Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.
Dismiss
A sincere request for Brock
51 views
Skip to first unread message
Robert Harris
Jun 8, 2017, 3:08:42 PM6/8/17
to
Ok, I confess. Usually, when I post a title like this, it is
to get in a dig of some kind.
But this time, I really am sincere, believe it or not.
Brock, the issue before is, were the limo passengers startled
at app. frame 285. Is there any way we can discuss this as
though we were complete strangers, commissioned to resolve
this question?
Isn't it more important than our personal squabbles??
After dozens of posts, I have not seen you address several of
the most important issues.
1. Did the limo passengers drop their heads, spin rapidly,
etc, beginning in the same 1/6th of one second at 290-292?
2. Did Roy Kellerman simultaneously drop his head, shield his
ear and raise his shoulders upward for a fraction of a second
in unison with the other alleged reactions?
3. Did the limo passengers began to react at exactly the same
instant that Alvarez did (at 290-291), according to Dr. Alvarez?
I believe the answer to each of those questions is *yes*. I
will not link the relevant Zapruder segments, since I know
you have already seen them.
I do not dispute your claim that you have addressed the 285
issue, in various ways, in the past. But you have never tried
to answer these questions.
It is only moral to defend the LN theory if you genuinely
believe it is true. But how can you do that if you have not
addressed the most important challenges?
Robert Harris
to get in a dig of some kind.
But this time, I really am sincere, believe it or not.
Brock, the issue before is, were the limo passengers startled
at app. frame 285. Is there any way we can discuss this as
though we were complete strangers, commissioned to resolve
this question?
Isn't it more important than our personal squabbles??
After dozens of posts, I have not seen you address several of
the most important issues.
1. Did the limo passengers drop their heads, spin rapidly,
etc, beginning in the same 1/6th of one second at 290-292?
2. Did Roy Kellerman simultaneously drop his head, shield his
ear and raise his shoulders upward for a fraction of a second
in unison with the other alleged reactions?
3. Did the limo passengers began to react at exactly the same
instant that Alvarez did (at 290-291), according to Dr. Alvarez?
I believe the answer to each of those questions is *yes*. I
will not link the relevant Zapruder segments, since I know
you have already seen them.
I do not dispute your claim that you have addressed the 285
issue, in various ways, in the past. But you have never tried
to answer these questions.
It is only moral to defend the LN theory if you genuinely
believe it is true. But how can you do that if you have not
addressed the most important challenges?
Robert Harris
BT George
Jun 9, 2017, 9:23:20 AM6/9/17
to
I'm definitely all in favor of reducing the level of hostility in
interchanges between Bob Harris and me. However, I cannot support the
continual *false* claims that I have not addressed his arguments
*repeatedly* and in some considerable *detail*.
It is true that I have used mockery and sarcasm---newsflash---that's a
common device around here to get one's point across. But that doesn't
change the fact that I have made *many* honest and *substantive*
evaluations and criticisms of Bob's various theories, including his most
treasured Z285 beliefs.
.John/Moderators,
Of course, Bob has every right to answer in kind any comments I have to
make to him in a thread, or to respond in kind, should I initiate a thread
directed at him. But going forward I request that he not be allowed to
continue to open up *new* threads initiated for the sole purpose of
engaging or attacking me---especially when it is trying to make the claim
I have never legitimately engaged with him in debate, or is an obvious
attempt to goad me into a response.
IMO, it is becoming a form of unwanted harassment, aimed at forcing me to
either go silent (and let Bob take a "victory lap" for the supposed
"evasion") or to keep responding, and responding, and responding. All of
which is just so much more needless SPAM for the Group.
Brock (BT) George
John McAdams
Jun 9, 2017, 9:26:00 AM6/9/17
to
On 9 Jun 2017 09:23:18 -0400, BT George <brockg...@gmail.com>
wrote:
You have a point. I think I will start rejecting all "you have not
responded" claims from Harris.
Everybody *has* responded. Bob simply doesn't like the response.
So from now on, he can either *rebut* the response, or remain silent.
.John
-----------------------
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/home.htm
wrote:
responded" claims from Harris.
Everybody *has* responded. Bob simply doesn't like the response.
So from now on, he can either *rebut* the response, or remain silent.
.John
-----------------------
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/home.htm
Jason Burke
Jun 9, 2017, 9:37:10 AM6/9/17
to
sh*t. My bad.
Robert Harris
Jun 9, 2017, 10:29:16 PM6/9/17
to
Did you even read my post? I stated,
"I do not dispute your claim that you have addressed the 285
issue, in various ways, in the past. But you have never tried
to answer these questions."
questions and has never tried.
If he had, you or he could have simiply repeated what he said.
You should not defend evasion, John. As you yourself, have
agreed, evasion is a despicable tactic. It is dishonest and
it prevents us moving the discussion forward.
>
> Everybody *has* responded.
I doubt that, but quite a few have.
As you know however, Brock has never attempted to answer
those three particular questions. And in his response in this
thread, he NEVER claimed he had.
> Bob simply doesn't like the response.
never addressed the questions I asked. He said,
"I cannot support the continual *false* claims that I have
not addressed his arguments *repeatedly* and in some
considerable *detail*."
of my arguments. He claimed for example, that his subjective
opinion was that no one except Kellerman exhibited startle
reactions following 285. And he has made other arguments.
You deliberately use the wrong verb. I did not claim he
failed to "respond". I said he failed to "ANSWER" those
questions.
If I am wrong, all he has to do is say, "Yes I did. My
answers were...".
But he cannot do that because as all of us know, he never
answered them.
>
> So from now on, he can either *rebut* the response, or remain silent.
>
I cannot rebut an answer that has never been given.
Robert Harris
John McAdams
Jun 9, 2017, 10:37:10 PM6/9/17
to
On 9 Jun 2017 22:29:15 -0400, Robert Harris <bobha...@yahoo.com>
wrote:
>John McAdams wrote:
>> On 9 Jun 2017 09:23:18 -0400, BT George <brockg...@gmail.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> .John/Moderators,
>>>
>>> Of course, Bob has every right to answer in kind any comments I have to
>>> make to him in a thread, or to respond in kind, should I initiate a thread
>>> directed at him. But going forward I request that he not be allowed to
>>> continue to open up *new* threads initiated for the sole purpose of
>>> engaging or attacking me---especially when it is trying to make the claim
>>> I have never legitimately engaged with him in debate, or is an obvious
>>> attempt to goad me into a response.
>>>
>>> IMO, it is becoming a form of unwanted harassment, aimed at forcing me to
>>> either go silent (and let Bob take a "victory lap" for the supposed
>>> "evasion") or to keep responding, and responding, and responding. All of
>>> which is just so much more needless SPAM for the Group.
>>>
>>
>> You have a point. I think I will start rejecting all "you have not
>> responded" claims from Harris.
>
>Please stop misrepresenting me. Of course he has "responded".
>Did you even read my post? I stated,
>
>"I do not dispute your claim that you have addressed the 285
>issue, in various ways, in the past. But you have never tried
>to answer these questions."
>
Unfortunately, Bob, *you* will always insist you have not gotten an
answer when what has really happened is that you have not gotten the
answer you wanted.
You *don't* have the right to badger people by claiming they did not
answer when they did.
>We all know that Brock has not answered those particular
>questions and has never tried.
>
>If he had, you or he could have simiply repeated what he said.
>
It's not your right to keep pestering him with the same questions.
You can respond to what he wrote, and *explain* how you disagree, or
can it.
>You should not defend evasion, John. As you yourself, have
>agreed, evasion is a despicable tactic. It is dishonest and
>it prevents us moving the discussion forward.
>
The form of "evasion" I see is your ignoring the responses you get,
and just continuing to badger people with the same questions.
>>
>> Everybody *has* responded.
>
>I doubt that, but quite a few have.
>
>As you know however, Brock has never attempted to answer
>those three particular questions. And in his response in this
>thread, he NEVER claimed he had.
>
>> Bob simply doesn't like the response.
>
>That is true. I don't like his "response" at all, because it
>never addressed the questions I asked. He said,
>
>"I cannot support the continual *false* claims that I have
>not addressed his arguments *repeatedly* and in some
>considerable *detail*."
>
>Of course I have never claimed that he did not address some
>of my arguments. He claimed for example, that his subjective
>opinion was that no one except Kellerman exhibited startle
>reactions following 285. And he has made other arguments.
>
So that was his "subjective opinion?"
Irony alert!
>You deliberately use the wrong verb. I did not claim he
>failed to "respond". I said he failed to "ANSWER" those
>questions.
>
You can respond to his *response*, but not badger him for not
"answering."
>If I am wrong, all he has to do is say, "Yes I did. My
>answers were...".
>
>But he cannot do that because as all of us know, he never
>answered them.
>
We know he answered, but you didn't like the answers.
>>
>> So from now on, he can either *rebut* the response, or remain silent.
>>
>
>No, I can't.
>
>I cannot rebut an answer that has never been given.
>
You can rebut a "response" that *has* been given.
.John
-----------------------
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/home.htm
wrote:
>John McAdams wrote:
>> On 9 Jun 2017 09:23:18 -0400, BT George <brockg...@gmail.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> .John/Moderators,
>>>
>>> Of course, Bob has every right to answer in kind any comments I have to
>>> make to him in a thread, or to respond in kind, should I initiate a thread
>>> directed at him. But going forward I request that he not be allowed to
>>> continue to open up *new* threads initiated for the sole purpose of
>>> engaging or attacking me---especially when it is trying to make the claim
>>> I have never legitimately engaged with him in debate, or is an obvious
>>> attempt to goad me into a response.
>>>
>>> IMO, it is becoming a form of unwanted harassment, aimed at forcing me to
>>> either go silent (and let Bob take a "victory lap" for the supposed
>>> "evasion") or to keep responding, and responding, and responding. All of
>>> which is just so much more needless SPAM for the Group.
>>>
>>
>> You have a point. I think I will start rejecting all "you have not
>> responded" claims from Harris.
>
>Please stop misrepresenting me. Of course he has "responded".
>Did you even read my post? I stated,
>
>"I do not dispute your claim that you have addressed the 285
>issue, in various ways, in the past. But you have never tried
>to answer these questions."
>
answer when what has really happened is that you have not gotten the
answer you wanted.
You *don't* have the right to badger people by claiming they did not
answer when they did.
>We all know that Brock has not answered those particular
>questions and has never tried.
>
>If he had, you or he could have simiply repeated what he said.
>
You can respond to what he wrote, and *explain* how you disagree, or
can it.
>You should not defend evasion, John. As you yourself, have
>agreed, evasion is a despicable tactic. It is dishonest and
>it prevents us moving the discussion forward.
>
and just continuing to badger people with the same questions.
>>
>> Everybody *has* responded.
>
>I doubt that, but quite a few have.
>
>As you know however, Brock has never attempted to answer
>those three particular questions. And in his response in this
>thread, he NEVER claimed he had.
>
>> Bob simply doesn't like the response.
>
>That is true. I don't like his "response" at all, because it
>never addressed the questions I asked. He said,
>
>"I cannot support the continual *false* claims that I have
>not addressed his arguments *repeatedly* and in some
>considerable *detail*."
>
>Of course I have never claimed that he did not address some
>of my arguments. He claimed for example, that his subjective
>opinion was that no one except Kellerman exhibited startle
>reactions following 285. And he has made other arguments.
>
Irony alert!
>You deliberately use the wrong verb. I did not claim he
>failed to "respond". I said he failed to "ANSWER" those
>questions.
>
"answering."
>If I am wrong, all he has to do is say, "Yes I did. My
>answers were...".
>
>But he cannot do that because as all of us know, he never
>answered them.
>
>>
>> So from now on, he can either *rebut* the response, or remain silent.
>>
>
>No, I can't.
>
>I cannot rebut an answer that has never been given.
>
.John
-----------------------
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/home.htm
BT George
Jun 10, 2017, 1:05:58 PM6/10/17
to
has almost certainly been the chief proponent of this kind of strategy.
As I said, Harris has every right to respond when attacked or to make a
new attack on something I or someone else has recently said. It's just
out of bounds to keep claiming that he has *never* been responded to, when
the issue is simply that he didn't *like* the responses he was given.
I don't like a lot of responses I receive either. But it doesn't give me
the right to make (repeated) false claims of non-response when there a
clear record of having received a response/responses from that individual.
And it *certainly* doesn't give me the right to insinuate that someone
else really secretly "agrees" with what I am saying, but is too dishonest
to admit it---which Bob seems to be alluding to at the tail end of the
above post.
Brock
Anthony Marsh
Jun 11, 2017, 12:35:45 AM6/11/17
to
one can refute him. If people do respond those are only personal attacks
so they must not be able to refute him on the facts.
DON'T PLAY HIS GAME.
> I don't like a lot of responses I receive either. But it doesn't give me
> the right to make (repeated) false claims of non-response when there a
> clear record of having received a response/responses from that individual.
>
> And it *certainly* doesn't give me the right to insinuate that someone
> else really secretly "agrees" with what I am saying, but is too dishonest
> to admit it---which Bob seems to be alluding to at the tail end of the
> above post.
>
> Brock
>
association. If I attack Trump and Putin they claim I agree with them.
Conan The Contrarian
Jun 11, 2017, 7:33:41 PM6/11/17
to
Bob Harris
1. Did the limo passengers drop their heads,spin rapidly, etc, beginning
stimulus? NO!
2. Did Roy Kellerman simultaneously drop his head, shield his ear and
raise his shoulders upward for a fraction of a second in unison with
the other alleged reactions?
Absolutely NOT and definitely NOT in the timeframe from stupid question
#1. Kellerman's shoulders and part of his head CAN'T EVEN BE SEEN, much
less his left hand!!!!
3. Did the limo passengers began to react at exactly the same instant
that Alvarez did (at 290-291), according to Dr. Alvarez?
Haha! No, because Alvarez wasn't there!!
So there you go, Bob! Your ridiculous theory has been refuted for about
the 100th time by me. Now we can move on from your obsession with
something that can never be proven.
Shall we discuss your serious issues with understanding human anatomy
next?
1. Did the limo passengers drop their heads,spin rapidly, etc, beginning
in the same 1/6th of one second at 290-292?
Did they ALL do it involuntarily with an alleged sound being the only
stimulus? NO!
2. Did Roy Kellerman simultaneously drop his head, shield his ear and
raise his shoulders upward for a fraction of a second in unison with
the other alleged reactions?
#1. Kellerman's shoulders and part of his head CAN'T EVEN BE SEEN, much
less his left hand!!!!
3. Did the limo passengers began to react at exactly the same instant
that Alvarez did (at 290-291), according to Dr. Alvarez?
So there you go, Bob! Your ridiculous theory has been refuted for about
the 100th time by me. Now we can move on from your obsession with
something that can never be proven.
Shall we discuss your serious issues with understanding human anatomy
next?
Anthony Marsh
Jun 12, 2017, 12:47:19 PM6/12/17
to
When the car crashes into a wall, do they discuss what to do or decide
which way to fall?
Robert Harris
Jun 13, 2017, 10:51:26 PM6/13/17
to
If I state that a question has not been answered, it has to
the best of my knowledge, never been answered.
I asked Brock three questions but he never answered them.
It really is just that simple.
If I am wrong, then my adversary need only cite his post
which contained the answers.
>
> You *don't* have the right to badger people by claiming they did not
> answer when they did.
If it had, you could have proven it with a couple of verbatim
citations.
But you will never do that because such citations do not exist.
Robert Harris
BT George
Jun 14, 2017, 2:57:40 PM6/14/17
to
been *repeatedly* given to him over here. "Yes. They performed several
simultaneous actions." No. It doesn't mean what Bob thinks it means, and
we should expect to see something like this going on by this point in the
assassination sequence.
Here are a *few* examples of my "not" answering the very questions he is
raising above. He simply didn't *like* my answers then---as his *silence*
usually proved---and I predict he will be no more fond of them now. But
it is simply a *false* claim that the answers have not been provided:
https://groups.google.com/d/msg/alt.assassination.jfk/-Tre5FvOgqo/fznTBwDPru8J
https://groups.google.com/d/msg/alt.assassination.jfk/c5r-RhOvAU0/Y1813UgWCQAJ
https://groups.google.com/d/msg/alt.assassination.jfk/N0sO07J75Wg/fsWZdeUUAAAJ
https://groups.google.com/d/msg/alt.assassination.jfk/lCQu79Z_mT4/HOkNMhYXEQAJ
https://groups.google.com/d/msg/alt.assassination.jfk/Kg6ZtRdROx4/dpsioxNUDAAJ
https://groups.google.com/d/msg/alt.assassination.jfk/y26xKIg5djM/B-dEuPss0PYJ
Now CASE CLOSED regarding this issue of supposed non-response. The above
citations *do* address Bob's contentions about these movements, and the
support he believes he has for them from *several* angles. Note too how
often he failed to respond at all, or to respond *credibly* if he die, to
the points I had made. ....There is a reason for that, of course. :-)
>
> Robert Harris
Conan The Contrarian
Jun 14, 2017, 3:02:28 PM6/14/17
to
Bob Harris
After all of your egregious "mistakes" you will have to accept that many
have answered your silly and loaded questions and have also refuted your
ridiculous theories. You are simply choosing to ignore your losses and
that indicates a rather exceptional case of cognitive dissonance on your
part.
After all of your egregious "mistakes" you will have to accept that many
have answered your silly and loaded questions and have also refuted your
ridiculous theories. You are simply choosing to ignore your losses and
that indicates a rather exceptional case of cognitive dissonance on your
part.
Anthony Marsh
Jun 15, 2017, 12:40:25 PM6/15/17
to
Anthony Marsh
Jun 15, 2017, 12:43:32 PM6/15/17
to
0 new messages