Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.
Dismiss
David Von Pein's Mistake
115 views
Skip to first unread message
Robert Harris
Jan 29, 2014, 1:23:13 PM1/29/14
to
Recently, I asked David several questions,
1. Do you consider this to be valid, physical evidence?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7GH5pGQy6yI
2. 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
3. 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?
(unquote)
In his reply, he deleted all of the questions and stated,
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.
(unquote)
The question of subjectivity in this issue is an interesting one, because
part of my argument is indeed, subjective. The Warren Commission concluded
that "MOST" of the witnesses who expressed an opinion about the shooting,
said that they only heard one early shot and then closely bunched shots at
the end of the attack. And most of the people who were closest to the
President said the same thing.
But it is ironic that the very links that David snipped in his reply,
provide the objective proof that those witnesses were correct. The
simultaneous reactions by the limo passengers are both easily confirmed
and measurable.
This is NOT "subjective". It shows us exactly when the reactions began.
http://jfkhistory.com/simultaneous.gif
Three of those people, SA Kellerman, Mrs. Kennedy and Mrs. Connally,
ducked, dropping their heads in perfect unison with one another.
http://jfkhistory.com/angles285.jpg
At the same instant, Bill Greer began to spin around so fast, that some
people thought his turns were humanly impossible. As he did that he slowed
the limousine by lifting his foot from the gas, and/or braked.
Abraham Zapruder reacted also, at exactly the same instant that the others
did, as was confirmed by Dr. Alvarez and later, Dr. Michael Stroscio.
The fact that all of those reactions began in the same 3 frames or 1/6th
of a second, is not "subjective". It is easily provable, and has been
proven beyond any reasonable doubt.
That is the hard, objective evidence, which corroborates the large
consensus of witnesses and proves that shot was fired at 285-288. It, and
the one that followed, could not both have come from Lee Harvey Oswald.
Robert Harris
1. Do you consider this to be valid, physical evidence?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7GH5pGQy6yI
2. 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
3. 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?
(unquote)
In his reply, he deleted all of the questions and stated,
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.
(unquote)
The question of subjectivity in this issue is an interesting one, because
part of my argument is indeed, subjective. The Warren Commission concluded
that "MOST" of the witnesses who expressed an opinion about the shooting,
said that they only heard one early shot and then closely bunched shots at
the end of the attack. And most of the people who were closest to the
President said the same thing.
But it is ironic that the very links that David snipped in his reply,
provide the objective proof that those witnesses were correct. The
simultaneous reactions by the limo passengers are both easily confirmed
and measurable.
This is NOT "subjective". It shows us exactly when the reactions began.
http://jfkhistory.com/simultaneous.gif
Three of those people, SA Kellerman, Mrs. Kennedy and Mrs. Connally,
ducked, dropping their heads in perfect unison with one another.
http://jfkhistory.com/angles285.jpg
At the same instant, Bill Greer began to spin around so fast, that some
people thought his turns were humanly impossible. As he did that he slowed
the limousine by lifting his foot from the gas, and/or braked.
Abraham Zapruder reacted also, at exactly the same instant that the others
did, as was confirmed by Dr. Alvarez and later, Dr. Michael Stroscio.
The fact that all of those reactions began in the same 3 frames or 1/6th
of a second, is not "subjective". It is easily provable, and has been
proven beyond any reasonable doubt.
That is the hard, objective evidence, which corroborates the large
consensus of witnesses and proves that shot was fired at 285-288. It, and
the one that followed, could not both have come from Lee Harvey Oswald.
Robert Harris
Bud
Jan 29, 2014, 7:58:33 PM1/29/14
to
On Wednesday, January 29, 2014 1:23:13 PM UTC-5, Robert Harris wrote:
Top Post: David Von Pein`s mistake was answering your first two
questions which you followed up with three more as if he hadn`t answered
the first two.
Top Post: David Von Pein`s mistake was answering your first two
questions which you followed up with three more as if he hadn`t answered
the first two.
Robert Harris
Jan 30, 2014, 4:36:11 PM1/30/14
to
Bud wrote:
> On Wednesday, January 29, 2014 1:23:13 PM UTC-5, Robert Harris wrote:
>
> Top Post: David Von Pein`s mistake was answering your first two
> questions which you followed up with three more as if he hadn`t answered
> the first two.
No sir. I asked him three more questions, not as if he hadn't answered
> On Wednesday, January 29, 2014 1:23:13 PM UTC-5, Robert Harris wrote:
>
> Top Post: David Von Pein`s mistake was answering your first two
> questions which you followed up with three more as if he hadn`t answered
> the first two.
the first two, but because he agreed that the photographic evidence was
physical or "hard".
Obviously, his claim that there is no hard evidence of conspiracy, is
false. Otherwise he would not have had to snip the questions and refuse
to answer them.
Robert Harris
David Von Pein
Jan 31, 2014, 3:20:50 PM1/31/14
to
Yes, Bob, it's a PHYSICAL fact that the limo passengers (and, in
particular, Jackie Kennedy and Nellie Connally) are, indeed, moving at the
same time. But you can't possibly PROVE those movements were caused by
their hearing a gunshot. The simultaneous movements of the limo passengers
could be caused by something else other than hearing a rifle blast.
Plus, as has been pointed out to you (R. Harris) many times before, the
movements I'm seeing are not "startle" type movements at all. They are not
JERKY in nature at all.
So, again, it's all about Bob's subjective analysis. Nothing more.
particular, Jackie Kennedy and Nellie Connally) are, indeed, moving at the
same time. But you can't possibly PROVE those movements were caused by
their hearing a gunshot. The simultaneous movements of the limo passengers
could be caused by something else other than hearing a rifle blast.
Plus, as has been pointed out to you (R. Harris) many times before, the
movements I'm seeing are not "startle" type movements at all. They are not
JERKY in nature at all.
So, again, it's all about Bob's subjective analysis. Nothing more.
Robert Harris
Jan 31, 2014, 9:37:56 PM1/31/14
to
David Von Pein wrote:
> Yes, Bob, it's a PHYSICAL fact that the limo passengers (and, in
> particular, Jackie Kennedy and Nellie Connally) are, indeed, moving at the
> same time.
Good! I commend you for your honesty.
> Yes, Bob, it's a PHYSICAL fact that the limo passengers (and, in
> particular, Jackie Kennedy and Nellie Connally) are, indeed, moving at the
> same time.
> But you can't possibly PROVE those movements were caused by
> their hearing a gunshot.
will you be bailing out when it starts to get warm:-)
> The simultaneous movements of the limo passengers
> could be caused by something else other than hearing a rifle blast.
1. Do you agree that most of the relevant witnesses, including every
nonvictim in the limo, THOUGHT that noise was a gunshot?
2. Other than a backfire, can you think of an alternative cause that
explains the reactions and the perception of the witnesses?
And if you believe it was a backfire, why would that startle anyone? They
had been hearing backfires all throughout the motorcade and studying the
DCA videos, I don't see anyone reacting even remotely like they did,
following 285. Do you?
>
> Plus, as has been pointed out to you (R. Harris) many times before, the
> movements I'm seeing are not "startle" type movements at all. They are not
> JERKY in nature at all.
in other videos that are almost identical to what we see at 290-292.
More importantly, the simultaneous nature of those reactions, which
includes three people ducking, defines them very clearly as startle
reactions, which must begin within a tiny fraction of a second following
the noise.
You can also examine the reactions to the known shot at 313. Jackie and
Nellie's heads were already down then, but Kellerman's wasn't. Also, look
at Greer spin around, identical to his reaction to the 285 sound.
But for now, let's stick with objective facts - one of which is that
Alvarez concluded that Zapruder reacted to a loud noise at 290-291 -
EXACTLY when the limo passengers began to react.
What do you suppose the odds are that he would react in the same 1/6th of
a second that five other people did, by sheer coincidence?
>
> So, again, it's all about Bob's subjective analysis. Nothing more.
constitute the large majority of my analysis.
Robert Harris
David Von Pein
Feb 1, 2014, 6:37:59 PM2/1/14
to
ROBERT HARRIS SAID:
Other than a backfire, can you think of an alternative cause that explains
the reactions and the perception of the witnesses?
"Now, Bob, go to work on proving that Nellie Connally and Jacqueline
Kennedy were positively NOT moving their heads and bodies in the manner
they moved them just after Z-Frame 285 because of their desire to tend to
their shot-up husbands.
Can you, Bob, prove the ladies weren't merely "leaning in" toward their
injured husbands at the exact same time merely out of concern over their
spouses' injuries -- versus your theory of the two women reacting to the
sound of a gunshot instead?
After all, since all reasonable people know without a speck of a doubt
that the Single-Bullet Theory is true, it would make perfect sense to have
both Nellie and Jackie reacting in the manner they each did on the
Zapruder Film based ONLY on the fact that each of their husbands was hit
by Oswald's CE399 bullet at the EXACT SAME TIME. Therefore, why couldn't
the women be reacting in such a fashion at the EXACT SAME TIME as well?
Good luck disproving my last paragraph above." -- DVP; February 5, 2009
MORE BATTLES WITH MISTER Z285:
http://jfk-archives.blogspot.com/search?q=robert+harris+z285
Robert Harris
Feb 3, 2014, 4:09:01 PM2/3/14
to
thread entitled, "A Reply to DVP's Argument".
There is only one conceivable reason why you would refuse to address the
facts I presented, but I think you have the integrity to do so.
The evidence for this shot is overwhelming. That is why lesser men tell
lies, pretending that I have been refuted in the past, or that this is
all about SPAM.
What are you going to do?
Robert Harris
David Von Pein
Feb 3, 2014, 10:26:05 PM2/3/14
to
ROBERT HARRIS SAID:
The evidence for this [Z285] shot is overwhelming. That is why lesser men
tell lies, pretending that I have been refuted in the past...
DAVID VON PEIN SAID:
Bob, I will say this:
Your Z285 theory has not been "refuted". Here's the definition of "refute":
"REFUTE [verb]:
Prove (a statement or theory) to be wrong or false; disprove."
And since you've got a theory about a shot that MISSED, which is very
similar in nature to my theory about how Oswald's first shot MISSED
everything in the limousine at about Z160, this means that your theory can
very likely never be completely "refuted". Nor can my Z160 theory. Because
those are theories that are, in large measure, based on a certain amount
of guesswork (due to the fact no victims are being struck by the shots in
those theories).
Now, yes, I know you think you've got more than just "guesswork" on your
side when it comes to your Z285 theory. But, in my view, you do not. Your
Z285 theory is, as I said, quite similar to the Z160 missed-shot theory:
You think 4 people are being "startled" by a gunshot in the frames right
after Z285.
I think that 2 people are "reacting" to hearing a gunshot right after Z160
(John Connally and Rosemary Willis). Those two people aren't really being
"startled" (with jerky reactions) following the Z160 shot that I think
occurred, but there are visible reactions (i.e., bodily movements) being
exhibited by Connally and Willis on which I (and many other LNers too)
base the Z160 theory.
Can I get you to agree, Bob, that the above comparison is fairly accurate
(re: your Z285 theory and my Z160 theory)?
Now, I think I am 100% correct when I say a shot occurred at Z160. But can
I *prove* such a shot occurred at precisely that moment in time? Of course
I can't. We can't SEE the bullet in flight within the SILENT Zapruder
Film. Just as we can't see your Z285 shot in the same silent film.
Ergo, I cannot *prove* with 100% certainty that your Z285 theory is bunk.
I do, indeed, think your Z285 theory is bunk, however. And I base that
opinion largely on the sum total of evidence that is telling me that there
could not have been a shot at that point (Z285) in the shooting timeline.
There simply is no ROOM for a shot at that point in time:
1.) Lee Harvey Oswald was the lone shooter (based on, again, the sum total
of all the evidence which indicates the very high probability that Oswald
was the only person firing a gun in Dealey Plaza on the 22nd of November).
2.) Oswald fired exactly THREE shots (no more, no less) from the Book
Depository's sixth floor.
3.) Shot #2 is the "SBT" shot at approximately Z224.
4.) Shot #3 is most certainly the head shot at Z313.
5.) John Connally's testimony, coupled with his reactions and movements in
the limousine just after Zapruder frame #160, indicate that Shot #1
occurred prior to Z164.
Which means that:
6.) A shot hypothesized by Robert Harris to have occurred at precisely
Zapruder frame number 285 could not have happened (when #1 thru #5 above
are all taken into account).
So, Bob, you haven't been 100% "refuted", but you DO have the above list
of items most definitely working against you.
David Von Pein
February 3, 2014
http://DavidVonPein.blogspot.com
The evidence for this [Z285] shot is overwhelming. That is why lesser men
tell lies, pretending that I have been refuted in the past...
DAVID VON PEIN SAID:
Bob, I will say this:
Your Z285 theory has not been "refuted". Here's the definition of "refute":
"REFUTE [verb]:
Prove (a statement or theory) to be wrong or false; disprove."
And since you've got a theory about a shot that MISSED, which is very
similar in nature to my theory about how Oswald's first shot MISSED
everything in the limousine at about Z160, this means that your theory can
very likely never be completely "refuted". Nor can my Z160 theory. Because
those are theories that are, in large measure, based on a certain amount
of guesswork (due to the fact no victims are being struck by the shots in
those theories).
Now, yes, I know you think you've got more than just "guesswork" on your
side when it comes to your Z285 theory. But, in my view, you do not. Your
Z285 theory is, as I said, quite similar to the Z160 missed-shot theory:
You think 4 people are being "startled" by a gunshot in the frames right
after Z285.
I think that 2 people are "reacting" to hearing a gunshot right after Z160
(John Connally and Rosemary Willis). Those two people aren't really being
"startled" (with jerky reactions) following the Z160 shot that I think
occurred, but there are visible reactions (i.e., bodily movements) being
exhibited by Connally and Willis on which I (and many other LNers too)
base the Z160 theory.
Can I get you to agree, Bob, that the above comparison is fairly accurate
(re: your Z285 theory and my Z160 theory)?
Now, I think I am 100% correct when I say a shot occurred at Z160. But can
I *prove* such a shot occurred at precisely that moment in time? Of course
I can't. We can't SEE the bullet in flight within the SILENT Zapruder
Film. Just as we can't see your Z285 shot in the same silent film.
Ergo, I cannot *prove* with 100% certainty that your Z285 theory is bunk.
I do, indeed, think your Z285 theory is bunk, however. And I base that
opinion largely on the sum total of evidence that is telling me that there
could not have been a shot at that point (Z285) in the shooting timeline.
There simply is no ROOM for a shot at that point in time:
1.) Lee Harvey Oswald was the lone shooter (based on, again, the sum total
of all the evidence which indicates the very high probability that Oswald
was the only person firing a gun in Dealey Plaza on the 22nd of November).
2.) Oswald fired exactly THREE shots (no more, no less) from the Book
Depository's sixth floor.
3.) Shot #2 is the "SBT" shot at approximately Z224.
4.) Shot #3 is most certainly the head shot at Z313.
5.) John Connally's testimony, coupled with his reactions and movements in
the limousine just after Zapruder frame #160, indicate that Shot #1
occurred prior to Z164.
Which means that:
6.) A shot hypothesized by Robert Harris to have occurred at precisely
Zapruder frame number 285 could not have happened (when #1 thru #5 above
are all taken into account).
So, Bob, you haven't been 100% "refuted", but you DO have the above list
of items most definitely working against you.
David Von Pein
February 3, 2014
http://DavidVonPein.blogspot.com
0 new messages