Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.
Dismiss
Two Questions for DVP
217 views
Skip to first unread message
Robert Harris
Jan 22, 2014, 6:25:05 PM1/22/14
to
1. Do you agree that films and photos qualify as "physical evidence"?
2. Why would you want to limit your analysis to only one form of evidence?
Why not instead, qualify it as something like, "evidence that would be
acceptable in a court of law"?
Robert Harris
2. Why would you want to limit your analysis to only one form of evidence?
Why not instead, qualify it as something like, "evidence that would be
acceptable in a court of law"?
Robert Harris
Anthony Marsh
Jan 22, 2014, 10:59:41 PM1/22/14
to
evidence. You chose to ignore hard evidence and rely on weak evidence.
>
> Robert Harris
>
David Von Pein
Jan 22, 2014, 11:52:53 PM1/22/14
to
Answers for Bob Harris.....
1.) Yes.
2.) I don't limit my analysis to just the "physical" evidence. I often
talk about the witness testimony, Oswald's actions, and various other
things that do not fall under the heading of "physical evidence".
But in the post on my website that you are no doubt referring to, I *was*
limiting it to "physical evidence" for the purposes of that quote and that
discussion. And did you see the things Ben Holmes came up with in the way
of "physical evidence" to supposedly support his CT side? It was quite
humorous. Here's one of the items:
"The cheek cast of LHO. Physical proof that he didn't fire a rifle that
day." -- Ben Holmes
I, of course, responded to Ben's "cheek cast" evidence with the fact that
such paraffin tests are pretty much useless, what with them being so
unreliable. Didn't faze Ben, though. He still thinks it proves Oswald's
innocence.
Ben's other items of physical evidence that he says support his idea of a
conspiracy are even more laughable. My response was:
"Rest assured, Ben's faith in his make-believe conspiracy will continue,
unabated, until he breathes his last breath of air. And this is a
conspiracy in which the only physical evidence Holmes can seem to muster
is a bullet shell that CAME FROM THE GUN OF LEE HARVEY OSWALD and a cheek
cast of Oswald's which PROVES ABSOLUTELY NOTHING and a Minox camera WHICH
PROVES ABSOLUTELY NOTHING and a faith-based belief that a lot of evidence
was "SIMPLY DESTROYED" by people who were part of Ben's make-believe
cover-up." -- DVP
[End 2009 Quote.]
---------
Bob H.,
The last part of your second question above doesn't really apply to the
JFK case--because Oswald died before his trial could be held.
So, obviously, we don't NEED to limit ourselves to "evidence that would be
acceptable in a court of law" (although pretty close to all the physical
evidence in the JFK & Tippit cases would have been allowed at Oswald's
trial, had there been one, as Vince Bugliosi--who knows a little bit about
these things, as you know--said in his book).
Let's have another look at what Vince said:
"An argument frequently heard in the conspiracy community is that Oswald
could not have been convicted in a court of law because the "chain of
custody [or possession]" of the evidence against him was not strong enough
to make the evidence admissible in a court of law. ....
"The first observation I have to make is that I would think
conspiracists...would primarily want to know if Oswald killed Kennedy, not
whether he could get off on a legal technicality.
"Second, there is no problem with the chain of custody of much of the
physical evidence against Oswald, such as the rifle and the two large
bullet fragments found in the presidential limousine.
"Third, and most important on this issue, courts do not have a practice of
allowing into evidence only that for which there is an ironclad and 100
percent clear chain of custody, and this is why I believe that 95 percent
of the physical evidence in this case would be admissible.
"I can tell you from personal experience that excluding evidence at a
trial because the chain of custody is weak is rare, certainly the
exception rather than the rule. The typical situation where the chain is
not particularly strong is for the trial judge to nevertheless admit the
evidence, ruling that the weakness of the chain goes only to "the weight
of the evidence [i.e., how much weight or credence the jury will give it],
not its admissibility"." -- Vince B.; Page 442 of Endnotes in "Reclaiming
History"
-----------
In summary, my previous statement from June 12, 2009, is still as accurate
today as it was then (and as it was in 1964 too):
"No CTer can produce ONE SOLID PIECE OF PHYSICAL EVIDENCE to support his
or her belief that a multi-gun conspiracy ended the life of John F.
Kennedy. Not one." -- DVP
1.) Yes.
2.) I don't limit my analysis to just the "physical" evidence. I often
talk about the witness testimony, Oswald's actions, and various other
things that do not fall under the heading of "physical evidence".
But in the post on my website that you are no doubt referring to, I *was*
limiting it to "physical evidence" for the purposes of that quote and that
discussion. And did you see the things Ben Holmes came up with in the way
of "physical evidence" to supposedly support his CT side? It was quite
humorous. Here's one of the items:
"The cheek cast of LHO. Physical proof that he didn't fire a rifle that
day." -- Ben Holmes
I, of course, responded to Ben's "cheek cast" evidence with the fact that
such paraffin tests are pretty much useless, what with them being so
unreliable. Didn't faze Ben, though. He still thinks it proves Oswald's
innocence.
Ben's other items of physical evidence that he says support his idea of a
conspiracy are even more laughable. My response was:
"Rest assured, Ben's faith in his make-believe conspiracy will continue,
unabated, until he breathes his last breath of air. And this is a
conspiracy in which the only physical evidence Holmes can seem to muster
is a bullet shell that CAME FROM THE GUN OF LEE HARVEY OSWALD and a cheek
cast of Oswald's which PROVES ABSOLUTELY NOTHING and a Minox camera WHICH
PROVES ABSOLUTELY NOTHING and a faith-based belief that a lot of evidence
was "SIMPLY DESTROYED" by people who were part of Ben's make-believe
cover-up." -- DVP
[End 2009 Quote.]
---------
Bob H.,
The last part of your second question above doesn't really apply to the
JFK case--because Oswald died before his trial could be held.
So, obviously, we don't NEED to limit ourselves to "evidence that would be
acceptable in a court of law" (although pretty close to all the physical
evidence in the JFK & Tippit cases would have been allowed at Oswald's
trial, had there been one, as Vince Bugliosi--who knows a little bit about
these things, as you know--said in his book).
Let's have another look at what Vince said:
"An argument frequently heard in the conspiracy community is that Oswald
could not have been convicted in a court of law because the "chain of
custody [or possession]" of the evidence against him was not strong enough
to make the evidence admissible in a court of law. ....
"The first observation I have to make is that I would think
conspiracists...would primarily want to know if Oswald killed Kennedy, not
whether he could get off on a legal technicality.
"Second, there is no problem with the chain of custody of much of the
physical evidence against Oswald, such as the rifle and the two large
bullet fragments found in the presidential limousine.
"Third, and most important on this issue, courts do not have a practice of
allowing into evidence only that for which there is an ironclad and 100
percent clear chain of custody, and this is why I believe that 95 percent
of the physical evidence in this case would be admissible.
"I can tell you from personal experience that excluding evidence at a
trial because the chain of custody is weak is rare, certainly the
exception rather than the rule. The typical situation where the chain is
not particularly strong is for the trial judge to nevertheless admit the
evidence, ruling that the weakness of the chain goes only to "the weight
of the evidence [i.e., how much weight or credence the jury will give it],
not its admissibility"." -- Vince B.; Page 442 of Endnotes in "Reclaiming
History"
-----------
In summary, my previous statement from June 12, 2009, is still as accurate
today as it was then (and as it was in 1964 too):
"No CTer can produce ONE SOLID PIECE OF PHYSICAL EVIDENCE to support his
or her belief that a multi-gun conspiracy ended the life of John F.
Kennedy. Not one." -- DVP
mainframetech
Jan 23, 2014, 11:39:33 AM1/23/14
to
evidence I offer the 'large hole' in the back of the head of JFK as
evidence of an exit point for a bullet that entered through the .25 inch
diameter circular wound in the right forehead which the prosectors
diligently tried not to notice. It is generally understood that a bullet
entry is much smaller than the exit, and here we have the perfect example
of it in this murder. A second shooter from the front proves conspiracy.
Incidentally, the 'large hole' was seen by 39+ people, while there are
only 2 prosectors that say there was only a small hole. The list of the
39+ is in another thread entitled as such. To see what happens when a
high speed bullet hits, use this chart and look at the point that is 20-25
cemtimeters (about 8 to 10 inches) and see what happens. You'll see that
the entry point is small, and as the bullet causes expansion, there is an
explosion of flesh outward at the exit point. This is what happened to
the 2 motorcycle cops stationed 'behind and to the left' of the limo and
JFK's head. The chart is looking from the side.
http://www.frfrogspad.com/smallcal.jpg
If you want to go further, then deal with the bullet found on the WRONG
stretcher at Parkland (CE399). Tomlinson has stated that it was on the
wrong stretcher in the NOVA special here:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Mx1sxYc8r2A
Not only was the bullet hardly deformed, it was deformed in almost the
exact same way as the test bullet pictured beside it (CE572). They both
have slight flattening and a bend in the middle, and they are both missing
a bit of material from the tail end.
http://www.maryferrell.org/wiki/images/5/5e/Photo_hsca_ex_294.jpg
Why put a fake bullet on the stretcher at Parkland? Only to pin the
crime on Oswald as the 'patsy'. The mistake was putting it on the WRONG
stretcher. There is no way for that to happen. Then consider that
problem of identifying the bullet later when 4 men were asked. They all
declined to identify it, and one even said later that the shape was wrong,
the bullet shown was round-nosed and the original was pointy nosed.
Evidence of a conspiracy trying to cover its tracks and put blame
elsewhere.
Chris
Bud
Jan 23, 2014, 3:44:25 PM1/23/14
to
>as
>
> evidence of an exit point for a bullet that entered through the .25 inch
>
> diameter circular wound in the right forehead which the prosectors
>
> diligently tried not to notice. It is generally understood that a bullet
>
> entry is much smaller than the exit,
> and here we have the perfect example
>
> of it in this murder. A second shooter from the front proves conspiracy.
support of this idea is weak and uncompelling.
> Incidentally, the 'large hole' was seen by 39+ people, while there are
>
> only 2 prosectors that say there was only a small hole.
> The list of the
>
> 39+ is in another thread entitled as such. To see what happens when a
>
> high speed bullet hits, use this chart and look at the point that is 20-25
>
> cemtimeters (about 8 to 10 inches) and see what happens. You'll see that
>
> the entry point is small, and as the bullet causes expansion, there is an
>
> explosion of flesh outward at the exit point. This is what happened to
>
> the 2 motorcycle cops stationed 'behind and to the left' of the limo and
>
> JFK's head.
> The chart is looking from the side.
>
>
>
> http://www.frfrogspad.com/smallcal.jpg
>
>
>
> If you want to go further, then deal with the bullet found on the WRONG
>
> stretcher at Parkland (CE399). Tomlinson has stated that it was on the
>
> wrong stretcher in the NOVA special here:
>
>
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Mx1sxYc8r2A
>
>
>
> Not only was the bullet hardly deformed, it was deformed in almost the
>
> exact same way as the test bullet pictured beside it (CE572). They both
>
> have slight flattening and a bend in the middle, and they are both missing
>
> a bit of material from the tail end.
>
>
>
> http://www.maryferrell.org/wiki/images/5/5e/Photo_hsca_ex_294.jpg
>
>
>
> Why put a fake bullet on the stretcher at Parkland? Only to pin the
>
> crime on Oswald as the 'patsy'.
> The mistake was putting it on the WRONG
>
> stretcher. There is no way for that to happen. Then consider that
>
> problem of identifying the bullet later when 4 men were asked. They all
>
> declined to identify it, and one even said later that the shape was wrong,
John McAdams
Jan 23, 2014, 3:55:39 PM1/23/14
to
On 23 Jan 2014 11:39:33 -0500, mainframetech <mainfr...@yahoo.com>
wrote:
>On Wednesday, January 22, 2014 11:52:53 PM UTC-5, David Von Pein wrote:
>> Answers for Bob Harris.....
>>=20
>>=20
the Z film is faked.
And the photos and x-rays at the autopsy were faked.
*Everything* that you find inconvenient was faked.
>It is generally understood that a bullet
>entry is much smaller than the exit, and here we have the perfect example
>of it in this murder. A second shooter from the front proves conspiracy.
>
There was no "entry" or exit. The bullet entered, and created a
pressure cavity which blew out the right top of the parietal bone.
> Incidentally, the 'large hole' was seen by 39+ people, while there are
>only 2 prosectors that say there was only a small hole.
You've never seriously looked at all this evidence.
You just accept what buff books tell you.
You could start here:
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/head.htm#aguilar
>The list of the
>39+ is in another thread entitled as such. To see what happens when a
>high speed bullet hits, use this chart and look at the point that is 20-25
>cemtimeters (about 8 to 10 inches) and see what happens. You'll see that
>the entry point is small, and as the bullet causes expansion, there is an
>explosion of flesh outward at the exit point. This is what happened to
>the 2 motorcycle cops stationed 'behind and to the left' of the limo and
>JFK's head. The chart is looking from the side.
>
>http://www.frfrogspad.com/smallcal.jpg
>
You just can't let go of the factoids, can you?
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/exploded.htm
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/hargis.htm
Since I'm reading what you wrote, how about having the decency to read
the two pages I linked to above. They aren't very long.
> If you want to go further, then deal with the bullet found on the WRONG
>stretcher at Parkland (CE399). Tomlinson has stated that it was on the
>wrong stretcher in the NOVA special here:
>
>http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3DMx1sxYc8r2A
after doing the damage CE 399 did.
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/bullet1.jpg
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/bullet3.jpg
> Why put a fake bullet on the stretcher at Parkland? Only to pin the
>crime on Oswald as the 'patsy'. The mistake was putting it on the WRONG
>stretcher. There is no way for that to happen. Then consider that
>problem of identifying the bullet later when 4 men were asked. They all
>declined to identify it,
That's an intentionally misleading statement, which you picked up from
some buff book.
They said it "looked like" the bullet they had handled, but they could
not positively ID it, since they had not marked it.
>and one even said later that the shape was wrong,
Tomlinson said that a few years later to Tink Thompson.
But in 1964, he said it "looked like" the bullet he recovered.
>the bullet shown was round-nosed and the original was pointy nosed.
>Evidence of a conspiracy trying to cover its tracks and put blame
>elsewhere.
>
You never look at anything but buff sources, do you?
.John
--
The Kennedy Assassination Home Page
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/home.htm
wrote:
>On Wednesday, January 22, 2014 11:52:53 PM UTC-5, David Von Pein wrote:
>> Answers for Bob Harris.....
>>=20
>> "No CTer can produce ONE SOLID PIECE OF PHYSICAL EVIDENCE to support his
>>=20
>> or her belief that a multi-gun conspiracy ended the life of John F.
>>=20
>> Kennedy. Not one." -- DVP
>
>
>
> With statements like that I can't help but jump in. As physical
>evidence I offer the 'large hole' in the back of the head of JFK as
>evidence of an exit point for a bullet that entered through the .25 inch
>diameter circular wound in the right forehead which the prosectors
>diligently tried not to notice.
The photos and x-rays were forged. And the splash of brain matter in
>
>
>
> With statements like that I can't help but jump in. As physical
>evidence I offer the 'large hole' in the back of the head of JFK as
>evidence of an exit point for a bullet that entered through the .25 inch
>diameter circular wound in the right forehead which the prosectors
>diligently tried not to notice.
the Z film is faked.
And the photos and x-rays at the autopsy were faked.
*Everything* that you find inconvenient was faked.
>It is generally understood that a bullet
>entry is much smaller than the exit, and here we have the perfect example
>of it in this murder. A second shooter from the front proves conspiracy.
>
pressure cavity which blew out the right top of the parietal bone.
> Incidentally, the 'large hole' was seen by 39+ people, while there are
>only 2 prosectors that say there was only a small hole.
You just accept what buff books tell you.
You could start here:
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/head.htm#aguilar
>The list of the
>39+ is in another thread entitled as such. To see what happens when a
>high speed bullet hits, use this chart and look at the point that is 20-25
>cemtimeters (about 8 to 10 inches) and see what happens. You'll see that
>the entry point is small, and as the bullet causes expansion, there is an
>explosion of flesh outward at the exit point. This is what happened to
>the 2 motorcycle cops stationed 'behind and to the left' of the limo and
>JFK's head. The chart is looking from the side.
>
>http://www.frfrogspad.com/smallcal.jpg
>
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/exploded.htm
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/hargis.htm
Since I'm reading what you wrote, how about having the decency to read
the two pages I linked to above. They aren't very long.
> If you want to go further, then deal with the bullet found on the WRONG
>stretcher at Parkland (CE399). Tomlinson has stated that it was on the
>wrong stretcher in the NOVA special here:
>
>
> Not only was the bullet hardly deformed, it was deformed in almost the
>exact same way as the test bullet pictured beside it (CE572). They both
>have slight flattening and a bend in the middle, and they are both missing
>a bit of material from the tail end.
>
>http://www.maryferrell.org/wiki/images/5/5e/Photo_hsca_ex_294.jpg
>
Boch Fackler and Lattimer got similar (or cleaner) looking bullets
> Not only was the bullet hardly deformed, it was deformed in almost the
>exact same way as the test bullet pictured beside it (CE572). They both
>have slight flattening and a bend in the middle, and they are both missing
>a bit of material from the tail end.
>
>http://www.maryferrell.org/wiki/images/5/5e/Photo_hsca_ex_294.jpg
>
after doing the damage CE 399 did.
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/bullet1.jpg
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/bullet3.jpg
> Why put a fake bullet on the stretcher at Parkland? Only to pin the
>crime on Oswald as the 'patsy'. The mistake was putting it on the WRONG
>stretcher. There is no way for that to happen. Then consider that
>problem of identifying the bullet later when 4 men were asked. They all
>declined to identify it,
some buff book.
They said it "looked like" the bullet they had handled, but they could
not positively ID it, since they had not marked it.
>and one even said later that the shape was wrong,
But in 1964, he said it "looked like" the bullet he recovered.
>the bullet shown was round-nosed and the original was pointy nosed.
>Evidence of a conspiracy trying to cover its tracks and put blame
>elsewhere.
>
.John
--
The Kennedy Assassination Home Page
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/home.htm
cmikes
Jan 23, 2014, 7:10:42 PM1/23/14
to
On Thursday, January 23, 2014 11:39:33 AM UTC-5, mainframetech wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Incidentally, the 'large hole' was seen by 39+ people, while there are
>
> only 2 prosectors that say there was only a small hole. The list of the
>
> 39+ is in another thread entitled as such.
Since we have authenticated photos and X-rays which prove there was no
>
> only 2 prosectors that say there was only a small hole. The list of the
>
> 39+ is in another thread entitled as such.
large hole in the back of JFK's head, I want to ask you a question, Chris.
If 39+ people told you 2+2=5, would you believe it? If 39+ people told
you the sky was green, would you believe it? If 39+ people told you that
the Sun revolved around the Earth, would you demand an immediate
investigation into the laws of physics?
All this ignores the fact that you only arrive at 39+ people by
deliberately misreading their testimony and statements. Or you're just
believing whatever CT website you read them on without confirming them.
David Von Pein
Jan 23, 2014, 8:04:23 PM1/23/14
to
Robert Harris
Jan 24, 2014, 4:16:14 PM1/24/14
to
David Von Pein wrote:
> Answers for Bob Harris.....
>
> 1.) Yes.
Good.
> Answers for Bob Harris.....
>
> 1.) Yes.
Then do you consider this to be valid, physical evidence?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7GH5pGQy6yI
And would you agree that every surviving passenger in that car reacted in
the same 1/6th of a second, or three Zapruder frames from 290-292?
http://jfkhistory.com/simultaneous.gif
And finally, do you believe it was just a random coincidence that Dr.
Alvarez concluded that Abraham Zapruder reacted at exactly the same
instant that those five people did?
David, if you want to claim that there is no physical evidence of
conspiracy, then you will need to address these issues.
And please don't say that you did so years ago, when you claimed that the
startle reactions were to a shot almost 4 seconds earlier. ALL experts on
the subject agree that involuntary startle reactions MUST occur within no
more than 1/3rd of a second.
That shot was probably fired after 285, circa 287 or 288. But it could not
have been earlier than 285.
And David, why is it that we see no reactions prior to 290 that were even
remotely similar to the ones following 285 and 313?
There is a reason why the WC stated that "most" of the relevant witnesses
said the final shots were closely bunched. 285 and 313 were 1.5 seconds
apart, or very likely less.
You are wrong to claim that there is no physical evidence which proves
conspiracy. You should not be making that assertion until you are prepared
to deal with the spacing of the shots.
Robert Harris
Robert Harris
Jan 24, 2014, 4:26:29 PM1/24/14
to
John McAdams wrote:
> On 23 Jan 2014 11:39:33 -0500, mainframetech <mainfr...@yahoo.com>
> wrote:
>
>> On Wednesday, January 22, 2014 11:52:53 PM UTC-5, David Von Pein wrote:
>>> Answers for Bob Harris.....
>>> =20
>>> =20
>>> "No CTer can produce ONE SOLID PIECE OF PHYSICAL EVIDENCE to support his
>>> =20
>>> or her belief that a multi-gun conspiracy ended the life of John F.
>>> =20
>>> Kennedy. Not one." -- DVP
>>
>>
>>
>> With statements like that I can't help but jump in. As physical
>> evidence I offer the 'large hole' in the back of the head of JFK as
>> evidence of an exit point for a bullet that entered through the .25 inch
>> diameter circular wound in the right forehead which the prosectors
>> diligently tried not to notice.
>
> The photos and x-rays were forged. And the splash of brain matter in
> the Z film is faked.
>
> And the photos and x-rays at the autopsy were faked.
>
> *Everything* that you find inconvenient was faked.
There is actually a much better explanation for the absence of BOH damage
> On 23 Jan 2014 11:39:33 -0500, mainframetech <mainfr...@yahoo.com>
> wrote:
>
>> On Wednesday, January 22, 2014 11:52:53 PM UTC-5, David Von Pein wrote:
>>> Answers for Bob Harris.....
>>> =20
>>> =20
>>> "No CTer can produce ONE SOLID PIECE OF PHYSICAL EVIDENCE to support his
>>> =20
>>> or her belief that a multi-gun conspiracy ended the life of John F.
>>> =20
>>> Kennedy. Not one." -- DVP
>>
>>
>>
>> With statements like that I can't help but jump in. As physical
>> evidence I offer the 'large hole' in the back of the head of JFK as
>> evidence of an exit point for a bullet that entered through the .25 inch
>> diameter circular wound in the right forehead which the prosectors
>> diligently tried not to notice.
>
> The photos and x-rays were forged. And the splash of brain matter in
> the Z film is faked.
>
> And the photos and x-rays at the autopsy were faked.
>
> *Everything* that you find inconvenient was faked.
in the autopsy photos, although it is not exactly exonerating.
Boswell told the ARRB that he pulled the scalp up and over the damaged
area in the back of the head, when photos were taken. And in fact, it is
easy to see his fingers pulling on the scalp to hold it in place.
I cite him verbatim in this short article.
http://jfkhistory.com/LastShot2/BOHDamage.html
Any remaining doubts can be quickly removed by this Zapruder frame.
http://jfkhistory.com/LastShot2/BOHDamage_files/5.jpg
And BTW John. I am disappointed that you have not rescinded your
accusation that I focused on only a single, isolated Zapruder frame in
which this damage was visible. You have yet to discuss this video which I
created primarily for your edification, which proves that the damage was
visible throughout the film, after app. 320 up until the head is out of
view.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UTvl9J0Hzwo
You certainly don't have to agree with me, but how can you justify your
silence? The issue is not as important as 285 but it certainly is
significant, especially since that massive protrusion did not appear until
well after the 313 explosion had completely subsided.
Robert Harris
Robert Harris
Jan 24, 2014, 5:41:25 PM1/24/14
to
cmikes wrote:
> On Thursday, January 23, 2014 11:39:33 AM UTC-5, mainframetech wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>> Incidentally, the 'large hole' was seen by 39+ people, while there are
>>
>> only 2 prosectors that say there was only a small hole. The list of the
>>
>> 39+ is in another thread entitled as such.
>
> Since we have authenticated photos and X-rays which prove there was no
> large hole in the back of JFK's head,
That is untrue. And in fact, Dr. Boswell explained to the ARRB that he
> On Thursday, January 23, 2014 11:39:33 AM UTC-5, mainframetech wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>> Incidentally, the 'large hole' was seen by 39+ people, while there are
>>
>> only 2 prosectors that say there was only a small hole. The list of the
>>
>> 39+ is in another thread entitled as such.
>
> Since we have authenticated photos and X-rays which prove there was no
> large hole in the back of JFK's head,
covered up the damage in the BOH by pulling the scalp up and over it. And
in fact, it is easy to see his fingers pulling on the scalp and holding it
in place.
I cite him and go into detail about this damage, in the following brief
article.
http://jfkhistory.com/LastShot2/BOHDamage.html
Robert Harris
David Von Pein
Jan 24, 2014, 10:33:22 PM1/24/14
to
ROBERT HARRIS SAID:
You are wrong to claim that there is no physical evidence which proves
conspiracy.
DAVID VON PEIN SAID:
You are wrong to claim that there is no physical evidence which proves
conspiracy.
The key word there, Robert, is "proves". You think the Z-Film "proves"
conspiracy. I do not.
You have to "prove" that your SUBJECTIVE ANALYSIS of the Zapruder Film
"proves" what you think it proves.
To date, I've yet to meet any person who agrees with you completely about
your "Z285" analysis. It's all purely subjective. And that's not "proof"
of anything, Bob. It continues to be here in 2014 what it was many years
ago when you hatched your Z285 theory---wishful thinking on your part (and
seeing what you WANT to see). But it's far from "proof" of a conspiracy.
Robert Harris
Jan 25, 2014, 11:49:24 PM1/25/14
to
Is that why you have to pretend that my arguments are "purely
subjective", or that no one agrees with me?
Or is there a better reason why you snipped the entire post that you
responded to? Here it is again David. Why don't you respond specifically
and stop claiming that the millions of people who view my presentations
don't agree with me, or that it even matters whether they do or not?
(reposting)
Then do you consider this to be valid, physical evidence?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7GH5pGQy6yI
And would you agree that every surviving passenger in that car reacted
in the same 1/6th of a second, or three Zapruder frames from 290-292?
http://jfkhistory.com/simultaneous.gif
And finally, do you believe it was just a random coincidence that Dr.
Alvarez concluded that Abraham Zapruder reacted at exactly the same
instant that those five people did?
David, if you want to claim that there is no physical evidence of
conspiracy, then you will need to address these issues.
And please don't say that you did so years ago, when you claimed that
the startle reactions were to a shot almost 4 seconds earlier. ALL
experts on the subject agree that involuntary startle reactions MUST
occur within no more than 1/3rd of a second.
That shot was probably fired after 285, circa 287 or 288. But it could
not have been earlier than 285.
And David, why is it that we see no reactions prior to 290 that were
even remotely similar to the ones following 285 and 313?
There is a reason why the WC stated that "most" of the relevant
witnesses said the final shots were closely bunched. 285 and 313 were
1.5 seconds apart, or very likely less.
David Von Pein
Jan 26, 2014, 8:46:03 AM1/26/14
to
Talking to Robert Harris is about as productive as talking to a tree trunk.
Lanny
Jan 26, 2014, 8:15:09 PM1/26/14
to
On Sunday, January 26, 2014 8:46:03 AM UTC-5, David Von Pein wrote:
> Talking to Robert Harris is about as productive as talking to a tree trunk.
So why would you do either?
> Talking to Robert Harris is about as productive as talking to a tree trunk.
David Von Pein
Jan 26, 2014, 9:29:53 PM1/26/14
to
Good question, Lanny.
Jason Burke
Jan 26, 2014, 9:34:02 PM1/26/14
to
while you're there.
David Von Pein
Jan 26, 2014, 11:07:49 PM1/26/14
to
LOL. Good one, Jason. I like that.
Ben Holmes
Jan 26, 2014, 11:08:42 PM1/26/14
to
In article <fe8cd752-91ec-4214...@googlegroups.com>, David Von
Pein says...
Paraffin test.
Tell us, can you offer your opinion of NAA testing?
--
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ben Holmes
Learn to Make Money with a Website - http://www.burningknife.com
Pein says...
>
>Answers for Bob Harris.....
>
>1.) Yes.
>
>2.) I don't limit my analysis to just the "physical" evidence. I often
>talk about the witness testimony, Oswald's actions, and various other
>things that do not fall under the heading of "physical evidence".
>
>But in the post on my website that you are no doubt referring to, I *was*
>limiting it to "physical evidence" for the purposes of that quote and that
>discussion. And did you see the things Ben Holmes came up with in the way
>of "physical evidence" to supposedly support his CT side? It was quite
>humorous. Here's one of the items:
>
>"The cheek cast of LHO. Physical proof that he didn't fire a rifle that
>day." -- Ben Holmes
>
>I, of course, responded to Ben's "cheek cast" evidence with the fact that
>such paraffin tests are pretty much useless,
It's amusing that you confuse the NAA, which is quite reliable, with the
>Answers for Bob Harris.....
>
>1.) Yes.
>
>2.) I don't limit my analysis to just the "physical" evidence. I often
>talk about the witness testimony, Oswald's actions, and various other
>things that do not fall under the heading of "physical evidence".
>
>But in the post on my website that you are no doubt referring to, I *was*
>limiting it to "physical evidence" for the purposes of that quote and that
>discussion. And did you see the things Ben Holmes came up with in the way
>of "physical evidence" to supposedly support his CT side? It was quite
>humorous. Here's one of the items:
>
>"The cheek cast of LHO. Physical proof that he didn't fire a rifle that
>day." -- Ben Holmes
>
>I, of course, responded to Ben's "cheek cast" evidence with the fact that
>such paraffin tests are pretty much useless,
Paraffin test.
Tell us, can you offer your opinion of NAA testing?
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ben Holmes
Learn to Make Money with a Website - http://www.burningknife.com
Lanny
Jan 27, 2014, 1:10:31 PM1/27/14
to
information honestly and making inquiries in good faith. But anyone who
knows that 90 decibels is the threshold noise level at which people start
manifesting involuntary startle reactions and that one third of a second
is an appropriate period of delay between the occurrence of the auditory
stimulus and the beginning of the startle reaction – that person has
obviously done more research on the subject than the average bear.
And it is simply not credible that anyone would know these two facts and
not be aware of what the same research says about how involuntary startle
reactions are typically manifested, even at decibel levels far above 90
db. As Milicent Cranor quoted British researchers in one study, "The most
generalized startle response to the standard sound stimulus employed (124
db) consisted of eye closure, grimacing, neck flexion, trunk flexion,
slight abduction of the arms, flexion of the elbows and pronation of the
forearms. There was considerable variation in the degree to which this
response was expressed, and in some subjects only eye closure and flexion
of the neck was apparent."
(http://spot.acorn.net/jfkplace/09/fp.back_issues/31st_Issue/jiggle.html)
Bob Harris knows perfectly well why there may have been no visibly obvious
startle reactions by witnesses prior to Zapruder frame 290. Where mere
eye closure and flexing of neck muscles are all that may constitute a
typical scientifically valid startle response, those subtle responses are
not typically visible on subjects recorded on eight millimeter home movie
film at a distance of 30 to 40 feet away. This simple fact is why Dr.
Alvarez turned to analyzing the camera jitter of Abraham Zapruder, as a
more reliable indicator of when startling gunfire occurred. This, of
course, is a fact Harris not only knows, but one which he effusively
explained in detail on one of his YouTube videos.
I have reminded Harris of this specific research at least as far back as
Feb. 2 of the past year and several times since. Besides, this is not
research Harris’ critics need to defend. Bob is the one who owes us all
a cogent explanation that has yet to be forthcoming. HIS CONTENTION IS
that no unsuppressed, high-powered rifle shots were fired prior to
Zapruder frame 285 because the absence of visibly manifested startle
reactions on the Zapruder film PROVES that no audible stimulus above 90 db
occurred in that time span.
That premise is dramatically contradicted by virtually every single
witness who testified to hearing one or both of the “early shots,”
either prior to and/or simultaneous with JFK’s initial wounding in the
upper back.
These witnesses also testified that they mistook those first shots as
either fire crackers or motorcycle engine backfires. This includes the
testimony of every single person in the Presidential limo other than
President Kennedy. But don’t take my word for it. Read the Warren
Commission testimony of what each of these individuals heard and what they
immediately did in response to it. Those responses of the limo occupants
are all visible on the Zapruder film and all occurred in advance of frame
285.
The last time I checked, the only fire crackers that did not generate at
least a 90 db noise level were sparklers. I’ve never heard an internal
combustion engine backfire at less than 90 db, not even a lawn mower.
How about you?
So the obvious question is how did all these witnesses hear “early”
audible stimuli in excess of 90 db which they also inexplicably resisted
being startled by in direct violation of the laws of physics and
scientifically established behavioral response?
If you’re comfortable “chatting” with Bob as you mentioned, I’d
urge you to demand that he answer that question.
As Marsh observed previously in another thread however, I am "fed up" with
his incessant badgering and childish gamesmanship and wouldn’t trust him
if he told me water was wet.
David Von Pein
Jan 27, 2014, 1:13:03 PM1/27/14
to
>>> "Tell us, can you offer your opinion of NAA testing?" <<<
No, not really. But I do know that a negative "cheek" test (i.e., paraffin
test) does not prove that the person testing negatively on their cheek did
not fire a gun. That's merely another of the many myths surrounding the
JFK case that are still being spouted by CTers as the truth 50 years
later.
Robert Harris
Jan 27, 2014, 1:13:32 PM1/27/14
to
David Von Pein wrote:
> Talking to Robert Harris is about as productive as talking to a tree trunk.
>
David, you made two claims in your previous post - both, ridiculously
> Talking to Robert Harris is about as productive as talking to a tree trunk.
>
false.
1. My analysis is based on only on subjectivity.
2. You haven't met anyone who disagrees with me.
In the meantime you snipped every argument and question that I asked you.
So who exactly, is acting like a tree trunk?
Why won't you address the most important questions David? Why do you
always snip them?
There is NO relevant you can ask me, that I will not answer as honestly
and openly as I know how. Don't you wish you could say the same?
Robert Harris
Robert Harris
Jan 27, 2014, 1:13:59 PM1/27/14
to
Oswald.
Robert Harris
Bud
Jan 27, 2014, 6:20:21 PM1/27/14
to
On Sunday, January 26, 2014 11:08:42 PM UTC-5, Ben Holmes wrote:
> In article <fe8cd752-91ec-4214...@googlegroups.com>, David Von
>
> Pein says...
>
> >
>
> >Answers for Bob Harris.....
>
> >
>
> >1.) Yes.
>
> >
>
> >2.) I don't limit my analysis to just the "physical" evidence. I often
>
> >talk about the witness testimony, Oswald's actions, and various other
>
> >things that do not fall under the heading of "physical evidence".
>
> >
>
> >But in the post on my website that you are no doubt referring to, I *was*
>
> >limiting it to "physical evidence" for the purposes of that quote and that
>
> >discussion. And did you see the things Ben Holmes came up with in the way
>
> >of "physical evidence" to supposedly support his CT side? It was quite
>
> >humorous. Here's one of the items:
>
> >
>
> >"The cheek cast of LHO. Physical proof that he didn't fire a rifle that
>
> >day." -- Ben Holmes
>
> >
>
> >I, of course, responded to Ben's "cheek cast" evidence with the fact that
>
> >such paraffin tests are pretty much useless,
>
>
>
>
>
> It's amusing that you confuse the NAA, which is quite reliable, with the
>
> Paraffin test.
You can be pretty sure that the NAA test results that Weisburg received
> In article <fe8cd752-91ec-4214...@googlegroups.com>, David Von
>
> Pein says...
>
> >
>
> >Answers for Bob Harris.....
>
> >
>
> >1.) Yes.
>
> >
>
> >2.) I don't limit my analysis to just the "physical" evidence. I often
>
> >talk about the witness testimony, Oswald's actions, and various other
>
> >things that do not fall under the heading of "physical evidence".
>
> >
>
> >But in the post on my website that you are no doubt referring to, I *was*
>
> >limiting it to "physical evidence" for the purposes of that quote and that
>
> >discussion. And did you see the things Ben Holmes came up with in the way
>
> >of "physical evidence" to supposedly support his CT side? It was quite
>
> >humorous. Here's one of the items:
>
> >
>
> >"The cheek cast of LHO. Physical proof that he didn't fire a rifle that
>
> >day." -- Ben Holmes
>
> >
>
> >I, of course, responded to Ben's "cheek cast" evidence with the fact that
>
> >such paraffin tests are pretty much useless,
>
>
>
>
>
> It's amusing that you confuse the NAA, which is quite reliable, with the
>
> Paraffin test.
from a FOIA request were pretty damning towards Oswald. That would be the
only reason for them not to be produced.
BT George
Jan 27, 2014, 6:37:02 PM1/27/14
to
*TRULY* relevant questions like these:
1) What progress have you made in taking your FACTS to the authorities to
get something done about this?
2) What scientific bodies or journals have you recently submitted your
PROOFS too that have endorsed them or called for further study?
3) What historians, or prominent journalists have you taken your
"irrefutable" evidence to and did you manage to interest them in your
ideas?
4) What EQUIVALENT evidence do you have for your shot at Z285 for
Kennedy’s reaction at Z226?
...Then just hold on to to see the stream of profani....err..."relevant"
answers you get about what Bob is doing with all of his "physical"
evidence and "non-subjective" interpretations of the movements and actions
of the limo passengers on the Z Film.
Oh...let me predict it now. You'll get no answers or no credible ones, and
then he will challenge you and/or me to engage with his "absolute proofs"
(yet) again. You just wait and see. :-)
BT George
Anthony Marsh
Jan 27, 2014, 10:57:22 PM1/27/14
to
On 1/27/2014 6:20 PM, Bud wrote:
> On Sunday, January 26, 2014 11:08:42 PM UTC-5, Ben Holmes wrote:
>> In article <fe8cd752-91ec-4214...@googlegroups.com>, David Von
>>
>> Pein says...
>>
>>>
>>
>>> Answers for Bob Harris.....
>>
>>>
>>
>>> 1.) Yes.
>>
>>>
>>
>>> 2.) I don't limit my analysis to just the "physical" evidence. I often
>>
>>> talk about the witness testimony, Oswald's actions, and various other
>>
>>> things that do not fall under the heading of "physical evidence".
>>
>>>
>>
>>> But in the post on my website that you are no doubt referring to, I *was*
>>
>>> limiting it to "physical evidence" for the purposes of that quote and that
>>
>>> discussion. And did you see the things Ben Holmes came up with in the way
>>
>>> of "physical evidence" to supposedly support his CT side? It was quite
>>
>>> humorous. Here's one of the items:
>>
>>>
>>
>>> "The cheek cast of LHO. Physical proof that he didn't fire a rifle that
>>
>>> day." -- Ben Holmes
>>
>>>
>>
>>> I, of course, responded to Ben's "cheek cast" evidence with the fact that
>>
>>> such paraffin tests are pretty much useless,
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> It's amusing that you confuse the NAA, which is quite reliable, with the
>>
>> Paraffin test.
>
> You can be pretty sure that the NAA test results that Weisburg received
> from a FOIA request were pretty damning towards Oswald. That would be the
> only reason for them not to be produced.
>
How would you know? You've never seen the. I have them. I gave a copy to
> On Sunday, January 26, 2014 11:08:42 PM UTC-5, Ben Holmes wrote:
>> In article <fe8cd752-91ec-4214...@googlegroups.com>, David Von
>>
>> Pein says...
>>
>>>
>>
>>> Answers for Bob Harris.....
>>
>>>
>>
>>> 1.) Yes.
>>
>>>
>>
>>> 2.) I don't limit my analysis to just the "physical" evidence. I often
>>
>>> talk about the witness testimony, Oswald's actions, and various other
>>
>>> things that do not fall under the heading of "physical evidence".
>>
>>>
>>
>>> But in the post on my website that you are no doubt referring to, I *was*
>>
>>> limiting it to "physical evidence" for the purposes of that quote and that
>>
>>> discussion. And did you see the things Ben Holmes came up with in the way
>>
>>> of "physical evidence" to supposedly support his CT side? It was quite
>>
>>> humorous. Here's one of the items:
>>
>>>
>>
>>> "The cheek cast of LHO. Physical proof that he didn't fire a rifle that
>>
>>> day." -- Ben Holmes
>>
>>>
>>
>>> I, of course, responded to Ben's "cheek cast" evidence with the fact that
>>
>>> such paraffin tests are pretty much useless,
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> It's amusing that you confuse the NAA, which is quite reliable, with the
>>
>> Paraffin test.
>
> You can be pretty sure that the NAA test results that Weisburg received
> from a FOIA request were pretty damning towards Oswald. That would be the
> only reason for them not to be produced.
>
Ken Rahn and he agreed that they are not conclusive. Hoover said that
they were useless.
Bud
Jan 29, 2014, 1:22:07 PM1/29/14
to
he would have produced them.
Robert Harris
Jan 30, 2014, 5:28:26 PM1/30/14
to
BT George wrote:
> On Monday, January 27, 2014 12:13:32 PM UTC-6, Robert Harris wrote:
>> David Von Pein wrote:
>>
>>> Talking to Robert Harris is about as productive as talking to a tree trunk.
>>
>>>
>>
>>
>>
>> David, you made two claims in your previous post - both, ridiculously
>>
>> false.
>>
>>
>>
>> 1. My analysis is based on only on subjectivity.
>>
>>
>>
>> 2. You haven't met anyone who disagrees with me.
>>
>>
>>
>> In the meantime you snipped every argument and question that I asked you.
>>
>>
>>
>> So who exactly, is acting like a tree trunk?
>>
>>
>>
>> Why won't you address the most important questions David? Why do you
>>
>> always snip them?
>>
>>
>>
>> There is NO relevant you can ask me, that I will not answer as honestly
>>
>> and openly as I know how. Don't you wish you could say the same?
>>
>>
>
> David, this is good to know! Now why don't you try asking him a few
> *TRULY* relevant questions like these:
Hi BT
> On Monday, January 27, 2014 12:13:32 PM UTC-6, Robert Harris wrote:
>> David Von Pein wrote:
>>
>>> Talking to Robert Harris is about as productive as talking to a tree trunk.
>>
>>>
>>
>>
>>
>> David, you made two claims in your previous post - both, ridiculously
>>
>> false.
>>
>>
>>
>> 1. My analysis is based on only on subjectivity.
>>
>>
>>
>> 2. You haven't met anyone who disagrees with me.
>>
>>
>>
>> In the meantime you snipped every argument and question that I asked you.
>>
>>
>>
>> So who exactly, is acting like a tree trunk?
>>
>>
>>
>> Why won't you address the most important questions David? Why do you
>>
>> always snip them?
>>
>>
>>
>> There is NO relevant you can ask me, that I will not answer as honestly
>>
>> and openly as I know how. Don't you wish you could say the same?
>>
>>
>
> David, this is good to know! Now why don't you try asking him a few
> *TRULY* relevant questions like these:
Do you think it was just a coincidence that Alvarez and Strosico confirmed
that Zapruder began to react at 290-291 and that five people in the limo,
including three who were ducking, began to react at 290-292?
And if it wasn't coincidental, what do you suppose could have caused such
a thing?
Robert Harris
(ad hominem stuff deleted by moi)
Jason Burke
Jan 30, 2014, 7:14:36 PM1/30/14
to
times while you're at it.)
BT George
Jan 30, 2014, 8:58:42 PM1/30/14
to
Speaking only hypothetically Bob:
1) Do you think it's sheer stubborness, rank stupidity, or faulty memory
to keep asking others the same questions they've already
answered---usually multiple times---just because one doesn't *LIKE* the
answers received?
2) Is it strong denial or blatant dishonesty that would cause a person to
*pretend* they've never been answered or seriously challenged, when the
contra-evidence is abundant, and the person so doing refuses to have the
underlying assumptions to their theories vetted for proper application and
interpretation by recognized experts and authorities?
3) Is it a deep interest in the truth, boredom, or something more
troubling that might cause someone to open up thread-after-thread, to
advance said theories as though they are established "facts", when it is
obvious to all that have been paying attention that they are simply
unproved assumptions?
Again. All this is speaking only hypothetically, but I can think of no
one more *uniquely* qualified than you to provide "honest" and *deep*
insights into such a phenomenon. :-)
...And thank you in advance for your "cooperation" with this inquiry. :-)
BT George
Anthony Marsh
Jan 31, 2014, 5:23:16 PM1/31/14
to
On 1/30/2014 5:28 PM, Robert Harris wrote:
> BT George wrote:
>> On Monday, January 27, 2014 12:13:32 PM UTC-6, Robert Harris wrote:
>>> David Von Pein wrote:
>>>
>>>> Talking to Robert Harris is about as productive as talking to a tree
>>>> trunk.
>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> David, you made two claims in your previous post - both, ridiculously
>>>
>>> false.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> 1. My analysis is based on only on subjectivity.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> 2. You haven't met anyone who disagrees with me.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> In the meantime you snipped every argument and question that I asked
>>> you.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> So who exactly, is acting like a tree trunk?
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Why won't you address the most important questions David? Why do you
>>>
>>> always snip them?
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> There is NO relevant you can ask me, that I will not answer as honestly
>>>
>>> and openly as I know how. Don't you wish you could say the same?
>>>
>>>
>>
>> David, this is good to know! Now why don't you try asking him a few
>> *TRULY* relevant questions like these:
>
> Hi BT
>
> Do you think it was just a coincidence that Alvarez and Strosico
> confirmed that Zapruder began to react at 290-291 and that five people
> in the limo, including three who were ducking, began to react at 290-292?
>
Not when you told Stroscio that's what you wanted him to do.
> BT George wrote:
>> On Monday, January 27, 2014 12:13:32 PM UTC-6, Robert Harris wrote:
>>> David Von Pein wrote:
>>>
>>>> Talking to Robert Harris is about as productive as talking to a tree
>>>> trunk.
>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> David, you made two claims in your previous post - both, ridiculously
>>>
>>> false.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> 1. My analysis is based on only on subjectivity.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> 2. You haven't met anyone who disagrees with me.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> In the meantime you snipped every argument and question that I asked
>>> you.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> So who exactly, is acting like a tree trunk?
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Why won't you address the most important questions David? Why do you
>>>
>>> always snip them?
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> There is NO relevant you can ask me, that I will not answer as honestly
>>>
>>> and openly as I know how. Don't you wish you could say the same?
>>>
>>>
>>
>> David, this is good to know! Now why don't you try asking him a few
>> *TRULY* relevant questions like these:
>
> Hi BT
>
> Do you think it was just a coincidence that Alvarez and Strosico
> confirmed that Zapruder began to react at 290-291 and that five people
> in the limo, including three who were ducking, began to react at 290-292?
>
Robert Harris
Feb 1, 2014, 1:53:09 PM2/1/14
to
But do you think it is hypothetically speaking, dishonest when people
claim that they have answered questions which they have not?
Here it is again, BT. If you answered the question before, just cut n'
paste it in your reply and we'll see who is really full of poop on this
subject:-)
"Do you think it was just a coincidence that Alvarez and Strosico
confirmed that Zapruder began to react at 290-291 and that five people
in the limo, including three who were ducking, began to react at 290-292?
And if it wasn't coincidental, what do you suppose could have caused
such a thing?"
BT George
Feb 1, 2014, 11:46:14 PM2/1/14
to
- show quoted text -
answering. ...We understand why, don't we boys and girls? :-)
But do you think it is hypothetically speaking, dishonest when people
claim that they have answered questions which they have not?
Here it is again, BT. If you answered the question before, just cut n'
paste it in your reply and we'll see who is really full of poop on this
subject:-)
"Do you think it was just a coincidence that Alvarez and Strosico
confirmed that Zapruder began to react at 290-291 and that five people
in the limo, including three who were ducking, began to react at 290-292?
And if it wasn't coincidental, what do you suppose could have caused
such a thing?"
Oh I think not. You see I've already given you my answers and since you
EVADED my questions I shall not hazard a guess as to what the precise
explanation is that we find you here again either suffering from
TRAGICALLY bad memory, or willfully PRETENDING not to remember.
Either way, dear lukers and viewers, you may enter something like BT
George and Bob Harris and Z285 and you will find *ABUNDANT* evidence of my
many, many, interactions with Bob Harris on this topic plus the clear
answers he simply didn't *LIKE* and now is behaving as if he cannot
recall.
If you find I am correct. Go back and read my questions above to him.
You may then have an informed opinion about who is emitting what smells
and how bad they really are. :-)
BT George
Robert Harris
Probably all of the above.
...Says Bob as he (again) snips things he obviously wants no part of
answering. ...We understand why, don't we boys and girls? :-)
But do you think it is hypothetically speaking, dishonest when people
claim that they have answered questions which they have not?
Here it is again, BT. If you answered the question before, just cut n'
paste it in your reply and we'll see who is really full of poop on this
subject:-)
"Do you think it was just a coincidence that Alvarez and Strosico
confirmed that Zapruder began to react at 290-291 and that five people
in the limo, including three who were ducking, began to react at 290-292?
And if it wasn't coincidental, what do you suppose could have caused
such a thing?"
EVADED my questions I shall not hazard a guess as to what the precise
explanation is that we find you here again either suffering from
TRAGICALLY bad memory, or willfully PRETENDING not to remember.
Either way, dear lukers and viewers, you may enter something like BT
George and Bob Harris and Z285 and you will find *ABUNDANT* evidence of my
many, many, interactions with Bob Harris on this topic plus the clear
answers he simply didn't *LIKE* and now is behaving as if he cannot
recall.
If you find I am correct. Go back and read my questions above to him.
You may then have an informed opinion about who is emitting what smells
and how bad they really are. :-)
BT George
Robert Harris
Robert Harris
Feb 2, 2014, 1:43:50 PM2/2/14
to
BT George wrote:
> - show quoted text -
> Probably all of the above.
>
> ...Says Bob as he (again) snips things he obviously wants no part of
> answering. ...
I snipped nothing BT, but I ignore the ad hominem crap which is
> - show quoted text -
> Probably all of the above.
>
> ...Says Bob as he (again) snips things he obviously wants no part of
> answering. ...
basically all you post these days.
Now, let's get back to the subject you keep trying to avoid. You have
suggested that I lied when I claimed that you never answered these
questions,
"Do you think it was just a coincidence that Alvarez and Strosico
confirmed that Zapruder began to react at 290-291 and that five people in
the limo, including three who were ducking, began to react at 290-292?
And if it wasn't coincidental, what do you suppose could have caused such
a thing?"
keep asking questions that have already been answered.
If you have indeed, already answered those questions then all you have to
do, to finally out me is cut 'n paste your last answers.
So let's find out which one of us is full of crap. Show us that you've
already answered those questions or admit that you are simply refusing to
do so.
Robert Harris
Jason Burke
Feb 2, 2014, 2:32:30 PM2/2/14
to
BT George
Feb 2, 2014, 11:51:20 PM2/2/14
to
BT George wrote:
> - show quoted text -
> - show quoted text -
> Probably all of the above.
>
>
> ...Says Bob as he (again) snips things he obviously wants no part of
> answering. ...
I snipped nothing BT, but I ignore the ad hominem crap which is
basically all you post these days.
I half-truth and a false-allegation in the same sentence!
> answering. ...
I snipped nothing BT, but I ignore the ad hominem crap which is
basically all you post these days.
No folks Bob didn't actually snip anything he .Johnsnipped(tm) my last 3
questions as any of you may confirm by going back to the original posts
just a little up the thread.
By Ad-Hominem Harris means any valid challenges as to his questionable (if
not downright bizarre) behavior of ignoring prior responses, contrary
facts he cannot credibly address, while hypocritically demanding others
keep responding to him completely (again,and again, and again) and that
they do do to *HIS* satisfaction.
He also vigorously protests my highlighting of his own behavior that
effectively *PROVES* he does not posses the certainty of validation that
he demand others give them.
YOU *know* which questions those are Bob. Do I need to repeat them again
for you to snip and ignore or answer weakly? :-)
Now, let's get back to the subject you keep trying to avoid. You have
suggested that I lied when I claimed that you never answered these
questions,
"Do you think it was just a coincidence that Alvarez and Strosico
confirmed that Zapruder began to react at 290-291 and that five people in
the limo, including three who were ducking, began to react at 290-292?
And if it wasn't coincidental, what do you suppose could have caused such
a thing?"
confirmed that Zapruder began to react at 290-291 and that five people in
the limo, including three who were ducking, began to react at 290-292?
And if it wasn't coincidental, what do you suppose could have caused such
a thing?"
You said, "it's sheer stubborness, rank stupidity, or faulty memory" to
keep asking questions that have already been answered.
If you have indeed, already answered those questions then all you have to
do, to finally out me is cut 'n paste your last answers.
So let's find out which one of us is full of crap. Show us that you've
already answered those questions or admit that you are simply refusing to
do so.
Yes. I have indeed answered your questions about Z285 + much more to *MY*
keep asking questions that have already been answered.
If you have indeed, already answered those questions then all you have to
do, to finally out me is cut 'n paste your last answers.
So let's find out which one of us is full of crap. Show us that you've
already answered those questions or admit that you are simply refusing to
do so.
complete satisfaction. Unlike you, I don't need to argue the same thing
13,803 times to be willing to rest on what I have said.
Moreover, I've put my money where my mouth is by *REPEATEDLY* asking our
viewers and lurkers to verify as much by a search of past interchanges
between us.
So far---with the exception of that strangely synoptic disciple of yours
from Estonia---I have had no one stepping in to say that I have been
untrue in any of my claims to having seriously engaged with you and your
theories many times before.
Now Bob, if you have anything else to direct at me, the time has come for
a repost with which everyone but you---suffering from those apparent
memory lapses---is by now already quite familiar with.
BT George
0 new messages