviving limo passengers,
including J Connally who was hit then but only "felt" the
shot that hit him.

It was inaudible, to everyone, including Connally.

> I doubt many people thought, the instant the president was hit
> at Z-223 ... "Look! He's been hit!" About the only person who recalls it
> in that way was Secret Service Agent Glen Bennett who was in the follow-up
> car. Here's his statement on 11-23-1963:
>
> "The motorcade continued down this grade enroute to the Trade Mart. At
> this point I heard what sounded like a fire-cracker. I immediately looked
> from the right/crowd/physical area/and looked towards the President who
> was seated in the right rear seat of his limousine open convertible. At
> the moment I looked at the back of the President I heard another
> fire-cracker noise and saw the shot hit the President about four inches
> down from the right shoulder. A second shot followed immediately and hit
> the right rear high of the President's head."

I have written many times about Bennett, who was *STILL*
turned to his right in the Altgens photo, taken at 255. At
that instant, he was yet to turn to the front and yet to hear
the shot that he believed (incorrectly) hit JFK.

His face is not visible, but look at the knot in his tie.

http://jfkhistory.com/bennett.png

>
> He describes PRECISELY what the wide consensus is today regarding the
> number of shots and what the consequences were of each of those shots.
>

Yes, he did, but only after you realize that he didn't turn
to the front until after 255.

Also, notice that he said the third shot was fired
"immediately" after the second. 285 and 313 were no more than
1.5 seconds apart.

> Brehm's 11-24-63 statement to the FBI describes only three shots.
>
> It took people a moment to fully digest that something was clearly wrong
> with the president after he was hit at Z-223. Brehm is simply describing
> that the president was clearly by the time he passed him.

He said no such thing. Why would you want to misrepresent and
distort his statements?

He said JFK was "15-20" feet from his when that shot was fired.

Kennedy was actually about 18 feet from him then. And Brehm
further confirmed that by pointing to the President's
location in his interview with Lane.

Did you even bother to view this presentation?

If not, then please do so, for your own edification.

>I think you're
> reading far too much into his statement,

No you don't.

I read into it *EXACTLY* what the man said.

You OTOH, distort and misrepresent him.

One one interview on 11/22, he said Kennedy was 15 feet, and
in another 15-20 feet from him.

And this is from his FBI interview,

"When the President's automobile was very close to him and he
could see the President's face very well, the President was
seated, but was leaning forward when he stiffened perceptibly
at the same instant what appeared to be a rifle shot sounded."

and..

"BREHM expressed his opinion that between the first and third
shots, the President's car only seemed to move 10 or 12 feet."

>desperately hanging on to your
> Z-285 theory like a cat with its claws in the carpet.

It's a shame that you have to sink to such ugly insults
David, especially when it was YOU who misrepresented Brehm
and made the untruthful claim that I was the one who did that.

He made 2 statements on 11/22/63 and multiple statements two
days later to the FBI, which were 100% consistent and
*EXACTLY* what I claimed he said.

> I can understand
> your desperate need to find more than three shots.

Desperate people usually lie, David.

Wouldn't you agree with that:-)




Robert Harris

[BOZ]

I wonder if there is a director's cut of THIS IS MY PEE PEE. Who was the
director? Michael Cimino?

[Robert Harris]

I do??

Please be specific about what I misrepresented.

Please cite my misrepresentation, verbatim.




Robert Harris

[Steve Barber]

Harris, give it a rest. Anyone can sit on You Tube and click over and over
to add to the numbers of views. On top of this, just because someone
watched your video doesn't mean they agree with your tripe. I certainly
don't see 17 million comments praising your video. That says a lot.

[Steve Barber]

But if Anothony Marsh repeats the same things a million times, that
makes it true, doesn't it? That's what you conspiracy nutters do when you
claim there was a second gunman.

[Anthony Marsh]

On 9/26/2017 6:57 AM, Robert Harris wrote:
> OHLeeRedux wrote:
>> Steve Barber
>> On Sunday, September 24, 2017 at 8:16:14 AM UTC-4, Robert Harris wrote:
>>> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0cHg4qeh2_M
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Robert Harris
>>
>>  You're impatient for a response, you've got one! We were NOT impressed
>>  with your fist post earlier this week re: this video. Why post it again?
>>  Face it, Harris. Mo one in here will ever agree with your theory no
>>  matter how many times you post it here!
>>
>>
>> Hunched over his keyboard, giggling and snorting with self-admiration,
>> Harris plays to an audience of one.
>>
>
> 17 million views, amigo.
>

You're still way behind the cat playing the piano.
Now if you could teach your dog to play the piano.
;]>

[OHLeeRedux]

On Tuesday, September 26, 2017 at 3:57:35 AM UTC-7, Robert Harris wrote:
> OHLeeRedux wrote:
> > Steve Barber
> > On Sunday, September 24, 2017 at 8:16:14 AM UTC-4, Robert Harris wrote:
> >> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0cHg4qeh2_M
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> Robert Harris
> >
> > You're impatient for a response, you've got one! We were NOT impressed
> > with your fist post earlier this week re: this video. Why post it again?
> > Face it, Harris. Mo one in here will ever agree with your theory no
> > matter how many times you post it here!
> >
> >
> > Hunched over his keyboard, giggling and snorting with self-admiration,
> > Harris plays to an audience of one.
> >
>
> 17 million views, amigo.

2.9 BILLION views . . .

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9bZkp7q19f0


You're in good company, Robert.

[David Von Pein]

Charles Brehm interviews (1963-1993)....

http://dvp-video-audio-archive.blogspot.com/2012/03/charles-brehm.html

[Jason Burke]

When are you going to realize that everyone's tired of your crap and
that no one wants to play with you any more, Harris?

[BOZ]

Oswald was the shooter. You agree that Oswald was the shooter of Tippitt.

[BOZ]

17 million views. How many people made it through the first minute?
Harris your voice is annoying. I rather listen to William Hung.

[bigdog]

You got me curious so I did something I rarely do. I actually clicked on
the link to Bob's video. His opening line was an apology for not having
posted a new video in a while. I almost fell out of my chair I was
laughing so hard. Does Bob really think anybody on this planet eagerly
awaits his next video? I knew the video could only go downhill from there
so I exited.

[Amy Joyce]

It sounds like Bennet could and should have saved JFK's life. Or maybe he
wrote that report after the fact. If he's a dependable witness, he also
decided not to do his job. It makes NO sense that a shooter could get the
shots off in a timely manner, but a SS witness with such precise a
recollection didn't have time to respond.

If he was out of the slow moving car at "I heard a firecracker", JFK
doesn't get hit at all. If he was on his way after the second report
(when he had knowledge of a hit), JFK wouldn't have been hit in the head.
Why the hell wasn't Bennet out of the car and on the limo after the first
(maybe the second) shot he supposedly so vividly recalled?

[OHLeeRedux]

Actually, it's fun to play with Harris, like a cat plays with a captured
bird.

[Anthony Marsh]

17 million times. How long would that take? 1,000 years?

[Anthony Marsh]

On 9/26/2017 5:05 PM, Robert Harris wrote:
> Anthony Marsh wrote:
>> On 9/24/2017 8:16 AM, Robert Harris wrote:
>>> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0cHg4qeh2_M
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Robert Harris
>>>
>>
>>
>>
>> And you misrepresent Brehm too.
>>
>
> I do??
>
> Please be specific about what I misrepresented.
>

I have, several times.
You play this little game to pretend that no one has ever refuted you.
But you can't answer my questions.

[Anthony Marsh]

On 9/26/2017 1:51 PM, Robert Harris wrote:
> David Emerling wrote:
>> On Sunday, September 24, 2017 at 8:16:14 AM UTC-4, Robert Harris wrote:
>>> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0cHg4qeh2_M
>>
>> It seems to me that Brehm is describing the president being hit based on
>> the president's REACTION - not necessarily referencing a sound. If Brehm
>> is having a specific recollection of hearing a sound at Z-285 then, one
>> would think, he would interject something like, "... but the president
>> ALREADY seemed to be hit".
>
> JFK was *NOT* hit at 285. Neither was Connally. That was the missed shot
> that went on to strike the pavement, where it shattered and sent a small
> piece of debris to nick James Tague and chunk of lead to smear on the
> Main St. curbing.
>
> It was the second audible shot that day, which matched perfectly with
> Tague's testimony that it was the second shot that nicked his cheek.
>
>>
>> The president's and Connally's reaction from being hit Z-223 was a
>> "process".
>
> It was a silent process. No one heard that shot. The WC concluded that
> "most" witnesses only heard one of the early shots. The same is true of
> ALL the surviving limo passengers, including J Connally who was hit then
> but only "felt" the shot that hit him.
>
> It was inaudible, to everyone, including Connally.
>

You can't claim to speak for every witness in Dealey Plaza.

>
>> I doubt many people thought, the instant the president was hit
>> at Z-223 ... "Look! He's been hit!" About the only person who recalls it
>> in that way was Secret Service Agent Glen Bennett who was in the
>> follow-up
>> car. Here's his statement on 11-23-1963:
>>
>> "The motorcade continued down this grade enroute to the Trade Mart. At
>> this point I heard what sounded like a fire-cracker. I immediately looked
>> from the right/crowd/physical area/and looked towards the President who
>> was seated in the right rear seat of his limousine open convertible. At
>> the moment I looked at the back of the President I heard another
>> fire-cracker noise and saw the shot hit the President about four inches
>> down from the right shoulder. A second shot followed immediately and hit
>> the right rear high of the President's head."
>
> I have written many times about Bennett, who was *STILL* turned to his
> right in the Altgens photo, taken at 255. At that instant, he was yet to
> turn to the front and yet to hear the shot that he believed
> (incorrectly) hit JFK.
>
> His face is not visible, but look at the knot in his tie.
>
> http://jfkhistory.com/bennett.png
>

You have no way to twist his words into meaning a specific Zapruder frame.

>
>>
>> He describes PRECISELY what the wide consensus is today regarding the
>> number of shots and what the consequences were of each of those shots.
>>
>
> Yes, he did, but only after you realize that he didn't turn to the front
> until after 255.
>

Post Hoc Fallacy.

[Anthony Marsh]

No, physically impossible. EVen Clint Hill couldn't get to the limo fast
enough to save JFK's life and he was the closest.

> wrote that report after the fact. If he's a dependable witness, he also

Well, how could he write his report BEFORE the assassination.
Maybe you mean that he was coached? Or maybe influence by news reports?

> decided not to do his job. It makes NO sense that a shooter could get the
> shots off in a timely manner, but a SS witness with such precise a
> recollection didn't have time to respond.
>

He did respond. He told the other SS agent, Ready, to not jump off the
running board.

> If he was out of the slow moving car at "I heard a firecracker", JFK
> doesn't get hit at all. If he was on his way after the second report

Do you think it really was a firecracker? Have you ever heard that
sometimes a sniper shoots and misses? Do you know why> Fouling shot.

> (when he had knowledge of a hit), JFK wouldn't have been hit in the head.
> Why the hell wasn't Bennet out of the car and on the limo after the first
> (maybe the second) shot he supposedly so vividly recalled?
>

Because the SS agents on the running boards were in his way.
Maybe he could have climbed over the windshield and he'd get there in a
couple of minutes.

[Anthony Marsh]

Oswald was the shooter of Tippit. I don't think he shot Tippitt. Tippitt
did not get there in time and Oswald got bored waiting for him so he left.

[David Emerling]

On Tuesday, September 26, 2017 at 1:51:54 PM UTC-4, Robert Harris wrote:

> JFK was *NOT* hit at 285. Neither was Connally.

Yes, I realize that. They were hit prior to that and by Z-285 they were
well into reacting from being hit.

Do you think Charles Brehm's statement to Vincent Bugliosi in the 1986
mock trial supports your theory?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K2dH9aXQbtQ&t=0m53s

He describes three shots, the last of which he characterized as a miss,
after the president had already been hit in the head. That doesn't sound
anything like what you're saying. Maybe Brehm has changed his story over
the years like so many other witnesses. I don't know.

But, in any case, it's a weak argument you're making - especially if
you're going to use Charles Brehm to corroborate what you THINK happened.

David Emerling
Memphis, TN

[Anthony Marsh]

On 9/29/2017 2:11 PM, David Emerling wrote:
> On Tuesday, September 26, 2017 at 1:51:54 PM UTC-4, Robert Harris wrote:
>
>> JFK was *NOT* hit at 285. Neither was Connally.
>
> Yes, I realize that. They were hit prior to that and by Z-285 they were
> well into reacting from being hit.
>
> Do you think Charles Brehm's statement to Vincent Bugliosi in the 1986
> mock trial supports your theory?
>
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K2dH9aXQbtQ&t=0m53s
>

After how many years of being coached?

> He describes three shots, the last of which he characterized as a miss,
> after the president had already been hit in the head. That doesn't sound
> anything like what you're saying. Maybe Brehm has changed his story over
> the years like so many other witnesses. I don't know.
>

But it does sound like what I am saying, the last shot from the TSBD
missing after the grassy knoll hit JFK in the head.

> But, in any case, it's a weak argument you're making - especially if
> you're going to use Charles Brehm to corroborate what you THINK happened.
>

Especially when he misrepresents what Brehm said.

> David Emerling
> Memphis, TN
>

[Jason Burke]

Hell, I damn near wish I was hung after ten seconds of listening to
Harris.

[David Emerling]

On Saturday, September 30, 2017 at 3:22:22 PM UTC-4, Anthony Marsh wrote:

> > Do you think Charles Brehm's statement to Vincent Bugliosi in the 1986
> > mock trial supports your theory?
> >
> > http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K2dH9aXQbtQ&t=0m53s
> >
>
> After how many years of being coached?

Seriously? You think Charles Brehm has been "coached". By whom? Hell, he
could draw a lot more attention by being a whistleblower to the fact that
somebody was even TRYING to coach him.

Charles Brehm needs to get with the program! Who decides to go with the
party line after over 20 years when there is far more to gain by saying
something that gets more attention - some juicy conspiratorial point? At
least, that's what MOST witnesses do. They inexplicably come up with
something FANTASTIC after initially failing to mention it. Like Lee Bowers
sees "flashes" in the area of the grassy knoll when he talks to Mark Lane
... but not to the Commission. Roger Craig, knowing full well that an
Italian-made Carcano was the weapon in evidence, never bothers to tell the
Commission, "But it was a German Mauser!" The list goes on and on.

But not Charles Brehm, according to you.

Oh ... wait! Did that mysterious hit squad threaten him or something?

You embarrass yourself when you make silly statements like this. How
convenient. When a witness says something you don't like - they've been
coached, intimidated, or tricked. Is that they way it works. At least us
LNs say that the witness is flat out WRONG. And the REASON we say they're
wrong is because the evidence PROVES them wrong.

David Emerling
Memphis, TN

[Anthony Marsh]

On 10/1/2017 2:10 PM, David Emerling wrote:
> On Saturday, September 30, 2017 at 3:22:22 PM UTC-4, Anthony Marsh wrote:
>
>>> Do you think Charles Brehm's statement to Vincent Bugliosi in the 1986
>>> mock trial supports your theory?
>>>
>>> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K2dH9aXQbtQ&t=0m53s
>>>
>>
>> After how many years of being coached?
>
> Seriously? You think Charles Brehm has been "coached". By whom? Hell, he
> could draw a lot more attention by being a whistleblower to the fact that
> somebody was even TRYING to coach him.
>

By WC defenders and conspiracy believers.

> Charles Brehm needs to get with the program! Who decides to go with the
> party line after over 20 years when there is far more to gain by saying
> something that gets more attention - some juicy conspiratorial point? At

Gain what? Money? How much money did each witness get?
You are being silly. Any witness can be influenced.
Sometimes just by watching TV or reading a book.

> least, that's what MOST witnesses do. They inexplicably come up with
> something FANTASTIC after initially failing to mention it. Like Lee Bowers

Silly. Read Loftus. Why do you think the police and the press keep going
back to reinterview a witness?

> sees "flashes" in the area of the grassy knoll when he talks to Mark Lane
> ... but not to the Commission. Roger Craig, knowing full well that an

Maybe Mark Lane dared to ask him questions which the WC knew not to ask him.

> Italian-made Carcano was the weapon in evidence, never bothers to tell the
> Commission, "But it was a German Mauser!" The list goes on and on.
>

Craig did not know that. He thought it was a Mauser becaus Seymour
Weitzman called it a Mauser.

> But not Charles Brehm, according to you.
>

According to?

> Oh ... wait! Did that mysterious hit squad threaten him or something?
>

It doesn't take a whole hit squad. Maybe just a whisper from one cop.

> You embarrass yourself when you make silly statements like this. How

You embellish and conflate to make false versions of what I say.
Because you can't debate honestly.

> convenient. When a witness says something you don't like - they've been
> coached, intimidated, or tricked. Is that they way it works. At least us

No, not all. Stop trying to put words into my mouth. Some are just
stupid or confused. Even your Fuhrer McAdams admits that sometimes
witnesses are just confused.

> LNs say that the witness is flat out WRONG. And the REASON we say they're
> wrong is because the evidence PROVES them wrong.
>

Sometimes. Sometimes the evidence proves that the LNers are just
flat-out wrong. They can't always lie 100% of the time.

> David Emerling
> Memphis, TN
>

[Robert Harris]

On Thursday, September 28, 2017 at 10:11:33 AM UTC-4, bigdog wrote:
> On Tuesday, September 26, 2017 at 7:30:41 PM UTC-4, OHLeeRedux wrote:
> > On Tuesday, September 26, 2017 at 3:57:35 AM UTC-7, Robert Harris wrote:
> > > OHLeeRedux wrote:
> > > > Steve Barber
> > > > On Sunday, September 24, 2017 at 8:16:14 AM UTC-4, Robert Harris wrote:
> > > >> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0cHg4qeh2_M
> > > >>
> > > >>
> > > >>
> > > >>
> > > >> Robert Harris
> > > >
> > > > You're impatient for a response, you've got one! We were NOT impressed
> > > > with your fist post earlier this week re: this video. Why post it again?
> > > > Face it, Harris. Mo one in here will ever agree with your theory no
> > > > matter how many times you post it here!
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > Hunched over his keyboard, giggling and snorting with self-admiration,
> > > > Harris plays to an audience of one.
> > > >
> > >
> > > 17 million views, amigo.
> >
> >
> > 2.9 BILLION views . . .
> >
> > https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9bZkp7q19f0
> >
> >
> > You're in good company, Robert.
>
> You got me curious so I did something I rarely do. I actually clicked on
> the link to Bob's video. His opening line was an apology for not having
> posted a new video in a while. I almost fell out of my chair I was
> laughing so hard.

17 million views and climbing amigo.

But then, you have half a dozen nutter fanatics who follow you, so who am
I to brag:-)

> Does Bob really think anybody on this planet eagerly
> awaits his next video? I knew the video could only go downhill from there
> so I exited.

No you didn't. You've seen this one before and the evidence has you
running for a dry pair of pants, just like it always does:-)



Robert Harris

[Robert Harris]

Gotta love these poor trolls. They lack the courage and the skills to try to refute me or address the evidence, so all they have left are these pathetic insults:-)



Robert Harris

[bigdog]

On Monday, November 6, 2017 at 12:56:04 PM UTC-5, Robert Harris wrote:
> On Thursday, September 28, 2017 at 10:11:33 AM UTC-4, bigdog wrote:
> > On Tuesday, September 26, 2017 at 7:30:41 PM UTC-4, OHLeeRedux wrote:
> > > On Tuesday, September 26, 2017 at 3:57:35 AM UTC-7, Robert Harris wrote:
> > > > OHLeeRedux wrote:
> > > > > Steve Barber
> > > > > On Sunday, September 24, 2017 at 8:16:14 AM UTC-4, Robert Harris wrote:
> > > > >> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0cHg4qeh2_M
> > > > >>
> > > > >>
> > > > >>
> > > > >>
> > > > >> Robert Harris
> > > > >
> > > > > You're impatient for a response, you've got one! We were NOT impressed
> > > > > with your fist post earlier this week re: this video. Why post it again?
> > > > > Face it, Harris. Mo one in here will ever agree with your theory no
> > > > > matter how many times you post it here!
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > Hunched over his keyboard, giggling and snorting with self-admiration,
> > > > > Harris plays to an audience of one.
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > > 17 million views, amigo.
> > >
> > >
> > > 2.9 BILLION views . . .
> > >
> > > https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9bZkp7q19f0
> > >
> > >
> > > You're in good company, Robert.
> >
> > You got me curious so I did something I rarely do. I actually clicked on
> > the link to Bob's video. His opening line was an apology for not having
> > posted a new video in a while. I almost fell out of my chair I was
> > laughing so hard.
>
> 17 million views and climbing amigo.
>

Apparently I'm not the only one who sees the humor.

> But then, you have half a dozen nutter fanatics who follow you, so who am
> I to brag:-)
>
> > Does Bob really think anybody on this planet eagerly
> > awaits his next video? I knew the video could only go downhill from there
> > so I exited.
>
> No you didn't. You've seen this one before and the evidence has you
> running for a dry pair of pants, just like it always does:-)
>

You mean when I laugh so hard I wet my pants.