Ruby's Polygraph

7 views
Skip to first unread message

Robert Harris

unread,
Jan 16, 2009, 4:08:22 PM1/16/09
to
In 1978, the HSCA polygraph panel of 9 experts was asked to reexamine
the polygraph test given to Jack Ruby in 1964, by FBI polygraph expert,
Bell P. Herndon. To say that the panel was shocked and outraged by
Herndon's procedures, is an enormous understatement. It is my belief,
based on their report, that first, Ruby was indeed being deceitful when
he denied any relationship to Oswald, or to the assassination, and
second, that Herndon deliberately tried to hide evidence that Ruby lied.

It is important to understand, that Herndon was no amateur at this. He
was in fact one of the very best and most experienced polygraph people
the FBI had, describing himself as, "presently the polygraph supervisor
and polygraph examiner assigned to the FBI laboratory, Washington,
D.C.".When asked about his experience, he replied, " I have either
given, supervised, or reviewed several thousand polygraph examinations.".

Keeping in mind then, that Herndon knew exactly what he was doing,
consider this part of the HSCA report:

"A third factor the panel finds impaired the Ruby polygraph examination
concerned the number of relevant test questions asked.The panel members
believe it showed total disregard of basic polygraph principles.

(47) The crux of every polygraph examination is the number of test
questions and how they are worded. When the Ruby examination was
conducted, the primary textbook on the subject was "Lie Detection and
Criminal Interrogation," by Fred E. Inbau and John E. Reid (3ded.,
1953). This book recommends three relevant questions, since the more a
person is tested, the less he tends to react when lying. That is, sooner
or later, liars become so "test-tired,"they no longer produce
significant physiological reactions when lying. "

That last sentence is critical. As we will see, Herndon knew all too
well, that by wearing Ruby down with control questions, he could reduce
his measurable reactions when he lied. The report continued,

"One panel member, Archer, said that in his 27 years of experience he
had never heard of polygraph examinations with more than 17 relevant
questions. Yet, in the Ruby examination, Herndon ask some 55 relevant
questions. As Herndon himself stated:

'In normal polygraph procedure it is usual to keep the relevant
questions down to perhaps several specific critical relevant questions
and work strictly on those.'"

So, as we might expect, Herndon knew very well that by asking far too
many test questions, he might cause Ruby to suppress the symptoms of his
deceptions. But that was only a start. Just in case Ruby had not been
"worn down" enough to hide his lies, Herndon took other steps to
minimize those peaks on the printout:

"The panel found the galvanic skin response (GSR) tracing to be of
minimal help in analyzing Ruby's charts. The main problem with the GSR
in the first session (before the break) is a lack of sensitivity due to
Herndon's setting the sensitivity at one-fourth of maximum. He decreased
it to one-fifth for the third series of questions. The panel noted that
it should have been tried at a maximum sensitivity prior to the first
test, where probably it should have remained for the entire examination."

So, for some reason, Herndon turned the sensitivity to 1/4th of what it
should have been. He then turned it down even further, for the third set
of questions. The panel continued,

"The panel could provide no explanation for why Herndon decreased the
sensitivity for the third series. In fact, generally recognized
principles in 1964 called for the sensitivity to be continually
increased."

But if all else failed, and those nasty signs of deception still became
visible, the FBI had a final fallback position. They could simply
declare that the machinery was defective,

"The panel concluded that during this entire session, the GSR was
completely defective. At best the polygraph appeared to be in extremely
poor condition. In an examination of this importance, a backup polygraph
should have been available and in the panel's view, should have been
used. The examination should have been stopped until another polygraph
could be obtained."

Of course, if this fact was known to the HSCA experts, it was certainly
known to Herndon. What possible reason could he have had, for conducting
the most important polygraph test of his career, and perhaps, of this
century, on equipment he knew to be faulty? Certainly, the FBI would
have had no problem at all, procuring a machine that was in perfect
working order. What possible reason could there have been for this,
other than to give Herndon an out, or a form of plausible denial?

These are not the only examples of Herndon's flagrant attempts to
disguise the nature of Ruby's responses. Keeping in mind, that he was an
expert, who had administered or studied, "thousands" of polygraph tests,
look at the way he used his control questions to produce artificially
high standards for where on his graphs, he would have to admit that Ruby
lied,

"Further, Herndon violated a basic rule that surprise questions should
never be used as controls. For example, while asking a series, he says,
during the test, "have you ever been known by another name? Don't answer
that question. Skip it. Just sit and relax." (112)

(74) Such talk by the expert should automatically prevent this question
from being used in the chart analysis. Yet Herndon uses it as a control.
He testified: 'The only significant change physiologically during series
No. 2 was in Mr. Ruby's response to the question, "Have you ever been
known by another name?,"portrayed by an increase in his blood pressure.'
(113)

(75) Such a procedure can easily lead to a mistake, particularly in
indicating a liar to be truthful. ".

As we will see, that was not the only time that Herndon used improper,
and provocative "control" questions, for the purpose of raising the
standard.

"(69) 4. Herndon's definition of a "control" question goes far beyond
the generally recognized definition, as discussed in the leading book of
the day by Inbau and Reid. The "control" question,developed by Reid in
1943, is one similar but unrelated to the crime being investigated to
which the expert knows the correct answer and to which the person will
probably lie. If the person's reaction to a properly worded control is
more pronounced than to the relevant questions, he is considered to be
truthful. On the other hand, if his reaction to the relevant questions
is more pronounced, he is considered to be lying to the relevant
questions."

To understand what Herndon was up to, the following paragraph is
critical:

"(70) If the control questions are properly worded, it is very possible
that a person lying to the relevant questions will appear to be
truthful. (71) Herndon's control questions were not correctly worded. He
defined a "control" question as one to which the person will have some
emotional response. (105) Thus, he used such controls as:

1. Have you ever been arrested? (106)2. Are you married? (107)3. While
in the service did you receive any disciplinary action?(108)4. Have you
served time in jail? (109)5. Did you attend the synagogue regularly?
(110)

(72) It is obvious that not one of the above questions is a control, as
defined by Inbau and Reid. For example, to the question, "have you ever
been arrested?", Ruby answered "yes."Therefore, it is not a lie, yet
Herndon considered it to be a control question. (111)"

As the panel pointed out, the correct use of control questions had been
defined decades prior to this test. Herndon, as a well trained,
experienced expert, who had studied polygraph techniques under Phd's,
must certainly, have been aware that he was violating the most
fundamental principles of polygraph administration.

Worse, Herndon was filling his chart with artificially high test points,
which he would later use to for the avowed purpose of determining
whether Ruby lied or not. In short, he was doing everything in his
power, to make it virtually impossible for Ruby to appear to have been
deceptive. His efforts would pay off, when he was faced with Ruby's
blatantly deceptive reactions after answering the following two,
bombshell questions,

1. Did you know Oswald before November 22, 1963?
Answer. No.

2. Did you assist Oswald in the assassination?
Answer. No.

Herndon concluded that Ruby's replies were honest, despite an immediate
and normally, damning rise in Ruby's blood pressure. But, the FBI
operator dismissed that reaction by pointing to a similar rise in blood
pressure following one of his provocative control questions.

This is how the panel described it:

"Herndon concluded from his analysis of the charts that Ruby was
truthful in answering these two relevant questions. He arrived at this
conclusion by comparing Ruby's response to the control question, "Have
you ever been arrested?" Answer: Yes.

(99) As previously noted, the panel believed this to be an extremely
poor control question.

(100) Herndon testified that Ruby's physiological response to this
control question was recorded on the charts in terms of a"noticeable
rise in his blood pressure." (127) The panel took issue with this
conclusion because the rise in blood pressure occurred at least 7
seconds after Ruby answered. A response normally never occurs this long
after the question. The typical reaction, would be in 1 or 2 seconds.
Further, the panel noted that at the point of the rise in blood
pressure, Herndon indicated on the chart (as "MF") that Ruby moved his
feet. The panel believed that the rise in blood pressure most likely was
caused by Ruby's movement and not his physiological reaction to
the"control" question. This conclusion is corroborated by the fact that
Ruby's breathing remained relaxed at the time of the rise in blood
pressure, and the Galvanic skin response showed no reaction."

IOW, Herndon was trying very lamely, to rationalize why he did not call
Ruby's answers to these questions, out and out lies. The panel continued,

"In fact, the reactions to the preceding question--(Did you assist
Oswald in the assassination?)--showed the largest valid GS reaction in
test series No. 1. In addition, there is a constant suppression of
breathing and a rise in blood pressure at the time of this crucial
relevant question. From this test, it appeared to the panel that Ruby
was possibly lying when answering "no" to the question, 'Did you assist
Oswald in the assassination ?' This is contrary to Herndon's opinion
that Ruby was truthful when answering that question."

Although the panel stopped short of labeling Herndon the liar he
obviously was, it is clear that Ruby's response to his critical denial,
evoked:

1. A rapid increase in blood pressure.

2. A subconscious effort by Ruby to suppress his breathing.

3. The highest GSR (galvanic skin response) measured during that
questioning session.

Needless to say, all three of those reactions were symptomatic of
deliberate deception. Yet, Herndon testified to a clueless Warren
Commission, that he had no problem at all, interpreting Ruby's chart to
mean that there was "..no area of deception present with regard to his
response to the relevant questions during the polygraph examination.".

Of course, like Rubyąs denials, that was a flagrant lie.


Robert Harris

Dave Reitzes

unread,
Jan 17, 2009, 10:50:31 AM1/17/09
to
TOP POST

There are some problems with Bob's argument, as I've noted numerous
times at this newsgroup. For a recap, please see:

http://www.jfk-online.com/rubydef.html#N_26_

Dave

> Of course, like Ruby�s denials, that was a flagrant lie.
>
> Robert Harris


Grizzlie Antagonist

unread,
Jan 17, 2009, 6:15:45 PM1/17/09
to
"Dave Reitzes" <drei...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:a35f7bb1-27d2-4a78...@g38g2000yqd.googlegroups.com...
TOP POST

There are some problems with Bob's argument, as I've noted numerous
times at this newsgroup. For a recap, please see:

http://www.jfk-online.com/rubydef.html#N_26_

Dave

> Of course, like Ruby?s denials, that was a flagrant lie.
>
> Robert Harris

Robert Harris couldn't make it today, so he authorized me as a proxy to
deliver his template in response.

First of all, Robert Harris authorized me to say that he can tell from the
nervousness inherent in the tone of your response that you know very well
that HE IS RIGHT and that YOU ARE WRONG. In fact, he wanted you to know
that he is LAUGHING AT YOU because your argument so obviously amounts to a
concession that HE IS RIGHT and that YOU ARE WRONG.

Second of all, Robert Harris authorized me to say that it doesn't really
matter what you want to argue because all of the SCIENTIFIC EVIDENCE says
that he is right. He authorized me to say that he was proven right a long
time ago by SCIENTIFIC EVIDENCE anyway so there's really no room for
discussion on the matter.

Third of all, Robert Harris authorized me to remind you that he is an
HONEST MAN and that you are a RUNNER. He wants to know why you would want
to RUN and what you are RUNNING FROM. He urges you to STOP RUNNING. He
wants to know why you do not wish to become an HONEST MAN like he is. He
wants to remind you that his home is not open to anyone who is not an
HONEST MAN like he is and that you'd better shape up if you want to be
considered for an invitation.

Fourth of all, Robert Harris wanted me to remind you that IN 1964, HE
VOTED FOR BARRY GOLDWATER, even before he had become old enough to vote --
so passionate was his enthusiasm for Goldwater.

Fifth of all, Robert Harris wanted me to remind you that the Gallup Poll
consistently shows that 99 PERCENT OF THE POPULATION BELIEVES ROBERT
HARRIS AND HIS VIEW OF EVENTS WANTS TO CANONIZE ROBERT HARRIS AS A
VERITABLE SAINT OF WESTERN CIVILIZATION AND WANT HIS IMAGE EMBLAZONED ON
MT. RUSHMORE. Robert Harris wants to know who you are to pit your feeble
will against that of so many people.


--
"Populus me sibilat, at mihi plaudo." ("The people hiss at me, but I am
well satisfied with myself") - Horace, Book 1, Satire 1


Robert Harris

unread,
Jan 17, 2009, 6:16:24 PM1/17/09
to
In article
<a35f7bb1-27d2-4a78...@g38g2000yqd.googlegroups.com>,
Dave Reitzes <drei...@aol.com> wrote:

> TOP POST
>
> There are some problems with Bob's argument, as I've noted numerous
> times at this newsgroup. For a recap, please see:
>
> http://www.jfk-online.com/rubydef.html#N_26_


Yes, David but your rebuttal is total bullshit, which is why you will no
longer attempt to defend your arguments in the newsgroup.

Isn't it David:-)

Robert Harris

Dave Reitzes

unread,
Jan 18, 2009, 3:46:56 PM1/18/09
to
On Jan 17, 6:16�pm, Robert Harris <reharr...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> In article
> <a35f7bb1-27d2-4a78-8abf-92ff39dbd...@g38g2000yqd.googlegroups.com>,

> �Dave Reitzes <dreit...@aol.com> wrote:
>
> > TOP POST
>
> > There are some problems with Bob's argument, as I've noted numerous
> > times at this newsgroup. For a recap, please see:
>
> >http://www.jfk-online.com/rubydef.html#N_26_
>
> Yes, David but your rebuttal is total bullshit, which is why you will no
> longer attempt to defend your arguments in the newsgroup.
>
> Isn't it David:-)
>
> Robert Harris


From my article, "In Defense of Jack Ruby":

http://www.jfk-online.com/rubydef.html


<QUOTE ON>-------------------------------------------------

For those more intent upon pinning the blame on Ruby than discerning
the true nature of the facts, the only thing left to do is insist he
was lying. One assassination researcher has even made repeated claims
that the polygraph test Ruby eventually took indicated that Ruby was,
in fact, lying. This researcher has claimed that "a panel of 9
polygraph experts determined that there were blatant signs of
deception during Ruby's polygraph test, when he was asked about
knowing Oswald and about involvement with Oswald in the
assassination."(26)

This researcher asserts this in spite of the fact that the panel in
question, that of the House Select Committee on Assassinations,
actually concluded: "It is emphasized by the panel, however, that no
opinion could be rendered on the validity of this examination or the
reliability of the results for the numerous reasons discussed in this
report."(27)

Click here to read the House committee's full report on Ruby's
polygraph examination.

<QUOTE OFF>------------------------------------------------


The above-mentioned link is this one:

http://www.jfk-online.com/rubyhscapoly.html

The endnotes referred to are these:


<QUOTE ON>-------------------------------------------------

26. Robert Harris, Newsgroup post of July 14, 1999. Harris has posted
an article on this subject, which argues that the HSCA panel concluded
that Ruby lied when he answered "no," to the question, "Did you assist
Oswald in the assassination?" The panel noted "a constant suppression


of breathing and a rise in blood pressure at the time of this crucial
relevant question. From this test, it appeared to the panel that Ruby

was possibly lying when answering 'no' to the question."

There are at least a half dozen problems with Harris' conclusion.
First, the HSCA panel noted no such reaction when Ruby answered "no"
to the previous question, "Did you know Oswald before November 22,
1963?" A literal interpretation of these two questions would be that
Ruby did not know Oswald, but was somehow involved in the
assassination. This is possible, of course, but another equally valid
interpretation would be that mention of the assassination upset Ruby
for some other reason. It seems not inconceivable that this could be
the case.

Second, Ruby's reaction to the question Harris cites is comparable to
the reaction the HSCA panel observed when he answered "no" to the
questions, "Are you now a member of the Communist Party?" and "Have
you ever been a member of the Communist Party?" In fact, this latter
question "also evoked by far the most dramatic breathing reaction" of
the entire examination. Therefore, by Harris's reasoning, Jack Ruby
was a Communist.

Third, the panel noted that prior to Ruby being asked if he assisted
Oswald in the assassination, the so-called neutral control question
asked him by his examiner was anything but a "neutral" question: "Have
you ever been arrested?" The panel noted twice in its report that they


"believed this to be an extremely poor control question."

Fourth, the panel noted numerous procedural errors in the
administration of Ruby's polygraph examination, any one of which they
noted could have invalidated any conclusions drawn from it.

Fifth, the HSCA panel's specific conclusion regarding the question
about Ruby's assisting Oswald in the assassination was that "it
appeared to the panel that Ruby was possibly lying." This is followed
by the statement, "It is emphasized by the panel, however, that no
opinion could be rendered on the validity of this examination or the
reliability of the results for the numerous reasons discussed in this
report."

Sixth, polygraphs are a notoriously unreliable indication of
dishonesty in the first place, and most courts will not accept
polygraph examinations into evidence for precisely that reason. The
following is a selection of online articles that might be of interest
regarding this topic [see my article for hyperlinks]:


Skeptic's Dictionary: Polygraph: The "Lie Detector" Machine
Polygraph Test Considered Invalid by Two Groups of Scientists,

US v. Scheffer

Lies, damned lies and polygraphs

Deception by Police

American Psychological Association: Psychologists Surveyed on Lie
Detectors Say Most Are Not Valid, Not Scientifically Sound, and Can Be
Easily Deceived"

Pinocchio Science: The Truth About the Polygraph

ACLU Briefing Paper: Lie Detector Testing

Polygraphs -- Danger to Innocent People?

The Poor Man's Polygraph

Jan. 21, 1998, 11th Circuit Court of Appeals, US vs. Gilliard on
admissibility of polygraph to support claim of innocence

Committee on Judiciary, February 10, 1999, Arizona House of
Representatives

Does the CIA stereotype Jews as security risks?


Further reading:

Lykken, David Thoreson, A Tremor in the Blood : Uses and Abuses of the
Lie Detector (Plenum Press, 1998).

27. House Select Committee on Assassinations, Hearings Vol. VIII, p.
219.

<QUOTE OFF>------------------------------------------------


Dave

http://www.jfk-online.com

Robert Harris

unread,
Jan 18, 2009, 8:49:16 PM1/18/09
to
In article
<daf7f6ad-4216-40a8...@r40g2000yqj.googlegroups.com>,
Dave Reitzes <drei...@aol.com> wrote:

> On Jan 17, 6:16?pm, Robert Harris <reharr...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > In article
> > <a35f7bb1-27d2-4a78-8abf-92ff39dbd...@g38g2000yqd.googlegroups.com>,

> > ?Dave Reitzes <dreit...@aol.com> wrote:
> >
> > > TOP POST
> >
> > > There are some problems with Bob's argument, as I've noted numerous
> > > times at this newsgroup. For a recap, please see:
> >
> > >http://www.jfk-online.com/rubydef.html#N_26_
> >
> > Yes, David but your rebuttal is total bullshit, which is why you will no
> > longer attempt to defend your arguments in the newsgroup.
> >
> > Isn't it David:-)
> >
> > Robert Harris
>
>
> From my article, "In Defense of Jack Ruby":
>
> http://www.jfk-online.com/rubydef.html
>
>
> <QUOTE ON>-------------------------------------------------
>
> For those more intent upon pinning the blame on Ruby than discerning
> the true nature of the facts, the only thing left to do is insist he
> was lying.

What an ugly and insulting statement, David.

So, you believe that I, and most other people who have seriously
investigated this crime are "more intent upon pinning the blame on Ruby
than discerning the true nature of the facts"?

And because of these insanely skewed priorities, "the only thing left"
for us is to call Ruby a liar??

I thought we would at least be allowed to make up wild theories and
stories! Why this horribly confining restriction, to only call Ruby a
liar??


> One assassination researcher has even made repeated claims
> that the polygraph test Ruby eventually took indicated that Ruby was,
> in fact, lying.

Yes David, and much worse, the FBI obviously realized that he would lie,
which is why they deliberately selected a machine that did not function
properly, wore Ruby down with many times more test questions than they
should, and created inflated points on the graph, based on deliberately
over-dramatic test questions, so that when Ruby lied they could claim
that his reactions were under the bar.

In addition to that, Herndon had to keep turning the sensitivity down in
order to further diminish the risk of Ruby's lies showing up on his
printout - which was exactly the opposite of what he should have been
doing.

What would you suggest as an excuse for him doing that David?

And although the panel singled out Ruby's denial of the question, "Did
you assist Oswald in the assassination?" as producing the "largest valid
GS reaction" in that test series and the "constant suppression of
breathing and a rise in blood pressure..", they did not describe
specifics about his reactions to the other question about knowing Oswald.

But David, your no news is good news attitude does not mean that the
other question about knowing Oswald, did not provoke signs of deception.
In fact, the panel was very clear, that Herndon's artificially high test
points were used to coverup major reactions to BOTH of those critical
questions - a fact that you continue to evade.

BTW, your claim that polygraphs are "notoriously unreliable" creates a
real puzzle. Why do you suppose that such a useless device would be
regularly used by the FBI and nearly every police dept in the country?

As I explained to you many years ago David, critics of the polygraph
base their statistics on the raw data from readouts and factor every
ambiguous or false result as a failure when they calculate the
percentages.

What they don't consider however, is that experienced operators are
rarely fooled and throw out dubious results, which results in extremely
high overall percentages of accuracy.

This is what I cited for you many years ago David,

"The American Polygraph Association has a compendium of research studies
available on the validity and reliability of polygraph testing. The 80
research projects listed, published since 1980, involved 6,380 polygraph
examinations or sets of charts from examinations. Researchers conducted
12 studies of the validity of field examinations, following 2,174 field
examinations, providing an average accuracy of 98%."

and,

"One of the problems in discussing accuracy figures and the differences
between the statistics quoted by proponents and opponents of the
polygraph technique is the way that the figures are calculated. At the
risk of over simplification, critics, who often don't understand
polygraph testing, classify inconclusive test results as errors. In the
real life setting an inconclusive result simply means that the examiner
is unable to render a definite diagnosis. In such cases a second
examination is usually conducted at a later date."

Once again David, the facts as well as a zillion law enforcement
professionals belie your claims.

And finally, a quick question David. As you must know, Jack Ruby had
been an FBI informant during different times of his life, and testified
before the Kefauver commission in 1950.

The FBI used a LOT of informants in their "war" on communism. Are you
absolutely, positively certain the Ruby never joined the communist party
to promote a cover??


Robert Harris

Dave Reitzes

unread,
Jan 19, 2009, 1:08:45 AM1/19/09
to
TOP POST

Robert Harris writes:

> The FBI used a LOT of informants in their "war" on communism. Are you
> absolutely, positively certain the Ruby never joined the communist party
> to promote a cover??

When push comes to shove, Bob has no credible evidence to support his
theories -- only further, increasingly far-fetched theories.

Can we be as certain as Robert Harris that Jack Ruby was part of a
conspiracy? Please check out this article of mine:

http://www.jfk-online.com/rubydef.html

Dave

On Jan 18, 8:49�pm, Robert Harris <reharr...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> In article

> <daf7f6ad-4216-40a8-881c-316facfdb...@r40g2000yqj.googlegroups.com>,

Robert Harris

unread,
Jan 19, 2009, 4:45:23 PM1/19/09
to
In article
<7a56b73a-b3c7-4e5a...@r41g2000prr.googlegroups.com>,
Dave Reitzes <drei...@aol.com> wrote:

> TOP POST
>
> Robert Harris writes:
>
> > The FBI used a LOT of informants in their "war" on communism. Are you
> > absolutely, positively certain the Ruby never joined the communist party
> > to promote a cover??
>
> When push comes to shove, Bob has no credible evidence to support his
> theories -- only further, increasingly far-fetched theories.

David, who exactly gets to decide whether that evidence is "credible" or
not?

Is that you, or do make a phone call to Posner or Bugliosi first?

And why do you continue to evade questions??

I am particularly interested in hearing your explanation for why Herndon
continually reduced the sensitivity of the machine when he was supposed
to increase it??


Robert Harris


>
> Can we be as certain as Robert Harris that Jack Ruby was part of a
> conspiracy? Please check out this article of mine:
>
> http://www.jfk-online.com/rubydef.html
>
> Dave
>

> On Jan 18, 8:49?pm, Robert Harris <reharr...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > In article
> > <daf7f6ad-4216-40a8-881c-316facfdb...@r40g2000yqj.googlegroups.com>,

bigdog

unread,
Jan 19, 2009, 8:49:54 PM1/19/09
to
On Jan 18, 8:49 pm, Robert Harris <reharr...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> Yes David, and much worse, the FBI obviously realized that he would lie,

You have a fondness for claiming things are obvious which clearly aren't.
Just because something fits in with your wildly speculative scenarios does
not make it obvious. Saying something is obvious doesn't make it so.

Dave Reitzes

unread,
Jan 20, 2009, 4:27:33 PM1/20/09
to
On Jan 19, 4:45�pm, Robert Harris <reharr...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> In article
> <7a56b73a-b3c7-4e5a-8a3a-969a2745b...@r41g2000prr.googlegroups.com>,

> �Dave Reitzes <dreit...@aol.com> wrote:
>
> > TOP POST
>
> > Robert Harris writes:
>
> > > The FBI used a LOT of informants in their "war" on communism. Are you
> > > absolutely, positively certain the Ruby never joined the communist party
> > > to promote a cover??
>
> > When push comes to shove, Bob has no credible evidence to support his
> > theories -- only further, increasingly far-fetched theories.
>
> David, who exactly gets to decide whether that evidence is "credible" or
> not?
>
> Is that you, or do make a phone call to Posner or Bugliosi first?


We all get to decide, Bob.

And in the 10+ years you've been posting your theories over and over
and over again, you've made absolutely zero impact on the field of JFK
assassination research -- much less on the real world, where actual
criminal prosecutions occur and where legitimate history books are
written.

Cut your losses and get a new hobby.


> And why do you continue to evade questions??
>
> I am particularly interested in hearing your explanation for why Herndon
> continually reduced the sensitivity of the machine when he was supposed
> to increase it??
>
> Robert Harris


How would I know, Bob? I've never spoken to Mr. Herndon, and I'm no
more a polygraph expert than you are.

If you wish to speculate that Herndon was part of a conspiracy, go
ahead; but your conjecture isn't evidence, credible or otherwise. I
really don't think you understand that, and I don't expect you ever
will.

Dave

Can we be sure that Jack Ruby was part of a conspiracy? Check out:
http://www.jfk-online.com/rubydef.html


Robert Harris

unread,
Jan 21, 2009, 12:24:20 AM1/21/09
to
In article
<a70c8226-3aca-4dad...@k9g2000vbl.googlegroups.com>,
Dave Reitzes <drei...@aol.com> wrote:

> On Jan 19, 4:45?pm, Robert Harris <reharr...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > In article
> > <7a56b73a-b3c7-4e5a-8a3a-969a2745b...@r41g2000prr.googlegroups.com>,

> > ?Dave Reitzes <dreit...@aol.com> wrote:
> >
> > > TOP POST
> >
> > > Robert Harris writes:
> >
> > > > The FBI used a LOT of informants in their "war" on communism. Are you
> > > > absolutely, positively certain the Ruby never joined the communist party
> > > > to promote a cover??
> >
> > > When push comes to shove, Bob has no credible evidence to support his
> > > theories -- only further, increasingly far-fetched theories.
> >
> > David, who exactly gets to decide whether that evidence is "credible" or
> > not?
> >
> > Is that you, or do make a phone call to Posner or Bugliosi first?
>
>
> We all get to decide, Bob.


You didn't say that before David. You made an absolute assertion, with
no qualifications or logical justification, whatsoever.

You do that a LOT, David.


>
> And in the 10+ years you've been posting your theories over and over
> and over again, you've made absolutely zero impact on the field of JFK
> assassination research -- much less on the real world, where actual
> criminal prosecutions occur and where legitimate history books are
> written.

The unsupported assertions just never stop do they:-)

But please explain how anyone who supports such a fringe, minority opinion
as the "lone nut" theory would be concerned about popular opinion?

And where did you learn that the "real world" supports your beliefs, or
rejects mine, David? I'm sure you wouldn't have made such a proclamation
unless you had seen a study or some kind of poll.

Why don't you post a link to share your discovery with us?

As for my failure to publicize my work, you are partially correct about
that, although I expect to exceed a million viewers of my videos this
year, and I have long lost count of the positive messages I have received
from teachers, professors, doctors and many other professional people. And
I will be doing more, David.

But the real question I must ask you, is not about how popular our
respective views are, but the considerably more important issue of who is
right.

If I am not right, then you need to do work you magic, and debunk my
arguments.

And you need to do it by addressing the actual issues that I raise.

>
> Cut your losses and get a new hobby.

LOL!!

I guess that's your only hope, isn't it:-)

>
>
> > And why do you continue to evade questions??
> >
> > I am particularly interested in hearing your explanation for why Herndon
> > continually reduced the sensitivity of the machine when he was supposed
> > to increase it??
> >
> > Robert Harris
>
>
> How would I know, Bob? I've never spoken to Mr. Herndon, and I'm no
> more a polygraph expert than you are.

Lame excuse, David.

You've read the report from the nine polygraph experts, as well as the
sources they cited, just like I did. And you know damned good and well why
he did it.


>
> If you wish to speculate that Herndon was part of a conspiracy, go
> ahead;

So, FBI agent James Hosty was full of crap when he said the feds
conspired to coverup evidence in the JFK case, David?

I could buy his WWIII theory in the case of most govt people, but it
does bothers me a bit, that Ruby wasn't exactly on Castro's payroll.


> but your conjecture isn't evidence, credible or otherwise. I
> really don't think you understand that, and I don't expect you ever
> will.

David, I am flattered that you talk so much about me and all my failings,
but why don't you focus on the evidence? If you are right, and can support
your position, you won't need all the ad hominem crap.

Better yet, do a little honest research. Look a bit deeper than for an
isolated sentence here and there that seems to demean your adversaries.
LEARN what happened that day, David. There is a mountain of evidence that
you have been ignoring for a very long time.

Robert Harris

Reply all
Reply to author
Forward
0 new messages