Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.
Dismiss
Smears and phony accusations from Corbett
75 views
Skip to first unread message
Robert Harris
Apr 18, 2017, 10:12:43 PM4/18/17
to
Recently, John Corbette responded to my post re: the massive protrusion
in the upper rear of JFK's head.
As is typical of John, he never discussed the evidence, which included
the images and Zapruder segment I posted, that proved quite clearly that
the massive protrusion was real. Instead, John went off into an ad
hominem rant.
But as is also typical of this character, he failed to support any of
his smears with anything specific. He said,
"You have claimed to see things nobody else can see"
That is false, John. I have never claimed so see anything that no one
else can see. You will confirm the untruthfullness of that accusation by
failing to even try to cite me doing that.
"..and figured out things nobody else can."
Please cite a statement I made which suggests that I think I can figure
out things that nobody else can figure out. Take your time, john.
"You have made yourself a self appointed authority so naturally you have
made yourself a target of ridicule."
Cite me stating that I am an "authority" about anything. In fact, the
things it have pointed out are simple. Any idiot can understand them.
A test of the integrity of any poster, is whether he can support his
claims and accusations. Honest people can. Untruthful people almost
never can and rarely, even try. They are constantly getting caught
posting bullshit that they couldn't support to save their lives.
Robert Harris
in the upper rear of JFK's head.
As is typical of John, he never discussed the evidence, which included
the images and Zapruder segment I posted, that proved quite clearly that
the massive protrusion was real. Instead, John went off into an ad
hominem rant.
But as is also typical of this character, he failed to support any of
his smears with anything specific. He said,
"You have claimed to see things nobody else can see"
That is false, John. I have never claimed so see anything that no one
else can see. You will confirm the untruthfullness of that accusation by
failing to even try to cite me doing that.
"..and figured out things nobody else can."
Please cite a statement I made which suggests that I think I can figure
out things that nobody else can figure out. Take your time, john.
"You have made yourself a self appointed authority so naturally you have
made yourself a target of ridicule."
Cite me stating that I am an "authority" about anything. In fact, the
things it have pointed out are simple. Any idiot can understand them.
A test of the integrity of any poster, is whether he can support his
claims and accusations. Honest people can. Untruthful people almost
never can and rarely, even try. They are constantly getting caught
posting bullshit that they couldn't support to save their lives.
Robert Harris
John McAdams
Apr 18, 2017, 10:19:05 PM4/18/17
to
On 18 Apr 2017 22:12:42 -0400, Robert Harris <bobha...@yahoo.com>
wrote:
>Recently, John Corbette responded to my post re: the massive protrusion
>in the upper rear of JFK's head.
>
>As is typical of John, he never discussed the evidence, which included
>the images and Zapruder segment I posted, that proved quite clearly that
>the massive protrusion was real. Instead, John went off into an ad
>hominem rant.
>
Harris thinks that if he *says* that something has been proven "quite
clearly" that that settles it.
>But as is also typical of this character, he failed to support any of
>his smears with anything specific. He said,
>
>"You have claimed to see things nobody else can see"
>
>That is false, John. I have never claimed so see anything that no one
>else can see. You will confirm the untruthfullness of that accusation by
>failing to even try to cite me doing that.
>
Harris *knows* better than this, and apparently just makes this
argument as a diversion.
Corbett never said that Bob says "I can see things that nobody else
can see."
Corbett said that Bob can "see" things that nobody else can see.
Harris has to know what this meant. Harris loudly insists that he can
"see" this or that in the Zapruder film. Nobody else sees it the way
he does.
>"..and figured out things nobody else can."
>
>Please cite a statement I made which suggests that I think I can figure
>out things that nobody else can figure out. Take your time, john.
>
Harris knows perfectly well that this is a *characterization* of
Harris' attitude.
>"You have made yourself a self appointed authority so naturally you have
>made yourself a target of ridicule."
>
>Cite me stating that I am an "authority" about anything. In fact, the
>things it have pointed out are simple. Any idiot can understand them.
>
Yes, it probably takes an idiot to "see" and "understand" these things
your way.
.John
-----------------------
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/home.htm
wrote:
>Recently, John Corbette responded to my post re: the massive protrusion
>in the upper rear of JFK's head.
>
>As is typical of John, he never discussed the evidence, which included
>the images and Zapruder segment I posted, that proved quite clearly that
>the massive protrusion was real. Instead, John went off into an ad
>hominem rant.
>
clearly" that that settles it.
>But as is also typical of this character, he failed to support any of
>his smears with anything specific. He said,
>
>"You have claimed to see things nobody else can see"
>
>That is false, John. I have never claimed so see anything that no one
>else can see. You will confirm the untruthfullness of that accusation by
>failing to even try to cite me doing that.
>
argument as a diversion.
Corbett never said that Bob says "I can see things that nobody else
can see."
Corbett said that Bob can "see" things that nobody else can see.
Harris has to know what this meant. Harris loudly insists that he can
"see" this or that in the Zapruder film. Nobody else sees it the way
he does.
>"..and figured out things nobody else can."
>
>Please cite a statement I made which suggests that I think I can figure
>out things that nobody else can figure out. Take your time, john.
>
Harris' attitude.
>"You have made yourself a self appointed authority so naturally you have
>made yourself a target of ridicule."
>
>Cite me stating that I am an "authority" about anything. In fact, the
>things it have pointed out are simple. Any idiot can understand them.
>
your way.
.John
-----------------------
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/home.htm
bigdog
Apr 19, 2017, 11:35:20 PM4/19/17
to
think I made unfair accusations against you. To give what I said context,
you protested that another poster had tried to make this all about you and
I simply pointed out that you have made this all about you by
pontificating about things you see which nobody sees and figuring out
things nobody else has figured.
Robert Harris
Apr 30, 2017, 10:46:59 PM4/30/17
to
accusations.
IT IS YOURS.
And the fact that you can't even try, speaks volumes.
> To give what I said context,
> you protested that another poster had tried to make this all about you and
> I simply pointed out that you have made this all about you by
> pontificating about things you see which nobody sees and figuring out
> things nobody else has figured.
Robert Harris
Conan The Contrarian
May 1, 2017, 4:33:37 PM5/1/17
to
Bob Harris said:
"What exactly, did I see that no one else sees?"
From my perspective that is a very easy question to answer. NO ONE (that
"What exactly, did I see that no one else sees?"
I am aware of) sees Kellerman hunch up his shoulders, raise his left arm
and duck his head between Z-280 and Z-300....except YOU Bob.
Jason Burke
May 1, 2017, 4:33:47 PM5/1/17
to
>
> Robert Harris
>
bigdog
May 1, 2017, 4:41:03 PM5/1/17
to
BT George
May 1, 2017, 11:15:52 PM5/1/17
to
there exists no (zero) valid observable evidence for them. There is not
the slightest hint of an involuntary motion being carried out by anyone in
the limousine with the *possible* exception of Kellerman, who's movements
are difficult to detect with certainty, but upon hyper-analysis of a
second or so of blown up, digitized, and cleaned up 1960's 8 MM film,
*could* be possibly consistent with an involuntary startle.
Thus one has a choice:
1) Harmonize our understanding of the possible explanations for the
movements of Kellerman with the manifestly *voluntary* motions that the
other uninjured limo. passengers are making in reaction to the attack that
has now persisted for at least 85% of its accepted length. (I.e, the
*sensible* approach.)
2) Insist---without a shred of *valid* visual evidence-- that our
understanding of the other 3 non-injured passengers motions must somehow
comport with "involuntary" startle reactions, based on having concluded
that this is what Kellerman is manifesting. (The *Robert Harris*
approach.)
3) Come up with some kooky theory to explain how Roy Kellerman (alone) is
manifesting and involuntary startle while the other passenger are not.
(The *insane* approach.)
But Kudos to Bob! He has managed to find a multiplicity options, where
most mere mortals really see only one sensible one. :-)
0 new messages