A SIMPLE REQUEST
Robert Harris
I don't expect anyone to agree with or even acknowledge this video. But
I cannot fathom how anyone can see it and remain convinced that only one
shooter was involved in the JFK assassination.
There is a lot that I couldn't fit into 10 minutes, but that which I
could, does a decent job of showing you what I have been talking about
for thirteen years.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ql6VqZDiC6s
Not only that, but I never use the word "decibel" - not even once!
Robert Harris
Chuck Schuyler
You are dazzled by your own brilliance.
I don't "see" any of the things you purport, and I watched all 10
minutes of the video.
Bugliosi is right...CT'ers have made this murder into the most complex
crime of all time.
...and a shooter in the Dal-Tex building? Is this in addition to a guy
on the knoll and your pet theory that some poor schlub squatting in
the Elm St. sewer took a shot at JFK?
With all of these extra shots zipping around Dealey, what is your
explanation for the fact that most witnesses only heard three shots?
doug.w...@gmail.com
I'll start with the narrator's comments on SS Kellerman. The narrator
describes Kellerman as "shielding his left ear" (after Z285). If any shot
came from the GN, why shield the left ear & not the right (which is the
direction of the GN & where Hill thought the noise of the gunshots
originated)? Also, did the narrator consider Kellerman may have had an
earphone located in his left ear & was making an attempt to hear any
instruction clearly (my speculation only)?
Ben Holmes
doug.w...@gmail.com says...
>
>On Feb 5, 10:33 pm, Robert Harris <reharr...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>> I don't expect anyone to agree with or even acknowledge this video. But
>> I cannot fathom how anyone can see it and remain convinced that only one
>> shooter was involved in the JFK assassination.
>>
>> There is a lot that I couldn't fit into 10 minutes, but that which I
>> could, does a decent job of showing you what I have been talking about
>> for thirteen years.
>>
>> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ql6VqZDiC6s
>>
>> Not only that, but I never use the word "decibel" - not even once!
>>
>> Robert Harris
>
>I'll start with the narrator's comments on SS Kellerman.
My!! I sure hope we can delve into more substantive issues than this! For if
this is the best LNT'ers can do - Robert has proven the conspiracy.
>The narrator
>describes Kellerman as "shielding his left ear" (after Z285). If any shot
>came from the GN, why shield the left ear & not the right (which is the
>direction of the GN
And *ALSO* the direction of the SN. The SN *was* to the right at that time. So
this is also an issue and problem for defenders of the WCR.
Give us the LNT'er explanation for Kellerman's motion.
>& where Hill thought the noise of the gunshots
>originated)? Also, did the narrator consider Kellerman may have had an
>earphone located in his left ear & was making an attempt to hear any
>instruction clearly (my speculation only)?
Sounds like a solid speculation. We know for a fact that there was a radio in
the limo - and it would be silly to think that Greer would be working it. Not
with Kellerman sitting right there.
The problem, of course, is why EVERYONE reacted at the same time... this is
something LNT'ers are going to have to deal with.
Robert Harris
<7bec6004-d274-49bc...@h11g2000prf.googlegroups.com>,
doug.w...@gmail.com wrote:
> On Feb 5, 10:33 pm, Robert Harris <reharr...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > I don't expect anyone to agree with or even acknowledge this video. But
> > I cannot fathom how anyone can see it and remain convinced that only one
> > shooter was involved in the JFK assassination.
> >
> > There is a lot that I couldn't fit into 10 minutes, but that which I
> > could, does a decent job of showing you what I have been talking about
> > for thirteen years.
> >
> > http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ql6VqZDiC6s
> >
> > Not only that, but I never use the word "decibel" - not even once!
> >
> > Robert Harris
>
> I'll start with the narrator's comments on SS Kellerman.
I am the narrator, Doug.
> The narrator
> describes Kellerman as "shielding his left ear" (after Z285). If any shot
> came from the GN, why shield the left ear & not the right (which is the
> direction of the GN & where Hill thought the noise of the gunshots
> originated)?
That shot didn't come from the grassy knoll. Did you watch the whole
thing?
> Also, did the narrator consider Kellerman may have had an
> earphone located in his left ear & was making an attempt to hear any
> instruction clearly (my speculation only)?
Kellerman wasn't wearing an earphone, Doug.
Why do you think all four people reacted within an eighteenth of a
second of the reaction by Zapruder, as reported by Dr. Alvarez?
Robert Harris
Robert Harris
<cbba2630-41e2-49b4...@e23g2000prf.googlegroups.com>,
Chuck Schuyler <chu...@am-mtg.com> wrote:
> On Feb 5, 10:33 pm, Robert Harris <reharr...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > I don't expect anyone to agree with or even acknowledge this video. But
> > I cannot fathom how anyone can see it and remain convinced that only one
> > shooter was involved in the JFK assassination.
> >
> > There is a lot that I couldn't fit into 10 minutes, but that which I
> > could, does a decent job of showing you what I have been talking about
> > for thirteen years.
> >
> > http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ql6VqZDiC6s
> >
> > Not only that, but I never use the word "decibel" - not even once!
> >
> > Robert Harris
>
> You are dazzled by your own brilliance.
>
> I don't "see" any of the things you purport, and I watched all 10
> minutes of the video.
Sure you did, Chuck.
You saw the same thing I saw and the same thing that Larry Sturdevan and
a dozen other conspiracy deniers have already confirmed, back in the
days when some of your predecessors at least had the courage to try to
explain away those reactions.
Sorry, my friend, but your own people blew it for you a long time ago.
You can't get away with the "see no evil" pitch anymore:-)
>
> Bugliosi is right...CT'ers have made this murder into the most complex
> crime of all time.
There is nothing even slightly complex about a handful of guys taking
part in an attack like that. It happens every day or so in Iraq, and
it's happened a zillion times before, all over the world.
>
> ...and a shooter in the Dal-Tex building? Is this in addition to a guy
> on the knoll and your pet theory that some poor schlub squatting in
> the Elm St. sewer took a shot at JFK?
I don't know what a schlub is, Chuck, but Johnny Roselli claimed he shot
JFK from that storm drain. He was one of the heads of Op Mongoose, and
told a senate committee a great deal about the JFK assassination, as
well as Jack Anderson.
Shortly thereafter, he was chopped up and stuffed in an oildrum.
Is that what you mean by a "poor schlub", Chuck?
Robert Harris
Walt
> In article
> <7bec6004-d274-49bc-b4fd-7b9e9e7fc...@h11g2000prf.googlegroups.com>,
>
>
>
>
>
> doug.wigg...@gmail.com wrote:
> > On Feb 5, 10:33 pm, Robert Harris <reharr...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > > I don't expect anyone to agree with or even acknowledge this video. But
> > > I cannot fathom how anyone can see it and remain convinced that only one
> > > shooter was involved in the JFK assassination.
>
> > > There is a lot that I couldn't fit into 10 minutes, but that which I
> > > could, does a decent job of showing you what I have been talking about
> > > for thirteen years.
>
> > >http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ql6VqZDiC6s
>
> > > Not only that, but I never use the word "decibel" - not even once!
>
> > > Robert Harris
>
> > I'll start with the narrator's comments on SS Kellerman.
>
> I am the narrator, Doug.
>
> > The narrator
> > describes Kellerman as "shielding his left ear" (after Z285). If any shot
> > came from the GN, why shield the left ear & not the right (which is the
> > direction of the GN & where Hill thought the noise of the gunshots
> > originated)?
>
> That shot didn't come from the grassy knoll. Did you watch the whole
> thing?
It seems to me that nobody who has responded to this thread has
experienced the sound of a bullet passing near his head. I've only
experience it once ( and that's enough) ... but I know that a bullet
passing by produces a hell of a bang.
We know that at least two bullets passed above and to the left of Roy
Kellerman. One hit near the rear view mirror ( which would have
produced a loud bang, and one zipped over the windshield and struck
the curb near James Teague, this bullet would also have produced a
loud bang as it passed to Kellerman's left. Those bangs would have
caused Kellerman's reflexes to sheild his ear from the loud bangs.
>
> > Also, did the narrator consider Kellerman may have had an
> > earphone located in his left ear & was making an attempt to hear any
> > instruction clearly (my speculation only)?
>
> Kellerman wasn't wearing an earphone, Doug.
>
> Why do you think all four people reacted within an eighteenth of a
> second of the reaction by Zapruder, as reported by Dr. Alvarez?
>
> Robert Harris- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
Ben Holmes
says...
>
>In article
><cbba2630-41e2-49b4...@e23g2000prf.googlegroups.com>,
> Chuck Schuyler <chu...@am-mtg.com> wrote:
>
>> On Feb 5, 10:33 pm, Robert Harris <reharr...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>> > I don't expect anyone to agree with or even acknowledge this video. But
>> > I cannot fathom how anyone can see it and remain convinced that only one
>> > shooter was involved in the JFK assassination.
>> >
>> > There is a lot that I couldn't fit into 10 minutes, but that which I
>> > could, does a decent job of showing you what I have been talking about
>> > for thirteen years.
>> >
>> > http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ql6VqZDiC6s
>> >
>> > Not only that, but I never use the word "decibel" - not even once!
>> >
>> > Robert Harris
>>
>> You are dazzled by your own brilliance.
>>
>> I don't "see" any of the things you purport, and I watched all 10
>> minutes of the video.
>
>Sure you did, Chuck.
Yep, of course he did. But trolls lie, that's what trolls do. No doubt he
holds lurkers intelligence in low regard, he might actually believe that lurkers
wouldn't take the 10 minutes to view the same video.
>You saw the same thing I saw and the same thing that Larry Sturdevan and
>a dozen other conspiracy deniers have already confirmed, back in the
>days when some of your predecessors at least had the courage to try to
>explain away those reactions.
This is why this forum has no LNT'ers... only trolls. LNT'ers *can't* explain
it, so they hide in a censored group where they can't be called on their lies.
>Sorry, my friend, but your own people blew it for you a long time ago.
>You can't get away with the "see no evil" pitch anymore:-)
>
>>
>> Bugliosi is right...CT'ers have made this murder into the most complex
>> crime of all time.
Is this the same Bugliosi who argued a conspiracy in the RFK and JFK cases in
court?
The same one who ran away from answering the 16 Smoking Guns?
>There is nothing even slightly complex about a handful of guys taking
>part in an attack like that. It happens every day or so in Iraq, and
>it's happened a zillion times before, all over the world.
>
>>
>> ...and a shooter in the Dal-Tex building? Is this in addition to a guy
>> on the knoll and your pet theory that some poor schlub squatting in
>> the Elm St. sewer took a shot at JFK?
>
>I don't know what a schlub is, Chuck, but Johnny Roselli claimed he shot
>JFK from that storm drain. He was one of the heads of Op Mongoose, and
>told a senate committee a great deal about the JFK assassination, as
>well as Jack Anderson.
>
>Shortly thereafter, he was chopped up and stuffed in an oildrum.
>
>Is that what you mean by a "poor schlub", Chuck?
>
>Robert Harris
>
>>
>> With all of these extra shots zipping around Dealey, what is your
>> explanation for the fact that most witnesses only heard three shots?
What is *YOUR* explanation for why the FBI was telling eyewitnesses that number?
How do *YOU* explain the eyewitnesses who reported more? What is *YOUR*
explanation for why some eyewitnesses complained that the FBI didn't write down
what they said, and indeed, changed things? When you can answer these
questions, the answer to yours will be crystal clear.
doug.w...@gmail.com
responding to this thread. Show me where the other five occupants of
the limousine shielded their ears. Did James Teague cover his ears?
Burly...@gmail.com
We do?
>One hit near the rear view mirror
Absolutely not possible. There would have been a hole embedded
within the dent in the chrome.
There wasn't.
( which would have
> produced a loud bang, and one zipped over the windshield and struck
> the curb near James Teague, this bullet would also have produced a
> loud bang as it passed to Kellerman's left.
Have you contacted the authorities with this information, Mr. Walt? No one
seems to know which bullet struck the curb near Tague, and, since the
majority of the witnesses reported only 3 shots, where are you and others
coming up with tthese extra shots/bullets?
Those bangs would have
> caused Kellerman's reflexes to sheild his ear from the loud bangs.
You folks pulling these ''bangs'' out of thin air.
>
>
>
>
>
> > > Also, did the narrator consider Kellerman may have had an
> > > earphone located in his left ear & was making an attempt to hear any
> > > instruction clearly (my speculation only)?
>
> > Kellerman wasn't wearing an earphone, Doug.
>
> > Why do you think all four people reacted within an eighteenth of a
> > second of the reaction by Zapruder, as reported by Dr. Alvarez?
>
> > Robert Harris- Hide quoted text -
>
> > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
doug.w...@gmail.com
> In article
> <7bec6004-d274-49bc-b4fd-7b9e9e7fc...@h11g2000prf.googlegroups.com>,
>
>
>
> > On Feb 5, 10:33 pm, Robert Harris <reharr...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > > I don't expect anyone to agree with or even acknowledge this video. But
> > > I cannot fathom how anyone can see it and remain convinced that only one
> > > shooter was involved in the JFK assassination.
>
> > > There is a lot that I couldn't fit into 10 minutes, but that which I
> > > could, does a decent job of showing you what I have been talking about
> > > for thirteen years.
>
> > >http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ql6VqZDiC6s
>
> > > Not only that, but I never use the word "decibel" - not even once!
>
> > > Robert Harris
>
> > I'll start with the narrator's comments on SS Kellerman.
>
> I am the narrator, Doug.
>
> > The narrator
> > describes Kellerman as "shielding his left ear" (after Z285). If any shot
> > came from the GN, why shield the left ear & not the right (which is the
> > direction of the GN & where Hill thought the noise of the gunshots
> > originated)?
>
> That shot didn't come from the grassy knoll. Did you watch the whole
> thing?
>
> > Also, did the narrator consider Kellerman may have had an
> > earphone located in his left ear & was making an attempt to hear any
> > instruction clearly (my speculation only)?
>
> Kellerman wasn't wearing an earphone, Doug.
What is your source citing which agents wore earpieces? I am familiar
that the limousine was equipped with a permanent radio but this wouldn't
exclude the use of an earpiece by an agent. Kellerman did leave the limo
for crowd control along the route. It would make sense that he stayed in
contact with the use of an earpiece. Again, I'm only speculating.
What's your source that he did not wear one?
aeffects
I think chuckie daShoe has left the room, not that he was ever IN the
room, but he left it none-the-less
David Emerling
Good job with that video. Very well done. Very interesting.
Unfortunately, I can't agree with your theory that there was a shot fired
at Z-285.
Three points occurred to me as I watched the video:
1. Your contention that Mrs. Connally and Kennedy are reacting to a shot
at Z-285, I just don't see. They both seemed to be consumed with concern
over their husbands at that point.
2. The closely spaced shots at the end of the shooting sequence, to which
several witnesses testified to, are likely an impression resulting from
the sound of the rifle firing, the shock wave of the bullet, the sickening
"pop" that occurred when the bullet struck Kennedy's head, and the
reverberation of the sound echoing in the underpass - creating a cacophony
of sounds to which those riding in the limousine (or directly next to the
limousine) would be particularly susceptible. Hell, for those in close
proximity, it probably sounded like machine gun fire.
3. Your claiming the Tague bullet was this missed shot at Z-285? Are you
claiming this bullet hit some part of the limousine? If so, which part? If
not, why was the bullet that struck the curb stripped of its copper
jacket?
Great video - just not compelling to my way of thinking. Good research!
David Emerling
Memphis, TN
Robert Harris
Ben Holmes <ad...@khadaji.com> wrote:
There is an even better answer, Ben.
Almost no-one that day heard more than one early shot.
Not Jackie, who heard one noise and then two shots after JBC began to
shout.
Not Nellie, who heard one early noise and then thought the next shot was
well after she saw JFK reacting.
Not Kellerman, who heard one noise, and then a flurry at the end.
Not Greer, who heard ONE early noise and then near simultaneous shots at
the end.
And certainly not Gov Connally, who NEVER heard the shot that hit him.
Almost every person in DP who expressed an opinion on the subject, heard
ONE early noise and then closely bunched shots at the end.
WTF does it take to convince people of the ridiculously obvious fact
that a suppressed weapon was used to fire the first two shots????
Oh I know! If only one of those shots was a wild miss, hitting the
pavement instead of the president, then maybe folks would think about
the fact that suppressed weapons are notorious for causing exactly that!
Or maybe the fact that Clint Hill, Charles Brehm, and a LOT of others,
never noticed that shot at all, would do it?
Nope, I guess not. Folks, is it safe to say, that NO amount of evidence
is going to change any minds around here? I mean, if I find 50 more
witnesses to confirm what I have been saying, that won't make any
difference will it?
And if I find a pic of somebody jumping 5 feet in the air, that's not
gonna convince anyone that he was startled, is it??
Are we really at the point where we are all totally impervious to any
and all forms of evidence, or to any ideas that were presented after the
60's?
Ben Holmes
says...
>
>Robert Harris wrote:
>> I don't expect anyone to agree with or even acknowledge this video. But
>> I cannot fathom how anyone can see it and remain convinced that only one
>> shooter was involved in the JFK assassination.
>>
>> There is a lot that I couldn't fit into 10 minutes, but that which I
>> could, does a decent job of showing you what I have been talking about
>> for thirteen years.
>>
>> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ql6VqZDiC6s
>>
>> Not only that, but I never use the word "decibel" - not even once!
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> Robert Harris
>>
>
>Good job with that video. Very well done. Very interesting.
>
>Unfortunately, I can't agree with your theory that there was a shot fired
>at Z-285.
Nothing wrong with honest dissent.
>Three points occurred to me as I watched the video:
>
>1. Your contention that Mrs. Connally and Kennedy are reacting to a shot
>at Z-285, I just don't see. They both seemed to be consumed with concern
>over their husbands at that point.
Hmmm... I'll let Robert take this one...
>2. The closely spaced shots at the end of the shooting sequence, to which
>several witnesses testified to,
"several"???
It's downright amusing to watch LNT'ers demonstrate what liars they are.
David Emerling - *YOU* are a liar.
For surely you know quite well that even the WCR - which certainly had nothing
to gain from so admitting, admitted that "..a substantial majority of the
witnesses stated that the shots were not evenly spaced. Most witnesses recalled
that the second and third shots were bunched together."
So why bother to lie when you know that there are those on this forum that will
simply point it out?
Why did the WC, HSCA, and now the LNT'ers and Trolls need to lie about the
evidence to support the "truth?"
Can't the "truth" stand on it's own with honest evidence?
Honest dissent is one thing... but when you need to lie in order to prop up your
dissent, it merely illustrates #1 - your character, and #2 - the strength of
Robert Harris' theory.
>are likely an impression resulting from
>the sound of the rifle firing, the shock wave of the bullet, the sickening
>"pop" that occurred when the bullet struck Kennedy's head, and the
>reverberation of the sound echoing in the underpass - creating a cacophony
>of sounds to which those riding in the limousine (or directly next to the
>limousine) would be particularly susceptible. Hell, for those in close
>proximity, it probably sounded like machine gun fire.
Tell everyone here your experience with gunfire. It's only fair to let lurkers
know what sort of experience you've had to be able to assert this theory.
>3. Your claiming the Tague bullet was this missed shot at Z-285? Are you
>claiming this bullet hit some part of the limousine? If so, which part? If
>not, why was the bullet that struck the curb stripped of its copper
>jacket?
The only "evidence" that the bullet was "stripped of its copper jacket" was
rather thoroughly destroyed by Weisberg.
>Great video - just not compelling to my way of thinking. Good research!
>
>David Emerling
>Memphis, TN
I wonder why Robert's research cannot be rebutted on the basis of honesty and
evidence, rather than lies and speculation?
I'll be quite fascinated to hear you tell us, David, that you really didn't know
that the *MAJORITY* of eyewitnesses described the close spacing of the later
shots. Then you can tell us on what basis you made your assertion.
Make it believable enough, and I'll be happy to apologize for calling you a
liar... but I rather think I won't have to.
Or you can retract your lie - realizing that you can't get away with it on this
forum.
Ben Holmes
Oh, lurkers can understand these arguments... the LNT'ers & trolls merely
provide the blackboard upon which we write the historical evidence from that
day.
When you realize that there really isn't any such thing as an honest LNT'er -
they *ALL* lie about the evidence, and run from it - refusing to even *try* to
explain the facts - you understand that there's just a few paid disinfo agents
that are still around, trying to confuse issues.
YoHarvey
>
> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
I don't even bother to read Holmes postings any longer. He is now in the
Rossley group. Just give em one star and move on. It saves time roflmao.
johni...@aol.com
> I don't expect anyone to agree with or even acknowledge this video.
---> Good.
> But
> I cannot fathom how anyone can see it and remain convinced that only one
> shooter was involved in the JFK assassination.
---> And therein lies the problem. YOU cannot fathom how anyone could
have a different point of view on the matter. Most fanatics,
obsessives, jihadists, etc. have the same problem: they cannot fathom
how anyone could think differently than they think.
>
> There is a lot that I couldn't fit into 10 minutes, but that which I
> could, does a decent job of showing you what I have been talking about
> for thirteen years.
---> Did you fit in evidence of your claim that Roselli was in the
sewer shooting? Evidence of your claim of a Dal-Tex shooter?
Still no evidence of a Z285 shot, either.
How many years have you been doing this?
Chuck Schuyler
> > You are dazzled by your own brilliance.
>
> > I don't "see" any of the things you purport, and I watched all 10
> > minutes of the video.
>
> Sure you did, Chuck.
I watched the whole thing.
>
> You saw the same thing I saw and the same thing that Larry Sturdevan and
> a dozen other conspiracy deniers have already confirmed, back in the
> days when some of your predecessors at least had the courage to try to
> explain away those reactions.
The so-called reactions are subjective, Bob. You can solve the case based
on the fact that it is Oswald's rifle, and the spent shells and
bullet/fragments recovered ballistically match the rifle. You don't need
anything more, and there isn't anything your side has ever produced that
competes with the hard evidence in the case that solidly implicates LHO as
the lone shooter that day.
>
> Sorry, my friend, but your own people blew it for you a long time ago.
> You can't get away with the "see no evil" pitch anymore:-)
The evil I see is/was Lee Harvey Oswald.
>
> > Bugliosi is right...CT'ers have made this murder into the most complex
> > crime of all time.
>
> There is nothing even slightly complex about a handful of guys taking
> part in an attack like that. It happens every day or so in Iraq, and
> it's happened a zillion times before, all over the world.
But you are not claiming that a few guys got together and killed the
POTUS. If that had truly happened, the USG would've smoked this conspiracy
out and everyone involved would've been given death sentences. People like
you allege that some high-powered cabal, in cahoots with all sorts of
titans of industry, the military, both sides of the political spectrum,
law enforcement, etc. all conspired to kill poor, handsome JFK.
>
> > ...and a shooter in the Dal-Tex building? Is this in addition to a guy
> > on the knoll and your pet theory that some poor schlub squatting in
> > the Elm St. sewer took a shot at JFK?
>
> I don't know what a schlub is, Chuck,
schlub, also shlub (shlŭb) Pronunciation Key n. Slang. A person
regarded as clumsy, stupid, or unattractive. [Yiddish, from Polish
żłób, trough, blockhead.]
>but Johnny Roselli claimed he shot JFK from that storm drain. He was one of the heads of Op >Mongoose, and told a senate committee a great deal about the JFK assassination, as well as Jack >Anderson.
>
> Shortly thereafter, he was chopped up and stuffed in an oildrum.
>
> Is that what you mean by a "poor schlub", Chuck?
Yes.
Come to think of it, you sort of fit the definition, too.
Any idea why most people only heard three shots?
Walt
Not if the dent was made by a .45acp fired from a silenced
weapon......Which is EXACTLY the dimensions of the dent. A .45 acp has a
very limited ability to penetrate metal. That chrome molding was made out
of heavy guage metal ( I have that molding from a 63 Lincoln convertible.)
> There wasn't.
>
> ( which would have
>
> > produced a loud bang, and one zipped over the windshield and struck
> > the curb near James Teague, this bullet would also have produced a
> > loud bang as it passed to Kellerman's left.
>
> Have you contacted the authorities with this information, Mr. Walt? No one
> seems to know which bullet struck the curb near Tague, and, since the
> majority of the witnesses reported only 3 shots, where are you and others
> coming up with tthese extra shots/bullets?
Oh they knew alright....They just pretended that they didn't know that
there were multiple shooters
tomnln
"YoHarvey" <bail...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:73a0f683-109f-4341...@k39g2000hsf.googlegroups.com...
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Yo(Momma)Harvey wrote;
I don't even bother to read Holmes postings any longer. He is now in the
Rossley group. Just give em one star and move on. It saves time roflmao.
I write;
Just like Nixon, we won't have YOU to "Kick" Around anymore.
I guess that means you won't address your own evidence/testimony.
NOT that you ever did.
http://whokilledjfk.net/PROVEN%20LIES.htm
http://whokilledjfk.net/CASE%20DISMISSED.htm
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Walt
> In article <KOqdne3HELCehzfanZ2dnUVZ_tSkn...@comcast.com>, David Emerling
Excellent question.... How about it liars?.... What compells you to
lie?? I'll make it easy for you to answer. You can just pick the
letter that applies to your reason for lying.
A) I'm part of the conspiracy and I don't want the truth revealed.
(you'd have to be Arlen Specter to select this one)
B) I'm paid by those who want to keep you suckers from learning the
truth...basically I'm a whore, I'll do anything for a quarter. ( You'd
be John McAdams, David Von Pein, et al if you select "B")
C) I'm just a naive fool who believes anything my government tells
me. I'll do what ever it takes to protect my government.
D) I'm just a pathological liar, I don't know why I lie.......
Can't the "truth" stand on it's own with honest evidence?
Absolutely the truth can stand supported only by factual evidence.
Honest dissent is one thing... but when you need to lie in order to
prop up your
dissent, it merely illustrates #1 - your character, and #2 - the
strength of
Robert Harris' theory.
Exactly right....
> forum.- Hide quoted text -
muc...@gmail.com
> In article <KOqdne3HELCehzfanZ2dnUVZ_tSkn...@comcast.com>, David Emerling
Lie? What lie? What's the big difference between the following
statements?
1) Several witnesses testified to "closely spaced shots at the end of
the shooting sequence." [David E]
2) Most witnesses recalled that "the second and third shots were
bunched together." [HSCA]
I hate to piss on your parade, but you seem to owe David E an apology.
Ben Holmes
johni...@aol.com says...
>
>On Feb 5, 11:33=EF=BF=BDpm, Robert Harris <reharr...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>> I don't expect anyone to agree with or even acknowledge this video.
>
>---> Good.
>
>> But
>> I cannot fathom how anyone can see it and remain convinced that only one
>> shooter was involved in the JFK assassination.
>
>---> And therein lies the problem. YOU cannot fathom how anyone could
>have a different point of view on the matter. Most fanatics,
>obsessives, jihadists, etc. have the same problem: they cannot fathom
>how anyone could think differently than they think.
>
>>
>> There is a lot that I couldn't fit into 10 minutes, but that which I
>> could, does a decent job of showing you what I have been talking about
>> for thirteen years.
>
>---> Did you fit in evidence of your claim that Roselli was in the
>sewer shooting? Evidence of your claim of a Dal-Tex shooter?
>
>Still no evidence of a Z285 shot, either.
>
>How many years have you been doing this?
>
>>
>>
>> Not only that, but I never use the word "decibel" - not even once!
>>
>> Robert Harris
Like most LNT'ers... a complete absence of any debate on the evidence.
Natural, of course, because the evidence simply doesn't support the WCR.
LNT'ers either simply lie about the evidence, as David illustrated for us
yesterday, or they run from the evidence, and refuse to get specific, as
Johniselin demonstrates today.
johni...@aol.com
> In article <a8bb538a-5421-42cd-9b80-792c30d04...@i72g2000hsd.googlegroups.com>,
> johnise...@aol.com says...
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> >On Feb 5, 11:33=EF=BF=BDpm, Robert Harris <reharr...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> >> I don't expect anyone to agree with or even acknowledge this video.
>
> >---> Good.
>
> >> But
> >> I cannot fathom how anyone can see it and remain convinced that only one
> >> shooter was involved in the JFK assassination.
>
> >---> And therein lies the problem. �YOU cannot fathom how anyone could
> >have a different point of view on the matter. �Most fanatics,
> >obsessives, jihadists, etc. have the same problem: they cannot fathom
> >how anyone could think differently than they think.
>
> >> There is a lot that I couldn't fit into 10 minutes, but that which I
> >> could, does a decent job of showing you what I have been talking about
> >> for thirteen years.
>
> >---> Did you fit in evidence of your claim that Roselli was in the
> >sewer shooting? �Evidence of your claim of a Dal-Tex shooter?
>
> >Still no evidence of a Z285 shot, either.
>
> >How many years have you been doing this?
>
> >>http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3DQl6VqZDiC6s
>
> >> Not only that, but I never use the word "decibel" - not even once!
>
> >> Robert Harris
>
> Like most LNT'ers... a complete absence of any debate on the evidence.
---> Like most fanatics, a presumption that everyone else must dance
to your tune. You don't get to make the rules. It's an open forum
here.
>
> Natural, of course, because the evidence simply doesn't support the WCR.
>
---> Strawman. The evidence shows LHO was the killer of YOUR
president.
> LNT'ers either simply lie about the evidence,
---> As do CTs.
> as David illustrated for us
> yesterday, or they run from the evidence, and refuse to get specific, as
> Johniselin demonstrates today.- Hide quoted text -
---> An example of a lie. I'm surprised you fall so easily into a
trap of your own making. Where is the evidence that Johnny Roselli
was in the sewer shooting at JFK (that RH asserted, in case you missed
it)? Where is the evidence of a shooter in the Dal-Tex building? A
shot at Z285? Most of us have asked repeatedly for such evidence and
are still waiting ... after all these years. We're not running away
at all. We're just tired of waiting.
lazu...@webtv.net
from "sewers". This would be a physical impossibility, once it is
apparent just what the definition of a sewer entails. Now, if one uses
the term "storm drain", this opens up a logical sniper position, with an
opening large enough to accommodate a person right on Elm Street near
the Grassy Knoll, and having its outlet at the Trinity River--a
difficult, but not impossible escape route.
-----Old Laz, unlike some here, not willing to commit sewercide
Ben Holmes
johni...@aol.com says...
>
>On Feb 7, 9:39=EF=BF=BDam, Ben Holmes <ad...@khadaji.com> wrote:
>> In article <a8bb538a-5421-42cd-9b80-792c30d04...@i72g2000hsd.googlegroups.=
>com>,
>> johnise...@aol.com says...
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> >On Feb 5, 11:33=3DEF=3DBF=3DBDpm, Robert Harris <reharr...@yahoo.com> wro=
>te:
>> >> I don't expect anyone to agree with or even acknowledge this video.
>>
>> >---> Good.
>>
>> >> But
>e
>> >> shooter was involved in the JFK assassination.
>>
>could
>> >have a different point of view on the matter. =EF=BF=BDMost fanatics,
>> >obsessives, jihadists, etc. have the same problem: they cannot fathom
>> >how anyone could think differently than they think.
>>
>> >> There is a lot that I couldn't fit into 10 minutes, but that which I
>> >> could, does a decent job of showing you what I have been talking about
>> >> for thirteen years.
>>
>> >---> Did you fit in evidence of your claim that Roselli was in the
>>
>> >Still no evidence of a Z285 shot, either.
>>
>> >How many years have you been doing this?
>>
>>
>> >> Not only that, but I never use the word "decibel" - not even once!
>>
>> >> Robert Harris
>>
>> Like most LNT'ers... a complete absence of any debate on the evidence.
>
>---> Like most fanatics, a presumption that everyone else must dance
>to your tune. You don't get to make the rules. It's an open forum
>here.
Just pointing out the facts... LNT'ers can't discuss the evidence - since
virtually anything they say will be quickly refuted.
As merely one example - name a *SINGLE* eyewitness that you believe. I've had
only one LNT'er try to answer that - and his one example was quickly demolished.
You *can't* believe any eyewitnesses - for the more solidly you *can* believe
him or her - the less they saw and heard.
All of the critical eyewitnesses, YOU CAN'T BELIEVE!
But you'll run from this - all LNT'ers seem to do so...
>> Natural, of course, because the evidence simply doesn't support the WCR.
>>
>
>---> Strawman. The evidence shows LHO was the killer of YOUR
>president.
Name it... let's see what evidence you're willing to give up.
But, just to step out first - I'll offer the fact that Oswald's cheek cast was
negative - yet EVERY SINGLE COMPARATIVE TEST MADE DEMONSTRATED THAT A NEGATIVE
RESULT *NEVER* HAPPENED WITH ANY SHOOTER WHO FIRED A MC.
The WC, of course, was forced to bury this - and it took a FOIA court case to
shake this evidence loose. Tell us - what National Security implications did
this evidence have?
And how do you explain that every single comparative test came out positive?
>> LNT'ers either simply lie about the evidence,
>
>---> As do CTs.
Jump right in, quote *ANYTHING* I say and produce the citation that makes it a
lie.
I won't be holding my breath.
>> as David illustrated for us
>> yesterday, or they run from the evidence, and refuse to get specific, as
>> Johniselin demonstrates today.
>
>---> An example of a lie.
Oh? Johniselin tried to imply that just a few eyewitnesses spoke of the later
shots being bunched up.
Yet he lied about this... as I demonstrated with a quote from the WC.
And yet, strangely enough - you don't mention this fact at ALL below:
>I'm surprised you fall so easily into a
>trap of your own making. Where is the evidence that Johnny Roselli
>was in the sewer shooting at JFK (that RH asserted, in case you missed
>it)? Where is the evidence of a shooter in the Dal-Tex building? A
>shot at Z285? Most of us have asked repeatedly for such evidence and
>are still waiting ... after all these years. We're not running away
>at all. We're just tired of waiting.
You say you've provided an example of a "lie" on my part - yet you haven't
quoted it. Nor have you discussed ANYTHING that I spoke of. Why is that?
Would you care to either retract your assertion that you've given an example of
a "lie" on my part - or QUOTE ME?
YoHarvey
> In article <ac35aec1-8283-4066-82a8-c688e2896...@s12g2000prg.googlegroups.com>,
>
> - Show quoted text -
Would you care to either retract your assertion that you've given an
example of
a "lie" on my part - or QUOTE ME?
You attempt to give the impression you're an intelligent human being.
That's a lie. You've proven it. Case closed. Next?
johni...@aol.com
> In article <ac35aec1-8283-4066-82a8-c688e2896...@s12g2000prg.googlegroups.com>,
---> You are entitled to your own opinion - as are others - but not to
your own "facts" as you call them. Please tell me when the FACT that
LHO killed JFK was "quickly refuted".
>
> As merely one example - name a *SINGLE* eyewitness that you believe. �I've had
> only one LNT'er try to answer that - and his one example was quickly demolished.
---> I don't have to. Larry Sneed wrote a book a while ago about many
of the witnesses called _No More Silence_. Have you read it? If so,
what witnesses don't you believe in the book?
>
> You *can't* believe any eyewitnesses - for the more solidly you *can* believe
> him or her - the less they saw and heard.
>
---> You really are full of yourself, aren't you? Please do not
presume to tell me who or what I can or can't believe. You don't have
that right, no matter who you think you are.
> All of the critical eyewitnesses, YOU CAN'T BELIEVE!
>
> But you'll run from this - all LNT'ers seem to do so...
---> Another lie? From one who calls so many others liars? I'm not
running, and neither are most of the others who choose to ignore your
silliness.
>
> >> Natural, of course, because the evidence simply doesn't support the WCR.
>
> >---> Strawman. � The evidence shows LHO was the killer of YOUR
> >president.
>
> Name it... let's see what evidence you're willing to give up.
---> The evidence doesn't need to be given up at all. It's available
in both the WCR and HSCA which concluded that LHO killed JFK.
>
> But, just to step out first - I'll offer the fact that Oswald's cheek cast was
> negative - yet EVERY SINGLE COMPARATIVE TEST MADE DEMONSTRATED THAT A NEGATIVE
> RESULT *NEVER* HAPPENED WITH ANY SHOOTER WHO FIRED A MC.
>
---> Are you claiming that LHO is innocent of the crime? A simple yes
or no will do.
> The WC, of course, was forced to bury this - and it took a FOIA court case to
> shake this evidence loose. �Tell us - what National Security implications did
> this evidence have?
---> Who cares? The gov't is almost as paranoid as the worst CTs seem
to be about keeping secrets. I'm all for releasing ALL the records
and files - always have been. It won't change the way most of the
fanatics feel about this sad case, though.
>
> And how do you explain that every single comparative test came out positive?
---> Who cares? If you think you can re-open the case with this
bombshell of yours, please, I encourage you to try.
>
> >> LNT'ers either simply lie about the evidence,
>
> >---> As do CTs.
>
> Jump right in, quote *ANYTHING* I say and produce the citation that makes it a
> lie.
---> Everything is about you, is it? OK. You accuse many including
CTs of being liars on daily basis, it seems. No point in naming
names. Were you lying when you did that? Were they? Either way, my
point above remains.
>
> I won't be holding my breath.
>
---> Oh please do.
> >> as David illustrated for us
> >> yesterday, or they run from the evidence, and refuse to get specific, as
> >> Johniselin demonstrates today.
>
> >---> An example of a lie.
>
> Oh? �Johniselin tried to imply that just a few eyewitnesses spoke of the later
> shots being bunched up.
---> Another lie? When did I imply such a thing?
>
> Yet he lied about this... as I demonstrated with a quote from the WC.
>
---> OK, I'll give you the benefit of the doubt here and say that I
think you're confusing me with someone else in another conversation.
You probably ought to step back, take a few deep breaths and relax
before your next attack.
> And yet, strangely enough - you don't mention this fact at ALL below:
>
> >I'm surprised you fall so easily into a
> >trap of your own making. �Where is the evidence that Johnny Roselli
> >was in the sewer shooting at JFK (that RH asserted, in case you missed
> >it)? �Where is the evidence of a shooter in the Dal-Tex building? �A
> >shot at Z285? �Most of us have asked repeatedly for such evidence and
> >are still waiting ... after all these years. �We're not running away
> >at all. �We're just tired of waiting.
>
> You say you've provided an example of a "lie" on my part - yet you haven't
> quoted it. �Nor have you discussed ANYTHING that I spoke of. �Why is that?
---> You did that quite nicely yourself. Do you ever read what you
write while furiously telling off the world?
>
> Would you care to either retract your assertion that you've given an example of
> a "lie" on my part - or QUOTE ME?- Hide quoted text -
>
---> I've told you once, now this makes twice: you don't make the
rules. Re-read your own words: you know, the ones where you falsely
make sweeping generalizations about "LNT'ers" running away from the
evidence. I want the evidence which is what I was asking about (not
running away from) before you swooped in to try and defend the
indefensible earlier in this thread.
Robert Harris
<a8bb538a-5421-42cd...@i72g2000hsd.googlegroups.com>,
"johni...@aol.com" <johni...@aol.com> wrote:
> On Feb 5, 11:33?pm, Robert Harris <reharr...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > I don't expect anyone to agree with or even acknowledge this video.
>
> ---> Good.
>
> > But
> > I cannot fathom how anyone can see it and remain convinced that only one
> > shooter was involved in the JFK assassination.
>
> ---> And therein lies the problem. YOU cannot fathom how anyone could
> have a different point of view on the matter. Most fanatics,
> obsessives, jihadists, etc. have the same problem: they cannot fathom
> how anyone could think differently than they think.
I wondered how long it would be before this thing crawled out from under
a rock:-)
But as always, I am flattered that you think I am more worthy of
discussion than the murder of our President.
Have you ever in your entire life, actually discussed evidence or
presented some kind of logic in support of your arguments?
>
> >
> > There is a lot that I couldn't fit into 10 minutes, but that which I
> > could, does a decent job of showing you what I have been talking about
> > for thirteen years.
>
> ---> Did you fit in evidence of your claim that Roselli was in the
> sewer shooting? Evidence of your claim of a Dal-Tex shooter?
Watch it and find out for yourself, "john" - if you can ever summon the
courage to do so. Maybe a few more beers will help:-)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ql6VqZDiC6s
Robert Harris
Robert Harris
<ac35aec1-8283-4066...@s12g2000prg.googlegroups.com>,
"johni...@aol.com" <johni...@aol.com> wrote:
> On Feb 7, 9:39?am, Ben Holmes <ad...@khadaji.com> wrote:
> > In article
> > <a8bb538a-5421-42cd-9b80-792c30d04...@i72g2000hsd.googlegroups.com>,
> > johnise...@aol.com says...
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > >On Feb 5, 11:33=EF=BF=BDpm, Robert Harris <reharr...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > >> I don't expect anyone to agree with or even acknowledge this video.
> >
> > >---> Good.
> >
> > >> But
> > >> I cannot fathom how anyone can see it and remain convinced that only one
> > >> shooter was involved in the JFK assassination.
> >
> > >---> And therein lies the problem. ?YOU cannot fathom how anyone could
> > >have a different point of view on the matter. ?Most fanatics,
> > >obsessives, jihadists, etc. have the same problem: they cannot fathom
> > >how anyone could think differently than they think.
> >
> > >> There is a lot that I couldn't fit into 10 minutes, but that which I
> > >> could, does a decent job of showing you what I have been talking about
> > >> for thirteen years.
> >
> > >---> Did you fit in evidence of your claim that Roselli was in the
> > >sewer shooting? ?Evidence of your claim of a Dal-Tex shooter?
> >
> > >Still no evidence of a Z285 shot, either.
> >
> > >How many years have you been doing this?
> >
> > >>http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3DQl6VqZDiC6s
> >
> > >> Not only that, but I never use the word "decibel" - not even once!
> >
> > >> Robert Harris
> >
> > Like most LNT'ers... a complete absence of any debate on the evidence.
>
> ---> Like most fanatics, a presumption that everyone else must dance
> to your tune. You don't get to make the rules. It's an open forum
> here.
ROFLMAO!!
IOW, you don't do evidence and logic and ain't nobody gonna make ya!!
Right "john" :-)
>
> >
> > Natural, of course, because the evidence simply doesn't support the WCR.
> >
>
> ---> Strawman. The evidence shows LHO was the killer of YOUR
> president.
No, there is evidence that he was one of the shooters. But there are
truckloads of evidence that proves beyond all doubt, that others were
involved.
And you KNOW that, which is why you dodge any kind of debate, and can
only resort to insults.
Robert Harris
Robert Harris
<78ad4302-5a44-4d79...@m34g2000hsf.googlegroups.com>,
"johni...@aol.com" <johni...@aol.com> wrote:
> > >to your tune. ?You don't get to make the rules. ?It's an open forum
> > >here.
> >
> > Just pointing out the facts... LNT'ers can't discuss the evidence - since
> > virtually anything they say will be quickly refuted.
>
> ---> You are entitled to your own opinion - as are others - but not to
> your own "facts" as you call them. Please tell me when the FACT that
> LHO killed JFK was "quickly refuted".
>
> >
> > As merely one example - name a *SINGLE* eyewitness that you believe. ?I've
> > had
> > only one LNT'er try to answer that - and his one example was quickly
> > demolished.
>
> ---> I don't have to. Larry Sneed wrote a book a while ago about many
> of the witnesses called _No More Silence_. Have you read it? If so,
> what witnesses don't you believe in the book?
This is typical nutter "logic". You can't produce a shred of evidence to
support your cause, so you demand that your adversary go on a wild goose
chase to look up your citations for you in a book.
Here is how the game is played, "john". You cite your witnesses and your
adversaries cite theirs. If you can't back up your own claims, you will
continue to look like the floundering fool that you are.
Robert Harris
>
> >
> > You *can't* believe any eyewitnesses - for the more solidly you *can*
> > believe
> > him or her - the less they saw and heard.
> >
>
> ---> You really are full of yourself, aren't you? Please do not
> presume to tell me who or what I can or can't believe. You don't have
> that right, no matter who you think you are.
>
>
> > All of the critical eyewitnesses, YOU CAN'T BELIEVE!
> >
> > But you'll run from this - all LNT'ers seem to do so...
>
> ---> Another lie? From one who calls so many others liars? I'm not
> running, and neither are most of the others who choose to ignore your
> silliness.
>
> >
> > >> Natural, of course, because the evidence simply doesn't support the WCR.
> >
> > >---> Strawman. ? The evidence shows LHO was the killer of YOUR
> > >president.
> >
> > Name it... let's see what evidence you're willing to give up.
>
> ---> The evidence doesn't need to be given up at all. It's available
> in both the WCR and HSCA which concluded that LHO killed JFK.
>
> >
> > But, just to step out first - I'll offer the fact that Oswald's cheek cast
> > was
> > negative - yet EVERY SINGLE COMPARATIVE TEST MADE DEMONSTRATED THAT A
> > NEGATIVE
> > RESULT *NEVER* HAPPENED WITH ANY SHOOTER WHO FIRED A MC.
> >
>
> ---> Are you claiming that LHO is innocent of the crime? A simple yes
> or no will do.
>
> > The WC, of course, was forced to bury this - and it took a FOIA court case
> > to
> > shake this evidence loose. ?Tell us - what National Security implications
> > Oh? ?Johniselin tried to imply that just a few eyewitnesses spoke of the
> > later
> > shots being bunched up.
>
> ---> Another lie? When did I imply such a thing?
>
> >
> > Yet he lied about this... as I demonstrated with a quote from the WC.
> >
>
> ---> OK, I'll give you the benefit of the doubt here and say that I
> think you're confusing me with someone else in another conversation.
> You probably ought to step back, take a few deep breaths and relax
> before your next attack.
>
> > And yet, strangely enough - you don't mention this fact at ALL below:
> >
> > >I'm surprised you fall so easily into a
> > >trap of your own making. ?Where is the evidence that Johnny Roselli
> > >was in the sewer shooting at JFK (that RH asserted, in case you missed
> > >it)? ?Where is the evidence of a shooter in the Dal-Tex building? ?A
> > >shot at Z285? ?Most of us have asked repeatedly for such evidence and
> > >are still waiting ... after all these years. ?We're not running away
> > >at all. ?We're just tired of waiting.
> >
> > You say you've provided an example of a "lie" on my part - yet you haven't
> > quoted it. ?Nor have you discussed ANYTHING that I spoke of. ?Why is that?
Robert Harris
<e0d4c9dd-37c0-4b90...@e6g2000prf.googlegroups.com>,
Chuck Schuyler <chu...@am-mtg.com> wrote:
> On Feb 6, 11:51 am, Robert Harris <reharr...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > > You are dazzled by your own brilliance.
> >
> > > I don't "see" any of the things you purport, and I watched all 10
> > > minutes of the video.
> >
> > Sure you did, Chuck.
>
> I watched the whole thing.
>
> >
> > You saw the same thing I saw and the same thing that Larry Sturdevan and
> > a dozen other conspiracy deniers have already confirmed, back in the
> > days when some of your predecessors at least had the courage to try to
> > explain away those reactions.
>
> The so-called reactions are subjective, Bob.
You are absolutely, positively, and beyond all dispute, WRONG, Chuck.
Look at the video again:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ql6VqZDiC6s
Those reactions are both quantifiable and timeable, thanks to the the
very precise, 1/18th of a second spacing of the Zapruder frames.
We know for an absolute fact, that three of those people simultaneously
dropped their heads by app. 30 degrees.
And we KNOW, that Greer spun to the front and back again, within an
extremely short time frame. Many years ago, I debunked the claim by
Zapruder film critics, that Greer's turns were impossible and therefore,
proof that the film was altered.
I simply sat in a chair and had someone video tape me turning, as fast
as I could. We then examined the 30fps video and compared my turning
time with Greer's.
It wasn't easy, Chuck and the first couple times I failed. But finally,
I did it. I actually turned a hair faster than he did, even though the
action made me a tad dizzy.
More importantly, we know exactly WHEN those reactions began Chuck. It
is quite easy to look at frames, one-at-a-time and determine when each
of the reactions began. And they all began within 1/18th of a second of
Zapruder's reaction at frame 291.
Have you EVER stopped to think about how long 1/18th of a second is,
Chuck?
No, seriously, have you ever REALLY thought about that?
If you and several others TRIED to deliberately do something within
1/18th of a second of one another, you couldn't do it, Chuck -
especially, if you weren't looking at one another.
Chuck, tell me the truth - do you REALLY think it was just a coincidence
that those reactions occurred at EXACTLY the same instant?
And do you think it was a coincidence that Mrs. Connally just happened
to choose that same, tiny point in time to suffer an hallucination,
thinking her husband was hit by a gunshot?
And that Mrs. Kennedy, suffered exactly the same delusion, thinking her
husband was "receiving a bullet" as she turned back toward JFK, and
ducked - in perfect unison with Nellie and the others??
And was it a coincidence that Kellerman just decided that this was a
great time to duck and scratch his ear? Or do you suppose the "flurry"
of gunshots might have had something to do with it??
Your problem Chuck, is that no matter how hard you try, you will NEVER
be able to pass this off as a subjective interpretation in the mind of a
deluded conspiracy buff. Those reactions are very, very real and have
been confirmed by some of the best educated of your fellow deniers.
If those same reactions took place at Z160 or 223, you would be laughing
you ass off at anyone who tried to deny a gunshot then, and (for once),
rightly so.
You accept Brennon's statement, IDing Oswald, with ZERO corroborating
witnesses, ZERO photographic confirmations, and ZERO scientific analysis.
Why do you reject objective evidence that is more than 50 times greater,
in both quantity and quality?
Robert Harris
Ben Holmes
johni...@aol.com says...
>
>On Feb 7, 4:50=EF=BF=BDpm, Ben Holmes <ad...@khadaji.com> wrote:
>> In article <ac35aec1-8283-4066-82a8-c688e2896...@s12g2000prg.googlegroups.=
>com>,
>> johnise...@aol.com says...
>>
>> >On Feb 7, 9:39=3DEF=3DBF=3DBDam, Ben Holmes <ad...@khadaji.com> wrote:
>> >> In article <a8bb538a-5421-42cd-9b80-792c30d04...@i72g2000hsd.googlegrou=
>ps.=3D
>> >com>,
>> >> johnise...@aol.com says...
>>
>> >> >On Feb 5, 11:33=3D3DEF=3D3DBF=3D3DBDpm, Robert Harris <reharr...@yahoo=
>.com> wro=3D
>> >te:
>> >> >> I don't expect anyone to agree with or even acknowledge this video.
>>
>> >> >---> Good.
>>
>> >> >> But
> on=3D
>> >e
>> >> >> shooter was involved in the JFK assassination.
>>
>w anyone =3D
>> >could
>> >> >have a different point of view on the matter. =3DEF=3DBF=3DBDMost fana=
>tics,
>> >> >obsessives, jihadists, etc. have the same problem: they cannot fathom
>> >> >how anyone could think differently than they think.
>>
>
>> >> >> could, does a decent job of showing you what I have been talking abo=
>ut
>> >> >> for thirteen years.
>>
>> >> >---> Did you fit in evidence of your claim that Roselli was in the
>oter?
>>
>> >> >Still no evidence of a Z285 shot, either.
>>
>> >> >How many years have you been doing this?
>>
>>
>> >> >> Not only that, but I never use the word "decibel" - not even once!
>>
>> >> >> Robert Harris
>>
>> >> Like most LNT'ers... a complete absence of any debate on the evidence.
>>
>> >---> Like most fanatics, a presumption that everyone else must dance
>open forum
>> >here.
>>
>> Just pointing out the facts... LNT'ers can't discuss the evidence - since
>> virtually anything they say will be quickly refuted.
>
>---> You are entitled to your own opinion - as are others - but not to
>your own "facts" as you call them. Please tell me when the FACT that
>LHO killed JFK was "quickly refuted".
Hmmm... seems that you aren't quite literate... let me rephrase - "Virtually any
EVIDENCE that LNT'ers list as proving their case can be quickly refuted"
Does that make it clear? Fire away... let's hear some ACTUAL evidence...
>> As merely one example - name a *SINGLE* eyewitness that you believe.
>> I've had only one LNT'er try to answer that - and his one example was
>> quickly demolished.
>
>---> I don't have to. Larry Sneed wrote a book a while ago about many
>of the witnesses called _No More Silence_. Have you read it? If so,
>what witnesses don't you believe in the book?
My!!! What a FAST duck and run!!
Name *ONE*... just one, eyewitness that you believe. Nor am I referring to any
statements made years later... I'm perfectly happy to only deal with their
earliest statements & testimony.
But it seems that dragging a name out of you will be like pulling teeth. Why is
that? Surely you understood the question...
>> You *can't* believe any eyewitnesses - for the more solidly you *can*
>> believe him or her - the less they saw and heard.
>>
>
>---> You really are full of yourself, aren't you? Please do not
>presume to tell me who or what I can or can't believe. You don't have
>that right, no matter who you think you are.
And yet, strangely enough - you keep running from any proof. Why is that?
>> All of the critical eyewitnesses, YOU CAN'T BELIEVE!
>>
>> But you'll run from this - all LNT'ers seem to do so...
>
>---> Another lie?
How can it be a "lie?" You have indeed run from the question - you refuse to
name a SINGLE eyewitness that you can believe.
Why the cowardice?
>From one who calls so many others liars?
How many people did the WC assert state that they heard the later shots as
closer together.
Tis a simple question... but you'll run from it too. For once you answer - you
demonstrate that the person I called a liar is indeed a liar.
>I'm not running,
And yet, you STILL haven't answered such simple questions... why is that? Do
you not understand them?
>and neither are most of the others who choose to ignore your
>silliness.
Quote any such "silliness". Of course, you won't...
>> >> Natural, of course, because the evidence simply doesn't support the WCR.
>>
>> >---> Strawman. The evidence shows LHO was the killer of YOUR
>> >president.
>>
>> Name it... let's see what evidence you're willing to give up.
>
>---> The evidence doesn't need to be given up at all. It's available
>in both the WCR and HSCA which concluded that LHO killed JFK.
Yep... gutless coward. Unwilling to even *attempt* to defend the WCR.
By the way, the HSCA determined that there was a conspiracy. And since,
historically, the HSCA came *AFTER* the WCR - you can now rest safe, knowing
that there was a conspiracy in the assassination of JFK.
>> But, just to step out first - I'll offer the fact that Oswald's cheek
>> cast was negative - yet EVERY SINGLE COMPARATIVE TEST MADE DEMONSTRATED
>> THAT A NEGATIVE RESULT *NEVER* HAPPENED WITH ANY SHOOTER WHO FIRED A MC.
>>
>
>---> Are you claiming that LHO is innocent of the crime? A simple yes
>or no will do.
Running from the evidence again. Why do you presume that I will answer your
questions when you keep refusing to respond to mine?
Answer the question - then I'll be happy to answer yours.
>> The WC, of course, was forced to bury this - and it took a FOIA court
>> case to shake this evidence loose. Tell us - what National Security
>> implications did this evidence have?
>
>---> Who cares?
Clearly you don't. You evidently are willing to simply believe the government.
That's why you apparently are ignorant on all the actual evidence in this case.
>The gov't is almost as paranoid as the worst CTs seem
>to be about keeping secrets. I'm all for releasing ALL the records
>and files - always have been. It won't change the way most of the
>fanatics feel about this sad case, though.
Considering that polls put a belief in conspiracy as high as 90% of Americans,
and it's *NEVER* been under 50% - you're indicting a fairly large chunk of
American society.
>> And how do you explain that every single comparative test came out
>> positive?
>
>---> Who cares?
People who don't care, yet are willing to spend time in this forum declaring
their non-interest in the actual evidence clearly have another agenda.
What is *your* agenda?
>If you think you can re-open the case with this
>bombshell of yours, please, I encourage you to try.
It *has* been re-opened a number of times. The WCR failed to keep it closed.
And the last investigation concluded that it was probably a conspiracy.
You can rest safe now.
>> >> LNT'ers either simply lie about the evidence,
>>
>> >---> As do CTs.
>>
>> Jump right in, quote *ANYTHING* I say and produce the citation that
>> makes it a lie.
>
>---> Everything is about you, is it?
Do you agree to defend anything and everything McAdams has said?
Why would I offer to defend what someone else has said? Rather hypocritical of
you to think that I would, when you will refuse to.
>OK. You accuse many including
>CTs of being liars on daily basis, it seems.
Yep... when they lie, I'm happy to point it out.
>No point in naming
>names.
No, get specific. Name names. QUOTE MY WORDS ... and quote what I asserted
was a lie. Then feel free to prove that it was the truth.
Take a recent example where it was asserted that we had not only broken Japanese
codes before Pearl Harbor - BUT WE KNEW THE DATE AND TIME OF THE ATTACK. You
may quote the broken message, please include the date/time group... or you may
provide a citation from *anything* that asserts such... we'll let lurkers be the
judge of how authoritative any citation you can provide is.
Or, of course, you can run again...
>Were you lying when you did that? Were they? Either way, my
>point above remains.
Merely making an assertion, then running away when asked to prove it - only
demonstrates your character. It really demonstrates nothing at all about me.
>> I won't be holding my breath.
>>
>
>---> Oh please do.
Running, aren't you?
>> >> as David illustrated for us
>> >> yesterday, or they run from the evidence, and refuse to get specific,
>> >> as Johniselin demonstrates today.
>>
>> >---> An example of a lie.
>>
>> Oh? Johniselin tried to imply that just a few eyewitnesses spoke of the
>> later shots being bunched up.
>
>---> Another lie? When did I imply such a thing?
I stated: "... as johniselin demonstrates today" - you reply "An example of a
lie"
Do you really have literacy problems of this magnitude?
>> Yet he lied about this... as I demonstrated with a quote from the WC.
>>
>
>---> OK, I'll give you the benefit of the doubt here and say that I
>think you're confusing me with someone else in another conversation.
>You probably ought to step back, take a few deep breaths and relax
>before your next attack.
You're absolutely correct, and I owe you an apology... I was referring to David
Emerling, if I recall the name correctly. It was *NOT* you who lied about the
number of shot spacing earwitnesses.
>> And yet, strangely enough - you don't mention this fact at ALL below:
>>
>> >I'm surprised you fall so easily into a
>> >trap of your own making. Where is the evidence that Johnny Roselli
>> >was in the sewer shooting at JFK (that RH asserted, in case you missed
>> >it)? Where is the evidence of a shooter in the Dal-Tex building? A
>> >shot at Z285? Most of us have asked repeatedly for such evidence
>> >and are still waiting ... after all these years. We're not running
>> >away at all. We're just tired of waiting.
>>
>> You say you've provided an example of a "lie" on my part - yet you haven't
>> quoted it. Nor have you discussed ANYTHING that I spoke of. Why is that?
>
>---> You did that quite nicely yourself. Do you ever read what you
>write while furiously telling off the world?
It seems that I'm not the only one who can get people confused. Everything you
mentioned above was Robert's, not mine.
>> Would you care to either retract your assertion that you've given an
>> example of a "lie" on my part - or QUOTE ME?
>>
>
>---> I've told you once, now this makes twice: you don't make the
>rules.
Gutless coward and liar, aren't you?
Willing to call someone a liar, but unwilling to provide ANY EVIDENCE WHATSOEVER
to support that assertion.
>Re-read your own words: you know, the ones where you falsely
>make sweeping generalizations about "LNT'ers" running away from the
>evidence.
You have. In this very post. How many times am I going to have to ask you to
defend the evidence? Or provide the name of a SINGLE eyewitness you believe?
>I want the evidence which is what I was asking about
Then Robert will be happy to accomodate you.
>(not running away from) before you swooped in to try and defend the
>indefensible earlier in this thread.
For a coward like you to claim that anything on this board is "indefensible"
sounds just a tad hypocritical.
I'm willing to provide citations and QUOTE someone when they lie - and PROVE
that they've lied. You aren't. Why not?
Walt
> On Feb 5, 10:33 pm, Robert Harris <reharr...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > I cannot fathom how anyone can see it and remain convinced that only one
> > shooter was involved in the JFK assassination.
>
> > for thirteen years.
>
> >http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ql6VqZDiC6s
>
>
> > Robert Harris
>
>
> I don't "see" any of the things you purport, and I watched all 10
> minutes of the video.
>
crime of all time.
Chuck....Step back a minute and THINK about WHO has made this into the
most complex crime of all time??
WHO failed to present a plausible case that was supported by
INDISPUTABLE evidence??
WHO kept vital evidence from being seen by the American public, and
ordered it hidden until 2039??
If It was a simple case of a lunatic killing the President for no
reason at all, then why hide evidence away??
>
> ...and a shooter in the Dal-Tex building? Is this in addition to a guy
> on the knoll and your pet theory that some poor schlub squatting in
> the Elm St. sewer took a shot at JFK?
>
Ronald 'More-More' Moshki
> "YoHarvey" <bailey...@gmail.com> wrote in message
> Yo(Momma)Harvey wrote;
>
> I don't even bother to read Holmes postings any longer. He is now in the
> Rossley group. Just give em one star and move on. It saves time roflmao.
>
> I write;
>
> Just like Nixon, we won't have YOU to "Kick" Around anymore.
>
> I guess that means you won't address your own evidence/testimony.
>
> NOT that you ever did.
>
> http://whokilledjfk.net/PROVEN%20LIES.htm
>
> http://whokilledjfk.net/CASE%20DISMISSED.htm
>
> - Show quoted text -
It's hard to remember who is CT, who is LN. No matter.
Nov 22, 1963
Feb 08, 2008
This just in:
LHO--dead, never convicted
JRu dead-----"The world will never know..."
LBJ--gone
JBC---gone
Jackie O--ouse
RFK----ouse
You people need to have an idea, another idea,
another thought about something else.
Be neither LN nor CT
Say: "It's in the past, you see.
"Now I worry about Hill-a-ree
Or the other filth named Huck-a-bee."
muc...@gmail.com
> In article <78ad4302-5a44-4d79-8f21-539773eed...@m34g2000hsf.googlegroups.com>,
Or at least explained away by Oswald apologists...
> Does that make it clear? Fire away... let's hear some ACTUAL evidence...
>
> >> As merely one example - name a *SINGLE* eyewitness that you believe.
> >> I've had only one LNT'er try to answer that - and his one example was
> >> quickly demolished.
>
> >---> I don't have to. Larry Sneed wrote a book a while ago about many
> >of the witnesses called _No More Silence_. Have you read it? If so,
> >what witnesses don't you believe in the book?
>
> My!!! What a FAST duck and run!!
>
> Name *ONE*... just one, eyewitness that you believe. Nor am I referring to any
> statements made years later... I'm perfectly happy to only deal with their
> earliest statements & testimony.
>
> But it seems that dragging a name out of you will be like pulling teeth. Why is
> that? Surely you understood the question...
You seemed to be implying that not a single eyewitness can be
believed...
> >> You *can't* believe any eyewitnesses - for the more solidly you *can*
> >> believe him or her - the less they saw and heard.
>
> >---> You really are full of yourself, aren't you? Please do not
> >presume to tell me who or what I can or can't believe. You don't have
> >that right, no matter who you think you are.
>
> And yet, strangely enough - you keep running from any proof. Why is that?
>
> >> All of the critical eyewitnesses, YOU CAN'T BELIEVE!
>
> >> But you'll run from this - all LNT'ers seem to do so...
>
> >---> Another lie?
>
> How can it be a "lie?" You have indeed run from the question - you refuse to
> name a SINGLE eyewitness that you can believe.
>
> Why the cowardice?
Not responding to a rhetorical question is cowardly?
> >From one who calls so many others liars?
>
> How many people did the WC assert state that they heard the later shots as
> closer together.
>
> Tis a simple question... but you'll run from it too. For once you answer - you
> demonstrate that the person I called a liar is indeed a liar.
Seems you're the liar here. David E used the word "several". How many
is that?
> >I'm not running,
>
> And yet, you STILL haven't answered such simple questions... why is that? Do
> you not understand them?
Why should he (or anyone else) feel compelled or obliged to take part
in your silly games?
> >and neither are most of the others who choose to ignore your
> >silliness.
>
> Quote any such "silliness". Of course, you won't...
Calling David E a liar because he alluded to "several" witnesses
reporting that the last couple of shots were closer in time.
> >> >> Natural, of course, because the evidence simply doesn't support the WCR.
>
> >> >---> Strawman. The evidence shows LHO was the killer of YOUR
> >> >president.
>
> >> Name it... let's see what evidence you're willing to give up.
>
> >---> The evidence doesn't need to be given up at all. It's available
> >in both the WCR and HSCA which concluded that LHO killed JFK.
>
> Yep... gutless coward. Unwilling to even *attempt* to defend the WCR.
Do you think of yourself as a hero, Ben? Just wondering.
> By the way, the HSCA determined that there was a conspiracy. And since,
> historically, the HSCA came *AFTER* the WCR - you can now rest safe, knowing
> that there was a conspiracy in the assassination of JFK.
The HSCA *determined* no such thing.
> >> But, just to step out first - I'll offer the fact that Oswald's cheek
> >> cast was negative - yet EVERY SINGLE COMPARATIVE TEST MADE DEMONSTRATED
> >> THAT A NEGATIVE RESULT *NEVER* HAPPENED WITH ANY SHOOTER WHO FIRED A MC.
>
> >---> Are you claiming that LHO is innocent of the crime? A simple yes
> >or no will do.
>
> Running from the evidence again. Why do you presume that I will answer your
> questions when you keep refusing to respond to mine?
>
> Answer the question - then I'll be happy to answer yours.
Nice dodge, albeit predictable.
> >> The WC, of course, was forced to bury this - and it took a FOIA court
> >> case to shake this evidence loose. Tell us - what National Security
> >> implications did this evidence have?
>
> >---> Who cares?
>
> Clearly you don't. You evidently are willing to simply believe the government.
>
> That's why you apparently are ignorant on all the actual evidence in this case.
I don't see how you can infer that.
> >The gov't is almost as paranoid as the worst CTs seem
> >to be about keeping secrets. I'm all for releasing ALL the records
> >and files - always have been. It won't change the way most of the
> >fanatics feel about this sad case, though.
>
> Considering that polls put a belief in conspiracy as high as 90% of Americans,
> and it's *NEVER* been under 50% - you're indicting a fairly large chunk of
> American society.
How many of those 90% are fanatics (like you)?
> >> And how do you explain that every single comparative test came out
> >> positive?
>
> >---> Who cares?
>
> People who don't care, yet are willing to spend time in this forum declaring
> their non-interest in the actual evidence clearly have another agenda.
>
> What is *your* agenda?
What's yours? You seem perfectly willing to waste your precious time
pointing out "lies" (ha-ha) and talking about opinion polls in this
obscure forum.
> >If you think you can re-open the case with this
> >bombshell of yours, please, I encourage you to try.
>
> It *has* been re-opened a number of times. The WCR failed to keep it closed.
>
> And the last investigation concluded that it was probably a conspiracy.
Make up your mind. You said "determined that there was a conspiracy"
above.
> You can rest safe now.
>
> >> >> LNT'ers either simply lie about the evidence,
>
> >> >---> As do CTs.
>
> >> Jump right in, quote *ANYTHING* I say and produce the citation that
> >> makes it a lie.
>
> >---> Everything is about you, is it?
>
> Do you agree to defend anything and everything McAdams has said?
>
> Why would I offer to defend what someone else has said? Rather hypocritical of
> you to think that I would, when you will refuse to.
He wasn't asking you to defend what someone else has said. Getting you
to support your own words is hard enough.
> >OK. You accuse many including
> >CTs of being liars on daily basis, it seems.
>
> Yep... when they lie, I'm happy to point it out.
Ha-ha. Perhaps a bit *too* happy ;-)
> >No point in naming
> >names.
>
> No, get specific. Name names. QUOTE MY WORDS ... and quote what I asserted
> was a lie. Then feel free to prove that it was the truth.
<QUOTE who="David Emerling" where="acj" when="2008-02-06">
2. The closely spaced shots at the end of the shooting sequence, to
which several witnesses testified to,
</QUOTE>
<QUOTE who="Ben Holmes" where="acj" when="2008-02-06">
"several"???
It's downright amusing to watch LNT'ers demonstrate what liars they
are.
David Emerling - *YOU* are a liar.
For surely you know quite well that even the WCR - which certainly had
nothing to gain from so admitting, admitted that "..a substantial
majority of the witnesses stated that the shots ere not evenly spaced.
Most witnesses recalled that the second and third shots were bunched
together."
So why bother to lie when you know that there are those on this forum
that will simply point it out?
Why did the WC, HSCA, and now the LNT'ers and Trolls need to lie about
the evidence to support the "truth?"
Can't the "truth" stand on it's own with honest evidence?
Honest dissent is one thing... but when you need to lie in order to
prop up your dissent, it merely illustrates #1 - your character, and
#2 - the strength of Robert Harris' theory.
</QUOTE>
Unless the group of witnesses is small, "most" is also "several".
David E's statement was true, hence no lie.
> Take a recent example where it was asserted that we had not only broken Japanese
> codes before Pearl Harbor - BUT WE KNEW THE DATE AND TIME OF THE ATTACK. You
> may quote the broken message, please include the date/time group... or you may
> provide a citation from *anything* that asserts such... we'll let lurkers be the
> judge of how authoritative any citation you can provide is.
>
> Or, of course, you can run again...
What's there to run from? The (rather obvious) fact that CT'ers
actually do lie about evidentary matters was pointed out to you, and
you kindly provided an (albeit off topic) example above.
> >Were you lying when you did that? Were they? Either way, my
> >point above remains.
>
> Merely making an assertion, then running away when asked to prove it - only
> demonstrates your character. It really demonstrates nothing at all about me.
His quickly getting bored with your silly word games is a healthy
sign.
> >> I won't be holding my breath.
>
> >---> Oh please do.
>
> Running, aren't you?
>
> >> >> as David illustrated for us
> >> >> yesterday, or they run from the evidence, and refuse to get specific,
> >> >> as Johniselin demonstrates today.
>
> >> >---> An example of a lie.
>
> >> Oh? Johniselin tried to imply that just a few eyewitnesses spoke of the
> >> later shots being bunched up.
>
> >---> Another lie? When did I imply such a thing?
>
> I stated: "... as johniselin demonstrates today" - you reply "An example of a
> lie"
>
> Do you really have literacy problems of this magnitude?
>
> >> Yet he lied about this... as I demonstrated with a quote from the WC.
>
> >---> OK, I'll give you the benefit of the doubt here and say that I
> >think you're confusing me with someone else in another conversation.
> >You probably ought to step back, take a few deep breaths and relax
> >before your next attack.
>
> You're absolutely correct, and I owe you an apology... I was referring to David
> Emerling, if I recall the name correctly. It was *NOT* you who lied about the
> number of shot spacing earwitnesses.
How big of you. Now apologize to David E...
> >> And yet, strangely enough - you don't mention this fact at ALL below:
>
> >> >I'm surprised you fall so easily into a
> >> >trap of your own making. Where is the evidence that Johnny Roselli
> >> >was in the sewer shooting at JFK (that RH asserted, in case you missed
> >> >it)? Where is the evidence of a shooter in the Dal-Tex building? A
> >> >shot at Z285? Most of us have asked repeatedly for such evidence
> >> >and are still waiting ... after all these years. We're not running
> >> >away at all. We're just tired of waiting.
>
> >> You say you've provided an example of a "lie" on my part - yet you haven't
> >> quoted it. Nor have you discussed ANYTHING that I spoke of. Why is that?
>
> >---> You did that quite nicely yourself. Do you ever read what you
> >write while furiously telling off the world?
>
> It seems that I'm not the only one who can get people confused. Everything you
> mentioned above was Robert's, not mine.
He was referring to you. Most of your sweeping generalizations are
untrue or misleading. In your words: lies.
> >> Would you care to either retract your assertion that you've given an
> >> example of a "lie" on my part - or QUOTE ME?
>
> >---> I've told you once, now this makes twice: you don't make the
> >rules.
>
> Gutless coward and liar, aren't you?
>
> Willing to call someone a liar, but unwilling to provide ANY EVIDENCE WHATSOEVER
> to support that assertion.
Blah-blah-blah. How many of the "lies" that you so happily point out
are actual lies?
> >Re-read your own words: you know, the ones where you falsely
> >make sweeping generalizations about "LNT'ers" running away from the
> >evidence.
>
> You have. In this very post. How many times am I going to have to ask you to
> defend the evidence? Or provide the name of a SINGLE eyewitness you believe?
Huh? You're just trying to get him entangled in your dishonest word
games.
> >I want the evidence which is what I was asking about
>
> Then Robert will be happy to accomodate you.
That's not what he was asking about.
> >(not running away from) before you swooped in to try and defend the
> >indefensible earlier in this thread.
>
> For a coward like you to claim that anything on this board is "indefensible"
> sounds just a tad hypocritical.
>
> I'm willing to provide citations and QUOTE someone when they lie - and PROVE
> that they've lied. You aren't. Why not?
What would it accomplish? You'd just keep lying anyway.
Chuck Schuyler
> In article
> <e0d4c9dd-37c0-4b90-8a2a-571b272d2...@e6g2000prf.googlegroups.com>,
>
> - Show quoted text -
I'll make it real simple for you to understand:
I think your ENTIRE analysis is wrong, from start to finish, and I do
not see the things you claim to see.
Furthermore, I think that if you had anything worthwhile, you wouldn't
be wasting your time trying to convince me. I was once a conspiracist,
and I kick myself for believing all of that nonsense when the evidence
against Oswald was/is so strong.
I will say this: I actually enjoy your stuff. Your videos are well
done.
Get the case reopened based on your theory, and you'll have my respect
(not that you are trying to earn it).
Until then, you are just another hobbyist who thinks he has solved the
case. Some people collect stamps or play piano, and you spend your
spare time trying to see if you can spin your head around as fast as
Greer. Just a hobby, but have at it. We all have our diversions.
That's what we're down to, really....a couple of hundred hard-core
hobbyists, mainly between the ages of 45 to 65, that post YouTube
videos and clack away on their computer keyboards at a few discussion
boards like this one, all with different theories, suspects, motives
etc. over who killed JFK.
If you and Marsh and researcher Gil Jesus from acj. are all correct,
Frank Bender was firing a modified MC from the knoll while Roselli was
shooting at JFK from the sewer, while LBJ was whipping out a pistol
from his boot and taking his turn at JFK.
It's rib-splittingly hilarious, really...and a great source of
entertainment for me. I enjoy relaxing after work by reading about all
of the different theories and motives and suspects.
The new generation has moved on to the Chimpy McBushitler/CheneyBurton
rulng junta planting explosives in the WTC and causing 9/11 to go to
war for oil.
They are every bit as correct about 9/11 as you are about Roselli in
the sewer shooting at JFK.
Robert Harris
<c1274bdc-99b0-47ee...@s37g2000prg.googlegroups.com>,
doug.w...@gmail.com wrote:
> On Feb 6, 9:27 am, Robert Harris <reharr...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > In article
> > <7bec6004-d274-49bc-b4fd-7b9e9e7fc...@h11g2000prf.googlegroups.com>,
> >
> >
> >
> > doug.wigg...@gmail.com wrote:
> > > On Feb 5, 10:33 pm, Robert Harris <reharr...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > > > I don't expect anyone to agree with or even acknowledge this video. But
> > > > I cannot fathom how anyone can see it and remain convinced that only one
> > > > shooter was involved in the JFK assassination.
> >
> > > > There is a lot that I couldn't fit into 10 minutes, but that which I
> > > > could, does a decent job of showing you what I have been talking about
> > > > for thirteen years.
> >
> > > >http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ql6VqZDiC6s
> >
> > > > Not only that, but I never use the word "decibel" - not even once!
> >
> > > > Robert Harris
> >
> > > I'll start with the narrator's comments on SS Kellerman.
> >
> > I am the narrator, Doug.
> >
> > > The narrator
> > > describes Kellerman as "shielding his left ear" (after Z285). If any shot
> > > came from the GN, why shield the left ear & not the right (which is the
> > > direction of the GN & where Hill thought the noise of the gunshots
> > > originated)?
> >
> > That shot didn't come from the grassy knoll. Did you watch the whole
> > thing?
> >
> > > Also, did the narrator consider Kellerman may have had an
> > > earphone located in his left ear & was making an attempt to hear any
> > > instruction clearly (my speculation only)?
> >
> > Kellerman wasn't wearing an earphone, Doug.
>
> What is your source citing which agents wore earpieces?
I have read every Secret Service report and WC testimony of every agent
who was there, and not one of them mentioned such a thing.
How am I supposed to find a source that there were none:-)
Why don't you post the evidence that there was?
> I am familiar
> that the limousine was equipped with a permanent radio but this wouldn't
> exclude the use of an earpiece by an agent.
Why did he need to duck in order to do whatever you think he did, with
his earpiece?
And do you really think it was just a coincidence that he decided to do
that within an eighteenth of a second of four other simultaneous
reactions?
And why do you think that both Nellie and Jackie believed their
respective husbands were wounded then?
Robert Harris
> Kellerman did leave the limo
> for crowd control along the route. It would make sense that he stayed in
> contact with the use of an earpiece. Again, I'm only speculating.
> What's your source that he did not wear one?
Robert Harris
<d67d513b-f992-4caf...@m34g2000hsb.googlegroups.com>,
Chuck Schuyler <chu...@am-mtg.com> wrote:
Comprehension is not the issue, Chuck.
In this posting, you used the pronoun "you" or one of its derivatives 19
times, and words like "evidence" and "facts", ZERO times.
And once again, you evaded every question I presented.
Deal with the facts or recruit someone who can. Until then, these silly ad
hominem rants are not gonna convince anyone with a triple-digit IQ.
Robert Harris
John Canal
says...
>
>In article
><e0d4c9dd-37c0-4b90...@e6g2000prf.googlegroups.com>,
> Chuck Schuyler <chu...@am-mtg.com> wrote:
>
>> On Feb 6, 11:51 am, Robert Harris <reharr...@yahoo.com> wrote:
Hi Robert,
Because you've invested so many hours into trying to make sure your theory
has no holes, I sincerely feel bad (I know the last thing you need is my
sympathy) about asking you this: How on earth can you say that your
evidence supporting your theory is not subjective (and is
conclusive)....when at least about three-fourths of the other CTs and all
the LNs think your theory is wrong? IOW, while it's not as bad, one could
compare your situation to the fellow who thinks he has irrefutable
evidence that Greer shot JFK...I mean, what would you like to say to
him?--but there is nothing you could say that wouldn't upset him or make
him think you're the one that's not thinking logically.
FWIW, and if it's any concilation, I think you're a pretty smart
guy....and, even though you're being attacked seemingly all the time, you
seem to keep your cool....at least keep that up.
John Canal
johni...@aol.com
> In article <78ad4302-5a44-4d79-8f21-539773eed...@m34g2000hsf.googlegroups.com>,
---> LOL! Seems you have a habit of projecting your own
characteristics on others. Allow me to refresh your memory of who
apologized to whom for misunderstanding what was written:
><Ben Holmes quoted text>:
>
> You're absolutely correct, and I owe you an apology... I was referring to David
> Emerling, if I recall the name correctly. It was *NOT* you who lied about the
> number of shot spacing earwitnesses.
>
>let me rephrase - "Virtually any
> EVIDENCE that LNT'ers list as proving their case can be quickly refuted"
>
> Does that make it clear? Fire away... let's hear some ACTUAL evidence...
---> Moving the goal posts when you didn't like my answer to your
original question? I don't think so. I answered your poorly worded
question, now you answer mine, if you can:
Please tell me when the FACT that LHO killed JFK was
"quickly refuted."
>
> >> As merely one example - name a *SINGLE* eyewitness that you believe.
> >> I've had only one LNT'er try to answer that - and his one example was
> >> quickly demolished.
>
> >---> I don't have to. Larry Sneed wrote a book a while ago about many
> >of the witnesses called _No More Silence_. Have you read it? If so,
> >what witnesses don't you believe in the book?
>
> My!!! What a FAST duck and run!!
---> LOL! I give you a book of witnesses, and you call that running.
>
> Name *ONE*... just one, eyewitness that you believe. Nor am I referring to any
> statements made years later... I'm perfectly happy to only deal with their
> earliest statements & testimony.
>
> But it seems that dragging a name out of you will be like pulling teeth. Why is
> that? Surely you understood the question...
---> Of course anyone understands a loaded question. So here's an
appropriate answer to your loaded question: all of them. I believe
all the witnesses, to varying degrees, obviously some more than
others. Is that too real for someone only seemingly comfortable in an
either/or world?
>
> >> You *can't* believe any eyewitnesses - for the more solidly you *can*
> >> believe him or her - the less they saw and heard.
>
> >---> You really are full of yourself, aren't you? Please do not
> >presume to tell me who or what I can or can't believe. You don't have
> >that right, no matter who you think you are.
>
> And yet, strangely enough - you keep running from any proof. Why is that?
---> Now it's "proof"? More goal post maneuvering? First it's
"evidence," then it's "witnesses," now it's "proof" you want? Make up
your mind, will you?
>
> >> All of the critical eyewitnesses, YOU CAN'T BELIEVE!
>
> >> But you'll run from this - all LNT'ers seem to do so...
>
> >---> Another lie?
>
> How can it be a "lie?" You have indeed run from the question - you refuse to
> name a SINGLE eyewitness that you can believe.
>
> Why the cowardice?
---> Why the name calling? Does not being permitted to control the
conversation bother you that much?
>
> >From one who calls so many others liars?
>
> How many people did the WC assert state that they heard the later shots as
> closer together.
>
> Tis a simple question... but you'll run from it too. For once you answer - you
> demonstrate that the person I called a liar is indeed a liar.
---> And there you have it! Why bother to answer another loaded
question when you've already determined the outcome?
>
> >I'm not running,
>
> And yet, you STILL haven't answered such simple questions... why is that? Do
> you not understand them?
---> See above. I understand them alright - you just don't like the
answers.
>
> >and neither are most of the others who choose to ignore your
> >silliness.
>
> Quote any such "silliness". Of course, you won't...
---> See above. Your loaded questions, for starters; your habit of
name calling anyone you cannot control; your sweeping generalizations
about so-called "LNT'ers", etc. You seem to be at war with anyone and
everyone who does not agree with you. Life is too short for that,
don't you think?
>
> >> >> Natural, of course, because the evidence simply doesn't support the WCR.
>
> >> >---> Strawman. The evidence shows LHO was the killer of YOUR
> >> >president.
>
> >> Name it... let's see what evidence you're willing to give up.
>
> >---> The evidence doesn't need to be given up at all. It's available
> >in both the WCR and HSCA which concluded that LHO killed JFK.
>
> Yep... gutless coward.
---> Projecting again?
> Unwilling to even *attempt* to defend the WCR.
---> The WCR needs no defense.
>
> By the way, the HSCA determined that there was a conspiracy.
---> Aw, now see. You just lied. They did no such thing and you know
it.
> And since,
> historically, the HSCA came *AFTER* the WCR - you can now rest safe, knowing
> that there was a conspiracy in the assassination of JFK.
---> More silliness. Is this your example of how fanatics lie about
the facts?
>
> >> But, just to step out first - I'll offer the fact that Oswald's cheek
> >> cast was negative - yet EVERY SINGLE COMPARATIVE TEST MADE DEMONSTRATED
> >> THAT A NEGATIVE RESULT *NEVER* HAPPENED WITH ANY SHOOTER WHO FIRED A MC.
>
> >---> Are you claiming that LHO is innocent of the crime? A simple yes
> >or no will do.
>
> Running from the evidence again. Why do you presume that I will answer your
> questions when you keep refusing to respond to mine?
>
> Answer the question - then I'll be happy to answer yours.
---> Nah, I think I got my answer. This is an accurate quote of
yours, is it not:
"The evidence of Oswald's innocence was buried by the WCR, and the
evidence of
his guilt was exaggerated and in some cases, outright lied about."
>
> >> The WC, of course, was forced to bury this - and it took a FOIA court
> >> case to shake this evidence loose. Tell us - what National Security
> >> implications did this evidence have?
>
> >---> Who cares?
>
> Clearly you don't. You evidently are willing to simply believe the government.
---> Wrong again. I clearly don't care about what *you* consider
evidence, but I do remain faithful in people that someone, somewhere,
might actually come up with an original thought or piece of evidence
that either exonerates Oswald, or, shows solid evidence of a
conspiracy. It has been 44+ years, you know.
>
> That's why you apparently are ignorant on all the actual evidence in this case.
>
---> More sweeping generalizations against anyone that does not share
your point of view. Makes it easier to demonize others who don't
agree with you, doesn't it?
> >The gov't is almost as paranoid as the worst CTs seem
> >to be about keeping secrets. I'm all for releasing ALL the records
> >and files - always have been. It won't change the way most of the
> >fanatics feel about this sad case, though.
>
> Considering that polls put a belief in conspiracy as high as 90% of Americans,
> and it's *NEVER* been under 50% - you're indicting a fairly large chunk of
> American society.
---> A very weak argument, I am deeply disappointed in you. Polls?!
Since when do polls matter where the facts are concerned? And don't
even start about indicting a "fairly large chunk of American society"
- there's enough evidence to show that when it comes to that "chunk,"
their notorious poor judgment is nothing new as shown by unprecedented
credit card debt, terrible personal finances, lack of savings,
mortgage troubles and a complete misunderstanding of our Capitalist
system.
>
> >> And how do you explain that every single comparative test came out
> >> positive?
>
> >---> Who cares?
>
> People who don't care, yet are willing to spend time in this forum declaring
> their non-interest in the actual evidence clearly have another agenda.
--->See above. I don't care about what you consider "actual
evidence". You concentrate on nonsense, while ignoring that Oswald's
rifle was found in the TSBD (the means), he worked there (the
opportunity), and motive (his 15 minutes of fame - unproved,
speculation admittedly).
>
> What is *your* agenda?
>
---> What's yours? I'm hoping for a breakthrough, but you guys
continue to disappoint.
> >If you think you can re-open the case with this
> >bombshell of yours, please, I encourage you to try.
>
> It *has* been re-opened a number of times.
---> And strangely enough (borrowing a phrase you over use), they
always find that Oswald killed JFK. So what's your problem?
> The WCR failed to keep it closed.
---> Did they say they wanted to keep it closed?
>
> And the last investigation concluded that it was probably a conspiracy.
>
---> Yes, finally, you use the "probable" adjective - meaning that a
conspiracy is not certain. I was wondering when you would properly
(and truthfully) assert what was concluded.
> You can rest safe now.
---> Always have with the knowledge that they caught the killer of
JFK.
>
> >> >> LNT'ers either simply lie about the evidence,
>
> >> >---> As do CTs.
>
> >> Jump right in, quote *ANYTHING* I say and produce the citation that
> >> makes it a lie.
>
> >---> Everything is about you, is it?
>
> Do you agree to defend anything and everything McAdams has said?
>
> Why would I offer to defend what someone else has said? Rather hypocritical of
> you to think that I would, when you will refuse to.
---> You're going off the rails again. You made a generalization, I
countered with one. Then you made it about *you* which seems to be a
tiresome habit of yours.
>
> >OK. You accuse many including
> >CTs of being liars on daily basis, it seems.
>
> Yep... when they lie, I'm happy to point it out.
--->I rest my case. Mr. Holmes has just acknowledged that CTs lie,
which is all I asserted above. Thank you, Mr. Holmes. You're
dismissed.
Chuck Schuyler
The facts were dealt with quite nicely by the Warren Commission.
A few points:
You are a hardcore CT'er. There isn't anything I could say or post, any
evidence I could cite, any book, DVD, documentary I could refer you to
that would change your mind about your weird theories.
I once responded to posts with links to WC testimony, HSCA exhibits, etc.
but you and your fellow believers, I quickly learned, dispute almost the
whole case-top to bottom-so it really is fruitless at this point. You've
heard and read everything about the case. Your mind is made up.
Have fun videotaping yourself turning your head around real fast like
Greer or 'researching' the dimensions of the Dallas, Elm St. sewers or
whatever other bizarre thing you're up to.
It's really quite funny.
Give it up. You've got nothing. If you had something, the case would be
reopened.
Boy, what a buzzkill it must be to meet you at a party and hear the words,
"Hi, I'm Bob Harris, and I'm a JFK conspiracy researcher."
Ben Holmes
johni...@aol.com says...
>> >> >here.
>>
>> >> Just pointing out the facts... LNT'ers can't discuss the evidence - since
>> >> virtually anything they say will be quickly refuted.
>>
>> >---> You are entitled to your own opinion - as are others - but not to
>> >your own "facts" as you call them. Please tell me when the FACT that
>> >LHO killed JFK was "quickly refuted".
>>
>> Hmmm... seems that you aren't quite literate...
>
>---> LOL! Seems you have a habit of projecting your own
>characteristics on others.
You'll have to START by showing where I ever said that the "FACT that LHO killed
JKF was quickly refuted."
It's the EVIDENCE that you'll try to bring to the table that will be quickly
refuted.
That's why you seem to keep running away from specifics.
>Allow me to refresh your memory of who
>apologized to whom for misunderstanding what was written:
Actually, I didn't misunderstand what was written at all - I merely confused
*who* had said it.
Literacy problems again, no doubt.
>><Ben Holmes quoted text>:
>>
>> You're absolutely correct, and I owe you an apology... I was referring
>> to David Emerling, if I recall the name correctly. It was *NOT* you
>> who lied about the number of shot spacing earwitnesses.
>
>
>> let me rephrase - "Virtually any
>> EVIDENCE that LNT'ers list as proving their case can be quickly refuted"
>>
>> Does that make it clear? Fire away... let's hear some ACTUAL evidence...
>
>---> Moving the goal posts when you didn't like my answer to your
>original question?
Not moving a thing.
Still running from specifics, aren't you?
>I don't think so. I answered your poorly worded
>question, now you answer mine, if you can:
>
> Please tell me when the FACT that LHO killed JFK was
>"quickly refuted."
You list as a "fact" something that's never been proven. Let's discuss what
EVIDENCE you believe leads someone to think that Oswald assassinated JFK by
himself.
>> >> As merely one example - name a *SINGLE* eyewitness that you believe.
>> >> I've had only one LNT'er try to answer that - and his one example was
>> >> quickly demolished.
>>
>> >---> I don't have to. Larry Sneed wrote a book a while ago about many
>> >of the witnesses called _No More Silence_. Have you read it? If so,
>> >what witnesses don't you believe in the book?
>>
>> My!!! What a FAST duck and run!!
>
>---> LOL! I give you a book of witnesses, and you call that running.
Yes, coward, I *DO* call that running. For you'll refuse to support any example
I raise, since *YOU* didn't raise that eyewitness as an example.
This is why you'll continue to duck the question.
Coward, aren't you?
>> Name *ONE*... just one, eyewitness that you believe. Nor am I referring
>> to any statements made years later... I'm perfectly happy to only deal
>> with their earliest statements & testimony.
>>
>> But it seems that dragging a name out of you will be like pulling teeth.
>> Why is that? Surely you understood the question...
>
>---> Of course anyone understands a loaded question.
How can it be "loaded" to ask you to produce a SINGLE eyewitness that can
support the theory you believe?
It's not exactly unfair to ask someone to produce evidence for a crime.
Yet you keep running away from doing that. What is it, don't know the case?
>So here's an
>appropriate answer to your loaded question: all of them.
Okay... Brennan. His description of the assassin does *NOT* match Oswald.
Explain why you believe Brennan when he *CONTRADICTS* your theory.
>I believe
>all the witnesses, to varying degrees, obviously some more than
>others. Is that too real for someone only seemingly comfortable in an
>either/or world?
The fact is that you'll be *completely* unable to name a single eyewitness that
you can believe.
As illustrated by your total cowardice up to this point.
But you've allowed me to make the choice, so it's not a difficult choice for
you, I could easily have picked one of the medical eyewitnesses.
Defend your "belief" in what Brennan described...
>> >> You *can't* believe any eyewitnesses - for the more solidly you *can*
>> >> believe him or her - the less they saw and heard.
>>
>> >---> You really are full of yourself, aren't you? Please do not
>> >presume to tell me who or what I can or can't believe. You don't have
>> >that right, no matter who you think you are.
>>
>> And yet, strangely enough - you keep running from any proof. Why is that?
>
>---> Now it's "proof"? More goal post maneuvering? First it's
>"evidence," then it's "witnesses," now it's "proof" you want? Make up
>your mind, will you?
Coward, aren't you?
I'm willing to get down to specifics, and you're jello...
>> >> All of the critical eyewitnesses, YOU CAN'T BELIEVE!
>>
>> >> But you'll run from this - all LNT'ers seem to do so...
>>
>> >---> Another lie?
>>
>> How can it be a "lie?" You have indeed run from the question - you refuse to
>> name a SINGLE eyewitness that you can believe.
>>
>> Why the cowardice?
>
>---> Why the name calling?
How do *YOU* define cowardice? You keep running, ducking, and scampering away -
do you suppose that I'm supposed to just keep my mouth shut?
If you keep running, I'm going to point it out.
If you don't want your cowardice named, then by all means, simply engage.
Or move to the censored forum. Who cares?
>Does not being permitted to control the
>conversation bother you that much?
Nope... not at all. I actually enjoy cowards like you - because it illustrates
for lurkers that LNT'ers can't defend their faith.
>> >From one who calls so many others liars?
>>
>> How many people did the WC assert state that they heard the later shots as
>> closer together.
>>
>> Tis a simple question... but you'll run from it too. For once you
>> answer - you demonstrate that the person I called a liar is indeed a liar.
>
>---> And there you have it! Why bother to answer another loaded
>question when you've already determined the outcome?
Because if you're honest, and you ACTUALLY TELL EVERYONE HERE WHAT THE WC
STATED, then it becomes clear that the person I asserted was a liar was indeed
speaking contrary to the known facts.
But, as I predicted, you ran from it.
Coward, aren't you?
>> >I'm not running,
>>
>> And yet, you STILL haven't answered such simple questions... why is that?
>> Do you not understand them?
>
>---> See above. I understand them alright - you just don't like the
>answers.
*WHAT* answers?
>> >and neither are most of the others who choose to ignore your
>> >silliness.
>>
>> Quote any such "silliness". Of course, you won't...
>
>---> See above.
Does the word "quote" have a different meaning to cowards?
>Your loaded questions, for starters;
It's "loaded" to ask you to cite the evidence? It's "loaded" to ask you to
provide support for your faith?
Coward, aren't you?
>your habit of
>name calling anyone you cannot control;
Can't control Walt or Robert at all - but on the other hand, when I ask them to
cite for their assertion, they promptly do so. I disagree with both of them on
many aspects of the assassination - yet disagreement alone isn't enough.
They must *LIE* about the evidence for me to call them a liar, or they must duck
and run from answering my questions to be called a coward. Strangely enough,
and despite our differences, I don't ever recall calling either of them liars or
cowards.
But don't let the facts stop you from your assertions...
>your sweeping generalizations
>about so-called "LNT'ers", etc.
It's quite difficult to find a LNT'er who will defend his stance, and provide
citations. If you know of one, send him here.
>You seem to be at war with anyone and
>everyone who does not agree with you.
Nah... *you're* at war with the truth. I'm merely pointing it out.
>Life is too short for that,
>don't you think?
Absolutely! When you cease to amuse me, I'll put you in with all the rest of
the trolls.
But it's only fair to give you every possible chance to defend your beliefs.
Even if you keep refusing to do so.
>>>> >> Natural, of course, because the evidence simply doesn't support the WCR.
>>
>> >> >---> Strawman. The evidence shows LHO was the killer of YOUR
>> >> >president.
>>
>> >> Name it... let's see what evidence you're willing to give up.
>>
>> >---> The evidence doesn't need to be given up at all. It's available
>> >in both the WCR and HSCA which concluded that LHO killed JFK.
>>
>> Yep... gutless coward.
>
>---> Projecting again?
Nope... merely pointing out that you refuse to get to the specifics.
And since the HSCA concluded that conspiracy was probable in this case, you can
stop arguing, and accept it.
>> Unwilling to even *attempt* to defend the WCR.
>
>---> The WCR needs no defense.
What a cowardly assertion!
>> By the way, the HSCA determined that there was a conspiracy.
>
>---> Aw, now see. You just lied. They did no such thing and you know
>it.
Indeed, "probable" was the constraining word. But they did indeed come to that
conclusion.
>> And since,
>> historically, the HSCA came *AFTER* the WCR - you can now rest safe, knowing
>> that there was a conspiracy in the assassination of JFK.
>
>---> More silliness. Is this your example of how fanatics lie about
>the facts?
You're refusing to defend the WCR. Then you surely can also accept the
conclusions of the HSCA without reviewing their evidence, right?
So you can safely admit that it was a probable conspiracy - with at least one
shot coming from the Grassy Knoll.
>> >> But, just to step out first - I'll offer the fact that Oswald's cheek
>> >> cast was negative - yet EVERY SINGLE COMPARATIVE TEST MADE DEMONSTRATED
>> >> THAT A NEGATIVE RESULT *NEVER* HAPPENED WITH ANY SHOOTER WHO FIRED A MC.
>>
>> >---> Are you claiming that LHO is innocent of the crime? A simple yes
>> >or no will do.
>>
>> Running from the evidence again. Why do you presume that I will answer your
>> questions when you keep refusing to respond to mine?
>>
>> Answer the question - then I'll be happy to answer yours.
>
>---> Nah, I think I got my answer. This is an accurate quote of
>yours, is it not:
>
>"The evidence of Oswald's innocence was buried by the WCR, and the
>evidence of his guilt was exaggerated and in some cases, outright lied about."
Yep... it's accurate too.
Nice to see that each time I mention SPECIFIC evidence - you'll just run away.
A nice definition of cowardice, wouldn't you say?
You see, *I* can defend my statements by using the evidence... the SPECIFIC
evidence. You defend your statements by saying "Look! There! In that Report!
The answer's There!!"
For example, one bit of evidence that was exculpatory was the NAA results on the
cheek caste - AS WELL AS THE COMPARATIVE TESTS PERFORMED BY GUINN BY OTHER
SHOOTERS OF AN MC.
The WC buried this - and you have zilch to say about it.
Not just coward, *gutless* coward... aren't you?
>> >> The WC, of course, was forced to bury this - and it took a FOIA court
>> >> case to shake this evidence loose. Tell us - what National Security
>> >> implications did this evidence have?
>>
>> >---> Who cares?
>>
>>Clearly you don't. You evidently are willing to simply believe the government.
>
>---> Wrong again. I clearly don't care about what *you* consider
>evidence, but I do remain faithful in people that someone, somewhere,
>might actually come up with an original thought or piece of evidence
>that either exonerates Oswald, or, shows solid evidence of a
>conspiracy. It has been 44+ years, you know.
It's been done so many times in the last 44+ years that you merely illustrate
your cowardice by such a statement.
It's getting close to plonking time unless you can start debating ACTUAL
evidence and testimony.
>>That's why you apparently are ignorant on all the actual evidence in this case.
>>
>
>---> More sweeping generalizations against anyone that does not share
>your point of view. Makes it easier to demonize others who don't
>agree with you, doesn't it?
Feel free to dive in and actually respond to the evidential questions I raise.
Or debate ANY specific evidence...
>
>> >The gov't is almost as paranoid as the worst CTs seem
>> >to be about keeping secrets. I'm all for releasing ALL the records
>> >and files - always have been. It won't change the way most of the
>> >fanatics feel about this sad case, though.
>>
>> Considering that polls put a belief in conspiracy as high as 90% of
>> Americans, and it's *NEVER* been under 50% - you're indicting a fairly
>> large chunk of American society.
>
>---> A very weak argument, I am deeply disappointed in you. Polls?!
>Since when do polls matter where the facts are concerned? And don't
>even start about indicting a "fairly large chunk of American society"
>- there's enough evidence to show that when it comes to that "chunk,"
>their notorious poor judgment is nothing new as shown by unprecedented
>credit card debt, terrible personal finances, lack of savings,
>mortgage troubles and a complete misunderstanding of our Capitalist
>system.
Ah! An elitist...
>> >> And how do you explain that every single comparative test came out
>> >> positive?
>>
>> >---> Who cares?
>>
>> People who don't care, yet are willing to spend time in this forum declaring
>> their non-interest in the actual evidence clearly have another agenda.
>
>--->See above. I don't care about what you consider "actual
>evidence". You concentrate on nonsense, while ignoring that Oswald's
>rifle was found in the TSBD
You may start by proving that it's his rifle.
>(the means), he worked there (the
>opportunity),
As did many others.
>and motive (his 15 minutes of fame - unproved,
>speculation admittedly).
*ZERO* motive. Speculation could just as easily be applied to ANYONE.
>> What is *your* agenda?
>>
>
>---> What's yours?
Explaining the truth to lurkers who've developed an interest in the case.
>I'm hoping for a breakthrough, but you guys
>continue to disappoint.
No you aren't. You're almost certainly lying at this point. Someone truly
interested would know the evidence... you clearly don't.
>> >If you think you can re-open the case with this
>> >bombshell of yours, please, I encourage you to try.
>>
>> It *has* been re-opened a number of times.
>
>---> And strangely enough (borrowing a phrase you over use), they
>always find that Oswald killed JFK. So what's your problem?
And the most recent found a probable conspiracy... so what's your problem?
>> The WCR failed to keep it closed.
>
>---> Did they say they wanted to keep it closed?
Rather stupid of you, isn't it?
Everyone with half a brain knows that if a *real* investigation had been
performed, this forum wouldn't exist.
>> And the last investigation concluded that it was probably a conspiracy.
>>
>
>---> Yes, finally, you use the "probable" adjective - meaning that a
>conspiracy is not certain. I was wondering when you would properly
>(and truthfully) assert what was concluded.
Yep. You can now rest easy - knowing that this was a probable conspiracy.
>> You can rest safe now.
>
>---> Always have with the knowledge that they caught the killer of
>JFK.
Unproven. Indeed, much evidence against it.
>> >> >> LNT'ers either simply lie about the evidence,
>>
>> >> >---> As do CTs.
>>
>> >> Jump right in, quote *ANYTHING* I say and produce the citation that
>> >> makes it a lie.
>>
>> >---> Everything is about you, is it?
>>
>> Do you agree to defend anything and everything McAdams has said?
>>
>> Why would I offer to defend what someone else has said? Rather
>> hypocritical of you to think that I would, when you will refuse to.
>
>---> You're going off the rails again. You made a generalization, I
>countered with one.
My generalization was a solid one. Most LNT'ers *DO* either lie about the
evidence, or like you, refuse to debate the evidence.
>Then you made it about *you* which seems to be a
>tiresome habit of yours.
Gutless coward, aren't you?
>> >OK. You accuse many including
>> >CTs of being liars on daily basis, it seems.
>>
>> Yep... when they lie, I'm happy to point it out.
>
>--->I rest my case. Mr. Holmes has just acknowledged that CTs lie,
>which is all I asserted above.
And yet, you can't quote *ANYTHING* of mine, and cite the evidence that makes it
a lie. Why is that?
>Thank you, Mr. Holmes. You're
>dismissed.
ROTFLMAO! You're the fool here. Frightened needlessly about the evidence.
justm...@gmail.com
> In article <6150fd8d-7a87-4a10-9cc7-00ed611fd...@i7g2000prf.googlegroups.com>,
>
> read more »- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
If the words *coward*, *duck*, *run* and *liar* weren't in Holmes
vocabulary he'd have NOTHING to say. He is a poor excuse of a man
trying to act like the big cheese around here and his little clonies
sniffing his butt 24/7. Holmes knows that the LN's IGNORE him, which
he refers to as ducking and running. There is nothing to discuss with
a person who plays word games, and as soon as someone gives him an
answer he either doesn't like or can't debate he *Killfilters* them.
It's his way of ducking and running! Anyone, especially lurkers that
has not figured this out by now has even less brains then Healy...and
that's just about next to impossible! LOL
Robert Harris
With all due respect "johniselin", you are a chronic liar and a babbling
idiot.
And those are your BEST points.
Make up another phony alias so I don't know who you are, and I might
address your questions, or at least point you to the evidence."
Robert Harris
In article
<133e7934-84c7-4b3d...@i7g2000prf.googlegroups.com>,
"johni...@aol.com" <johni...@aol.com> wrote:
> On Feb 8, 8:17?pm, Robert Harris <reharr...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > In article
> > <d67d513b-f992-4caf-b6e9-af070793b...@m34g2000hsb.googlegroups.com>,
> > ?Chuck Schuyler <chu...@am-mtg.com> wrote:
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > > On Feb 7, 8:05?pm, Robert Harris <reharr...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > > > In article
> > > > <e0d4c9dd-37c0-4b90-8a2a-571b272d2...@e6g2000prf.googlegroups.com>,
> > > > ?Chuck Schuyler <chu...@am-mtg.com> wrote:
> > > > And that Mrs. Kennedy, ?suffered exactly the same delusion, thinking
> > > > her
> > > > husband was "receiving a bullet" as she turned back toward JFK, and
> > > > ducked - in perfect unison with Nellie and the others??
> >
> > > > And was it a coincidence that Kellerman just decided that this was a
> > > > great time to duck and scratch his ear? Or do you suppose the "flurry"
> > > > of gunshots might have had something to do with it??
> >
> > > > Your problem Chuck, is that no matter how hard you try, you will NEVER
> > > > be able to pass this off as a subjective interpretation in the mind of
> > > > a
> > > > deluded conspiracy buff. Those reactions are very, ?very real and have
> > > > been confirmed by some of the best educated of your fellow deniers.
> >
> > > > If those same reactions took place at Z160 or 223, you would be
> > > > laughing
> > > > you ass off at anyone who tried to deny a gunshot then, and (for once),
> > > > rightly so.
> >
> > > > You accept Brennon's statement, IDing Oswald, with ZERO corroborating
> > > > witnesses, ZERO photographic confirmations, and ZERO scientific
> > > > analysis.
> >
> > > > Why do you reject objective evidence that is more than 50 times
> > > > greater,
> > > > in both quantity and quality?
> >
> > > > Robert Harris- Hide quoted text -
> >
> > > > - Show quoted text -
> >
> > > I'll make it real simple for you to understand:
> >
> > Comprehension is not the issue, Chuck.
> >
> > In this posting, you used the pronoun "you" or one of its derivatives 19
> > times, and words like "evidence" and "facts", ZERO times.
> >
> > And once again, you evaded every question I presented.
> >
> > Deal with the facts or recruit someone who can. Until then, these silly ad
> > hominem rants are not gonna convince anyone with a triple-digit IQ.
>
> ---> Yes, you would do well to heed your own advice. I've asked you for
> evidence that Rosselli was in the storm drain shooting, but you've
> provided none. I've asked for evidence of a Dal-Tex shooter, but you've
> provided none. I've asked for evidence of a shot at Z285, but you have
> provided none. Those aren't ad hominem rants, those are facts that Chuck
> was pointing out. If your youtube episode showed this, he wasn't the only
> one who missed it.
Burly...@gmail.com
> With all due respect "johniselin", you are a chronic liar and a babbling
> idiot.
>
> And those are your BEST points.
>
> Make up another phony alias so I don't know who you are, and I might
> address your questions, or at least point you to the evidence."
>
> Robert Harris
>
> In article
>
> - Show quoted text -
You depend upon people responding to your posts, Mr. Harris.
If you don't like the answers, that's tough. You are at the mercy of
the people you ask to a look at what you produce. If you don't like
opposing opinions, then don't start threads!
Robert Harris
John Canal <John_...@newsguy.com> wrote:
> In article <reharris1-0B489...@news.verizon.net>, Robert Harris
> says...
> >
> >In article
> ><e0d4c9dd-37c0-4b90...@e6g2000prf.googlegroups.com>,
> > Chuck Schuyler <chu...@am-mtg.com> wrote:
> >
> >> On Feb 6, 11:51 am, Robert Harris <reharr...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> Hi Robert,
>
> Because you've invested so many hours into trying to make sure your theory
> has no holes, I sincerely feel bad (I know the last thing you need is my
> sympathy) about asking you this: How on earth can you say that your
> evidence supporting your theory is not subjective (and is
> conclusive)....
The evidence speaks for itself, John.
That's why you and your friends ONLY want to talk about Robert Harris,
and not the facts.
> when at least about three-fourths of the other CTs and all
> the LNs think your theory is wrong? IOW, while it's not as bad, one could
> compare your situation to the fellow who thinks he has irrefutable
> evidence that Greer shot JFK...
No, when I encounter those people, I exlain that they are seeing an
optical illusion caused by the glare on Kellerman's head and that none
of the witnesses in DP that day reported that Greer shot anybody.
Look at the above sentence, John. Do you notice that there is ZERO ad
hominem in that sentence?
Your rebuttals should begin...
1. The REAL reason that every nonvictim in the limo reacted within
1/18th of a second of Zapruder's reaction is....
2. The REAL reason that every one of their testimonies confirmed a shot
then is....
3. The REAL reason Brehm heard the first of three shots as the limo
passed in front of him is....
4. The REAL reason that we see Jean Hill snap her head to the right as
the limo passed in front of her is...
etc. etc.
Why can't you do that, John?
Hey, I have no problem if you want to waste the bandwidth
psychoanalyzing me. But don't you think that you need to EARN the right
to say that my arguments are crap, by first refuting them?
Robert Harris
Robert Harris
<4d8ba79c-8824-40a0...@m34g2000hsb.googlegroups.com>,
Chuck Schuyler <chu...@am-mtg.com> wrote:
Utter nonsense.
Almost NONE of the issues I am raising, were even mentioned by the WC.
>
> A few points:
>
> You
YOU????
What's with the "Robert Harris" obsession, Chuck?
Talk about Mrs. Connally, Mrs. Kennedy, Greer, Kellerman, Brehm, Hill
(both of them), and Moorman - and about Dr. Luis Alvarez's analysis.
I'm just the messenger, Chuck.
> are a hardcore CT'er. There isn't anything I could say or post, any
> evidence I could cite, any book, DVD, documentary I could refer you to
> that would change your mind about your weird theories.
Bullshit!!
I used the same methodology to discover that Oswald couldn't have acted
alone, that I used to determine that one bullet really did go through
both victims, that the 312 shot came from the rear.
I'm a slave to the evidence, Chuck.
Show me EVIDENCE. Show me a reasonable alternative that explains those 5
simultaneous reactions.
I will cheerfully change my position, if you can prove that my
conclusions are false.
Closed-minded people EVADE the evidence and facts, Chuck.
They change the subject when presented with proof that they are wrong.
They demean the people who show them the contrary facts, rather than the
analysis.
>
> I once responded to posts with links to WC testimony, HSCA exhibits, etc.
> but you and your fellow believers, I quickly learned, dispute almost the
> whole case-top to bottom-so it really is fruitless at this point. You've
> heard and read everything about the case. Your mind is made up.
I'm sorry to hear that, Chuck. Believe me, I know EXACTLY how you feel.
But I am not those people. I am on the record, in this newsgroup, more
than once - admitting that I was wrong, and changing my conclusions.
I absolutely promise, that if you can provide a better explanation for
the facts I have presented, or if you can demonstrate that I have
misinterpreted those facts, that I will change my conclusions
accordingly and promptly remove that latest video from Youtube.
Is that a fair offer, Chuck?
And even if you doubt my sincerity, you should present your rebuttal for
the sake of the lurkers.
The floor is yours, Chuck. Please proceed.
Robert Harris
Robert Harris
David Emerling <davidemer...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Robert Harris wrote:
> > I don't expect anyone to agree with or even acknowledge this video. But
> > I cannot fathom how anyone can see it and remain convinced that only one
> > shooter was involved in the JFK assassination.
> >
> > There is a lot that I couldn't fit into 10 minutes, but that which I
> > could, does a decent job of showing you what I have been talking about
> > for thirteen years.
> >
> > http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ql6VqZDiC6s
> >
> > Not only that, but I never use the word "decibel" - not even once!
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > Robert Harris
> >
>
> Good job with that video. Very well done. Very interesting.
>
> Unfortunately, I can't agree with your theory that there was a shot fired
> at Z-285.
>
> Three points occurred to me as I watched the video:
>
> 1. Your contention that Mrs. Connally and Kennedy are reacting to a shot
> at Z-285, I just don't see. They both seemed to be consumed with concern
> over their husbands at that point.
Gosh! What could have consumed them with concern then???
Do you think the fact that they both testified that their husbands were
shot then, might have had something to do with it?
>
> 2. The closely spaced shots at the end of the shooting sequence, to which
> several witnesses testified to,
"several"???
> are likely an impression resulting from
> the sound of the rifle firing, the shock wave of the bullet, the sickening
> "pop" that occurred when the bullet struck Kennedy's head, and the
> reverberation of the sound echoing in the underpass -
No, that is not likely at all, David.
What is likely, is that they heard a bunch of gunshots then.
> creating a cacophony
> of sounds to which those riding in the limousine (or directly next to the
> limousine) would be particularly susceptible. Hell, for those in close
> proximity, it probably sounded like machine gun fire.
>
> 3. Your claiming the Tague bullet was this missed shot at Z-285? Are you
> claiming this bullet hit some part of the limousine? If so, which part? If
> not, why was the bullet that struck the curb stripped of its copper
> jacket?
No, the bullet didn't hit the limousine, David. It hit the pavement on
Main St and shattered.
Robert Harris
>
> Great video - just not compelling to my way of thinking. Good research!
>
> David Emerling
> Memphis, TN
Ben Holmes
says...
You're treating the trolls as if they were honest, ordinary people.
They aren't, of course.
John Canal
says...
>
>In article <fohrp...@drn.newsguy.com>,
> John Canal <John_...@newsguy.com> wrote:
>
>> In article <reharris1-0B489...@news.verizon.net>, Robert Harris
>> says...
>> >
>> >In article
>> ><e0d4c9dd-37c0-4b90...@e6g2000prf.googlegroups.com>,
>> > Chuck Schuyler <chu...@am-mtg.com> wrote:
>> >
>> >> On Feb 6, 11:51 am, Robert Harris <reharr...@yahoo.com> wrote:
<BOTTOM POST>
Perhaps an analogy might convey to you how I feel about refuting your
arguments, Robert. Let's say:
1. There are two men in a room that is locked from the inside and
outside--neither has any chance of getting out....and no one can get in.
2. There are five cameras recording, along with a dozen spectators behind
one-way glass watching their every move.
3. The taller fellow strangles the shorter guy to death.
Case closed--no mystery--wrap it up--I don't need to answer questions,
perhaps, such as how the taller guy could pull that off when he had a
broken arm. I just don't frickin care....there are other more important
matters to take care of.
Now, I'm not trying to say that the JFK assassination was as cut and dry
as my example, but you get the idea....and the bottom line is that I'd say
about 90% of all the folks who have studied this case, CT or LN, feel the
same way about your theory.
That's just the way I feel, Robert--if you think I'm narrow minded, well
fine--I'll just have to live with that.
And, BTW, if you are positing there were two hits to the head, where is
your evidence?...I hope it's not the "Dog ate my evidence" kind...or that
HB&F were all blind in one eye and had trouble seeing out of the other
one. :-)
John Canal
Chuck Schuyler
How do I offer a rebuttal, Bob?
There were three shots fired-that's it. Most people only reported three
shots, and that matches quite nicely with three spent shells recovered on
the TSBD 6th floor that are a match to the Carcano found on the same floor
determined to have been owned by Lee Oswald-who rapidly fled the scene of
the murder and was later ID'ed as the gunman that killed JD Tippit. It
also dovetails quite well with witness reports that a weapon was
heard/felt blasting away right over their heads (the fifth floor
witnesses) and several people from the street below who saw a rifle being
fired from the building. Simple.
There isn't a D.A. in the country who wouldn't have loved prosecuting
Oswald for this crime.
This case is only complicated in Kookville. Unfortunately, you live there.
In fact, you may be the mayor.
Are you going to lie at this newsgroup and announce that if humble Chuck
can find some sort of boffo piece of evidence, that it might change your
mind about conspriacy?
Who are you kidding?
If you live to be 100 years old, you'll still believe JFK was killed by a
conspiracy. Nothing will change your mind. You are unreachable.
Ben Holmes
Sounds like an argument that "we don't need to examine the evidence"... and, of
course, that sort of argument is silly on the face of it.
>Now, I'm not trying to say that the JFK assassination was as cut and dry
>as my example, but you get the idea....and the bottom line is that I'd say
>about 90% of all the folks who have studied this case, CT or LN, feel the
>same way about your theory.
Would you like to put it to a poll?
>That's just the way I feel, Robert--if you think I'm narrow minded, well
>fine--I'll just have to live with that.
>
>And, BTW, if you are positing there were two hits to the head, where is
>your evidence?...
Ouch!! I just keep waiting for that mythical "honest LNT'er", but they just
don't seem to exist.
Robert has provided quite convincing evidence for two hits on JFK's head - and
this LNT'er is *surely* aware of it.
Chuck Schuyler
> Robert has provided quite convincing evidence for two hits on JFK's head - and
> this LNT'er is *surely* aware of it.
Then stop goofing around here, and hurry up and get the case reopened,
b*tch.
Take your "poll results" to your local congressperson and demand to
have the case reinvestigated.
I suspect that a nice, crew-cut sporting man wearing a blue uniform
and a shiny badge on his chest will be called to escort you back to
your rusted-out 1976 AMC Pacer so you can drive back to your dinky
home to wait for your sub-prime mortgage to adjust.
Kook Holmes thinks Kook Harris has "convincing evidence" for two hits
on JFK's head!
But, GOSH DARN IT, we can't get the AUTHORITIES interested!
Isn't that just ANOTHER tough break for "your side"?
Is everyone still afraid of sparking a World War because the REAL
TRUTH is just too terrible?
You guys are hilarious!!! Keep the theories, plots, suspects etc.
coming! There's always room for another one!
Bud
Ben Holmes wrote:
> In article <reharris1-3E92A...@news.verizon.net>, Robert Harris
> says...
> >
> >In article
> ><cbba2630-41e2-49b4...@e23g2000prf.googlegroups.com>,
> > Chuck Schuyler <chu...@am-mtg.com> wrote:
> >
> >> On Feb 5, 10:33�pm, Robert Harris <reharr...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> >> > I don't expect anyone to agree with or even acknowledge this video. But
> >> > I cannot fathom how anyone can see it and remain convinced that only one
> >> > shooter was involved in the JFK assassination.
> >> >
> >> > There is a lot that I couldn't fit into 10 minutes, but that which I
> >> > could, does a decent job of showing you what I have been talking about
> >> > for thirteen years.
> >> >
> >> > http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ql6VqZDiC6s
> >> >
> >> > Not only that, but I never use the word "decibel" - not even once!
> >> >
> >> > Robert Harris
> >>
> >> You are dazzled by your own brilliance.
> >>
> >> I don't "see" any of the things you purport, and I watched all 10
> >> minutes of the video.
> >
> >Sure you did, Chuck.
>
>
> Yep, of course he did. But trolls lie, that's what trolls do. No doubt he
> holds lurkers intelligence in low regard, he might actually believe that lurkers
> wouldn't take the 10 minutes to view the same video.
Looks like my crystal ball is working, I predicted this same
reaction if I bothered to look at what Bob is presenting a few weeks
back. Kooks have been seeing what they want to in the evidence from
the begining, seeing cops with badges in blurs. Still goes on today,
with kook claims recently about what can "plainly" be seen in the
Powell and Weaver photos.The kooks can see signs of conspiracy in
every piece of evidence and every aspect of the case, begging the
question how it is they can`t expose and show this conspiracy.
Not trying to address Harris`s work, I haven`t looked at it, just
offering some random general thoughts...
I think Harris says 5 shots, with two misses. Why did they use
snipers who couldn`t shoot, and assuming they intended to hit, how did
they figure they were going to explain all the bullet wounds in
Kennedy`s bullet riddled body?
Harris calls these movements "reactions", assuming what he is try
to prove.
> >You saw the same thing I saw and the same thing that Larry Sturdevan and
> >a dozen other conspiracy deniers have already confirmed, back in the
> >days when some of your predecessors at least had the courage to try to
> >explain away those reactions.
>
> This is why this forum has no LNT'ers... only trolls. LNT'ers *can't* explain
> it, so they hide in a censored group where they can't be called on their lies.
<snicker> Ben seems to think it`s the job of rational people to
dissuade irrational people of their believes. Perhaps prior LN gave up
trying to talk sense into people determined to believe stupid things.
> >Sorry, my friend, but your own people blew it for you a long time ago.
> >You can't get away with the "see no evil" pitch anymore:-)
> >
> >>
> >> Bugliosi is right...CT'ers have made this murder into the most complex
> >> crime of all time.
>
> Is this the same Bugliosi who argued a conspiracy in the RFK and JFK cases in
> court?
In court, representing a client, a lawyer isn`t expressing his
personal beliefs, idjit. He expressed his beliefs in the book he wrote
on the subject.
> The same one who ran away from answering the 16 Smoking Guns?
Why are kooks running away from addressing the points Bugs made in
his book?
> >There is nothing even slightly complex about a handful of guys taking
> >part in an attack like that. It happens every day or so in Iraq, and
> >it's happened a zillion times before, all over the world.
> >
> >>
> >> ...and a shooter in the Dal-Tex building? Is this in addition to a guy
> >> on the knoll and your pet theory that some poor schlub squatting in
> >> the Elm St. sewer took a shot at JFK?
> >
> >I don't know what a schlub is, Chuck, but Johnny Roselli claimed he shot
> >JFK from that storm drain. He was one of the heads of Op Mongoose, and
> >told a senate committee a great deal about the JFK assassination, as
> >well as Jack Anderson.
> >
> >Shortly thereafter, he was chopped up and stuffed in an oildrum.
> >
> >Is that what you mean by a "poor schlub", Chuck?
> >
> >Robert Harris
> >
> >>
> >> With all of these extra shots zipping around Dealey, what is your
> >> explanation for the fact that most witnesses only heard three shots?
>
> What is *YOUR* explanation for why the FBI was telling eyewitnesses that number?
Can you produce one witness who thought they heard a different
number, and was coerced by the FBI to report 3?
How many did the media report shortly after the event?
> How do *YOU* explain the eyewitnesses who reported more?
Establishes as fact that witnesses are unreliable to establish
things as fact.
> What is *YOUR*
> explanation for why some eyewitnesses complained that the FBI didn't write down
> what they said,
Perhaps the FBI didn`t.
> and indeed, changed things?
How many explainations can there be when a person makes a claim, or
there is a dispute between what one person says and another does about
the same event?
> When you can answer these
> questions, the answer to yours will be crystal clear.
When you can show that a few instances of these things aren`t to be
expected in a case with thousands of witnesses, you will have made a
point. To establish these things are abnormal, you must first
establish the norm.
Walt
> In article <fol0a601...@drn.newsguy.com>, John Canal says...
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> >In article <reharris1-E620EB.09374509022...@news.verizon.net>, Robert Harris
> >says...
>
> >>In article <fohrp00...@drn.newsguy.com>,
> >> John Canal <John_mem...@newsguy.com> wrote:
>
> >>> In article <reharris1-0B489B.14464807022...@news.verizon.net>, Robert Harris
> >>> says...
>
> >>> >In article
> >>> ><e0d4c9dd-37c0-4b90-8a2a-571b272d2...@e6g2000prf.googlegroups.com>,
Yer right, Ben.... An honest LNer is an oxymoron.... ( well ok, just
moron is close enough)
The reason there is no such thing as an honest LNer is because the
very essence of their position is a lie.
Lee Oswald was NOT a lone nut killer.....The evidence reveals that he
was not the killer that Lyin Bastard Johnson's hand picked committe
portrayed him to be. The LIE started with Lyin Bastard Johnson the
gutless LNer's have chose to believe the lie and therefore there is no
such thing as an honest LNer.
>
> Robert has provided quite convincing evidence for two hits on JFK's head - and
> this LNT'er is *surely* aware of it.
>
>
>
> >I hope it's not the "Dog ate my evidence" kind...or that
> >HB&F were all blind in one eye and had trouble seeing out of the other
> >one. :-)
>
> >John Canal- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
Bud
lazuli...@webtv.net wrote:
> My simple request is that posters stop referring to assassins firing
> from "sewers".
<snicker> Kooks have been calling a damaged bullet "pristine" for
decades.
>This would be a physical impossibility, once it is
> apparent just what the definition of a sewer entails. Now, if one uses
> the term "storm drain", this opens up a logical sniper position, with an
> opening large enough to accommodate a person right on Elm Street near
> the Grassy Knoll, and having its outlet at the Trinity River--a
> difficult, but not impossible escape route.
Where the assassin boarded the mini-sub waiting to pick him up.
C`mon, punch up the plot.
> -----Old Laz, unlike some here, not willing to commit sewercide
muc...@gmail.com
> In article <6150fd8d-7a87-4a10-9cc7-00ed611fd...@i7g2000prf.googlegroups.com>,
Well, Ben, unless you can back up those sweeping generalizations of
yours (e.g. about LN'ers routinely lying about the evidence) with hard
statistical data, it seems you're the liar and coward around here. And
that's according to your own rules, so don't just take my word for
it...
aeffects
> On Feb 7, 4:50 pm, Ben Holmes <ad...@khadaji.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> > In article <ac35aec1-8283-4066-82a8-c688e2896...@s12g2000prg.googlegroups.com>,
> > johnise...@aol.com says...
>
> > >On Feb 7, 9:39=EF=BF=BDam, Ben Holmes <ad...@khadaji.com> wrote:
> > >> In article <a8bb538a-5421-42cd-9b80-792c30d04...@i72g2000hsd.googlegroups.=
> > >com>,
> > >> johnise...@aol.com says...
>
> > >> >On Feb 5, 11:33=3DEF=3DBF=3DBDpm, Robert Harris <reharr...@yahoo.com> wro=
> > >te:
> > >> >> I don't expect anyone to agree with or even acknowledge this video.
>
> > >> >---> Good.
>
> > >> >> But
> > >e
> > >> >> shooter was involved in the JFK assassination.
>
> > >could
> > >> >have a different point of view on the matter. =EF=BF=BDMost fanatics,
> > >> >obsessives, jihadists, etc. have the same problem: they cannot fathom
> > >> >how anyone could think differently than they think.
>
> > >> >> There is a lot that I couldn't fit into 10 minutes, but that which I
> > >> >> for thirteen years.
>
> > >> >---> Did you fit in evidence of your claim that Roselli was in the
>
> > >> >Still no evidence of a Z285 shot, either.
>
> > >> >How many years have you been doing this?
>
>
> > >> >> Not only that, but I never use the word "decibel" - not even once!
>
> > >> >> Robert Harris
>
> > >> Like most LNT'ers... a complete absence of any debate on the evidence.
>
> > >---> Like most fanatics, a presumption that everyone else must dance
> > >to your tune. You don't get to make the rules. It's an open forum
> > >here.
>
> > Just pointing out the facts... LNT'ers can't discuss the evidence - since
> > virtually anything they say will be quickly refuted.
>
> > only one LNT'er try to answer that - and his one example was quickly demolished.
>
> > him or her - the less they saw and heard.
>
>
> > But you'll run from this - all LNT'ers seem to do so...
>
>
> > >---> Strawman. The evidence shows LHO was the killer of YOUR
> > >president.
>
> > Name it... let's see what evidence you're willing to give up.
>
> > negative - yet EVERY SINGLE COMPARATIVE TEST MADE DEMONSTRATED THAT A NEGATIVE
> > RESULT *NEVER* HAPPENED WITH ANY SHOOTER WHO FIRED A MC.
>
> > shake this evidence loose. Tell us - what National Security implications did
> > this evidence have?
>
>
>
> > >---> As do CTs.
>
> > Jump right in, quote *ANYTHING* I say and produce the citation that makes it a
> > lie.
>
>
> > >> yesterday, or they run from the evidence, and refuse to get specific, as
> > >> Johniselin demonstrates today.
>
> > >---> An example of a lie.
>
> > Oh? Johniselin tried to imply that just a few eyewitnesses spoke of the later
> > shots being bunched up.
>
>
>
> > >I'm surprised you fall so easily into a
> > >trap of your own making. Where is the evidence that Johnny Roselli
> > >was in the sewer shooting at JFK (that RH asserted, in case you missed
> > >it)? Where is the evidence of a shooter in the Dal-Tex building? A
> > >shot at Z285? Most of us have asked repeatedly for such evidence and
> > >are still waiting ... after all these years. We're not running away
> > >at all. We're just tired of waiting.
>
> > You say you've provided an example of a "lie" on my part - yet you haven't
> > quoted it. Nor have you discussed ANYTHING that I spoke of. Why is that?
>
>
> > - Show quoted text -
>
> example of
> a "lie" on my part - or QUOTE ME?
>
> That's a lie. You've proven it. Case closed. Next?
that the best the pathetic Lone Nut has to offer -- ROTFLMFAO!
sitdown twerp, the big boys are in town... (GWAD what an idiot)
aeffects
> On Feb 9, 10:31 pm, Ben Holmes <ad...@khadaji.com> wrote:
>
> > Robert has provided quite convincing evidence for two hits on JFK's head - and
> > this LNT'er is *surely* aware of it.
>
> Then stop goofing around here, and hurry up and get the case reopened,
> b*tch.
>
> Take your "poll results" to your local congressperson and demand to
> have the case reinvestigated.
>
> I suspect that a nice, crew-cut sporting man wearing a blue uniform
> and a shiny badge on his chest will be called to escort you back to
> your rusted-out 1976 AMC Pacer so you can drive back to your dinky
> home to wait for your sub-prime mortgage to adjust.
>
> Kook Holmes thinks Kook Harris has "convincing evidence" for two hits
> on JFK's head!
oh really...?
5. Sidetrack opponents with name calling and ridicule. This is also
known as the primary attack the messenger ploy, though other methods
qualify as variants of that approach. Associate opponents with
unpopular titles such as "kooks", "right-wing", "liberal", "left-
wing", "terrorists", "conspiracy buffs", "radicals", "militia",
"racists", "religious fanatics", "sexual deviates", and so forth. This
makes others shrink from support out of fear of gaining the same
label, and you avoid dealing with issues.
<snip the Lone Nut idiocy>
Bud
Ben Holmes wrote:
> In article <ac35aec1-8283-4066...@s12g2000prg.googlegroups.com>,
> johni...@aol.com says...
So was he. You don`t get to make the rules. Your opinions aren`t
facts.
> LNT'ers can't discuss the evidence - since
> virtually anything they say will be quickly refuted.
Disputed, not refuted.
> As merely one example - name a *SINGLE* eyewitness that you believe.
Name a human being who is infallible.
> I've had
> only one LNT'er try to answer that - and his one example was quickly demolished.
>
> You *can't* believe any eyewitnesses -
Sure we can. But we have to view the information they relate in the
proper context.
>for the more solidly you *can* believe
> him or her - the less they saw and heard.
>
> All of the critical eyewitnesses, YOU CAN'T BELIEVE!
Sure we can. But we keep in mind that for the most part, we are
talking about the impressions garnered from witnesses about a surpise
attack lasting a few seconds. So, it isn`t a question of believing
them, it`s a question of knowing what you are dealing with (fallible
human beings), and context (confused conditions).
> But you'll run from this - all LNT'ers seem to do so...
As usual, you structure your question in a dishonest manner. A
better question would be what is the reason to assume any information
supplied by a witness under these conditions must be factual and
accurate?
> >> Natural, of course, because the evidence simply doesn't support the WCR.
> >>
> >
> >---> Strawman. The evidence shows LHO was the killer of YOUR
> >president.
>
>
> Name it... let's see what evidence you're willing to give up.
What would be the point? The kooks have rote answers for all the
evidence against Oz. They have the advantage of not really trying to
determine what happened, but merely looking to dispute the official
version.
> But, just to step out first - I'll offer the fact that Oswald's cheek cast was0
> negative - yet EVERY SINGLE COMPARATIVE TEST MADE DEMONSTRATED THAT A NEGATIVE
> RESULT *NEVER* HAPPENED WITH ANY SHOOTER WHO FIRED A MC.
Provide these test results. You`ve never seen them.
> The WC, of course, was forced to bury this - and it took a FOIA court case to
> shake this evidence loose. Tell us - what National Security implications did
> this evidence have?
Stop making claims about evidence you haven`t seen and can`t
produce. If this evidence showed what you claim, why did Weisburg bury
the results?
> And how do you explain that every single comparative test came out positive?
How do you support this claim? "Howard said..."?
> >> LNT'ers either simply lie about the evidence,
> >
> >---> As do CTs.
>
>
> Jump right in, quote *ANYTHING* I say and produce the citation that makes it a
> lie.
I`ve done that on a number of occasions.
> I won't be holding my breath.
If he does what you demand, you will only deny it was done anyway.
> >> as David illustrated for us
> >> yesterday, or they run from the evidence, and refuse to get specific, as
> >> Johniselin demonstrates today.
> >
> >---> An example of a lie.
>
> Oh? Johniselin tried to imply that just a few eyewitnesses spoke of the later
> shots being bunched up.
Now it`s "imply". Couldn`t be Ben read more into what he said then
he intended?
> Yet he lied about this... as I demonstrated with a quote from the WC.
>
>
> And yet, strangely enough - you don't mention this fact at ALL below:
Because he didn`t lie. You did when you branded him a liar.
> >I'm surprised you fall so easily into a
> >trap of your own making. Where is the evidence that Johnny Roselli
> >was in the sewer shooting at JFK (that RH asserted, in case you missed
> >it)? Where is the evidence of a shooter in the Dal-Tex building? A
> >shot at Z285? Most of us have asked repeatedly for such evidence and
> >are still waiting ... after all these years. We're not running away
> >at all. We're just tired of waiting.
>
>
> You say you've provided an example of a "lie" on my part - yet you haven't
> quoted it. Nor have you discussed ANYTHING that I spoke of. Why is that?
He already explained to how this is an open forum. Pay attention.
> Would you care to either retract your assertion that you've given an example of
> a "lie" on my part - or QUOTE ME?
What Ben means is try to convince him he told a lie.
Robert Harris
<a94fd53b-460d-4d42...@f10g2000hsf.googlegroups.com>,
Burly...@gmail.com wrote:
I address countless replies whether they agree or not. But there are a
couple of the trolls that I just won't deal with beyond labelling them
as the pathetic human trash that they are.
"johniselin" is one of of them. There are only 2 or 3 others I have
encountered since 1994 (one of them a CT), that are in that class. There
is simply no point in trying to communicate with that kind of individual.
Robert Harris
Robert Harris
John Canal <John_...@newsguy.com> wrote:
John, that is not only one of the goofiest arguments I have ever heard,
it is also one of the lamest excuses I have ever seen, for evading the
facts and evidence.
Did it ever occur to you, that if you really had evidence supporting a
single assassin scenario, you wouldn't have to make up a fantasy like
that?
I tell you what, John, since you refuse to tackle my arguments, as you
have a few dozen other conspiracy claims, why don't you just itemize
your proof that Oswald acted alone??
Let's make it easier yet. What are the three best pieces of evidence
your have, that proves Oswald acted alone?
> but you get the idea....
No, I don't.
You are PRETENDING that this is an open and shut case, all the while
knowing that you can't justify your claim, to save your proverbial life.
> and the bottom line is that I'd say
> about 90% of all the folks who have studied this case, CT or LN, feel the
> same way about your theory.
I'm not so sure about that - beyond the hard core members of .john's
team, anyway.
But if you are right, then I guess I need to work a little harder.
>
> That's just the way I feel,
Maybe you need to stop feeling and start thinking a bit more:-)
> Robert--if you think I'm narrow minded, well
> fine--I'll just have to live with that.
>
> And, BTW, if you are positing there were two hits to the head, where is
> your evidence?...I hope it's not the "Dog ate my evidence" kind...or that
> HB&F were all blind in one eye and had trouble seeing out of the other
> one. :-)
Watch it, if you can summon the courage, john.
http://youtube.com/watch?v=IVfIh-8nXyQ
Robert Harris
Robert Harris
<1d6356ec-ad43-48c0...@s8g2000prg.googlegroups.com>,
Chuck Schuyler <chu...@am-mtg.com> wrote:
> On Feb 9, 1:17 pm, Robert Harris <reharr...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> How do I offer a rebuttal, Bob?
Well, you start off by saying, "Bob, you are wrong in claiming that just
because 5 people reacted in perfect unison, and they all described shots
at the same time they reacted, that there really was a shot then, because
....(fill in the blank)."
On other issues, you will need to alter the verbiage Chuck. But perhaps,
you can find other conspiracy deniers who will be able to help you more
than I can.
>
> There were three shots fired-that's it.
You see, the problem with that statement Chuck, is you forgot to prove it.
You forgot to explain why people heard, and reacted to a flurry of shots
at the end, why they never heard or reacted to the second shot, and why
the first one, which hit the street sounded so much different and weaker
than the others.
Those are the facts which belie your claim, Chuck. And what is really
laughable, is that you are basing that conclusion on the same witnesses
whom you call looney tunes when they are describing the spacing of the
shots, or in other ways, confirming multiple assassins.
You want them to be idiots when they disagree with you, and infallible
when they don't.
Of course, this is part of the reason you don't defend your claims, right
Chuck:-)
> Most people only reported three
> shots, and that matches quite nicely with three spent shells recovered on
> the TSBD 6th floor that are a match to the Carcano found on the same floor
> determined to have been owned by Lee Oswald-who rapidly fled the scene of
> the murder and was later ID'ed as the gunman that killed JD Tippit. It
> also dovetails quite well with witness reports that a weapon was
> heard/felt blasting away right over their heads (the fifth floor
> witnesses) and several people from the street below who saw a rifle being
> fired from the building. Simple.
Wow! Everything sure is "nice" in your world, Chuck.
But why do you continue to tell me that Oswald was involved in the
shooting, when I have told you on countless occasions that he probably
was??
Are you so desperate to try to find something to beat me on, that you
have to pretend that I claimed Oswald was innocent:-)
>
> There isn't a D.A. in the country who wouldn't have loved prosecuting
> Oswald for this crime.
That's nice.
>
> This case is only complicated in Kookville. Unfortunately, you live there.
> In fact, you may be the mayor.
I'm sorry you have to lower yourself to this level, Chuck - especially
in a newsgroup in which you know I will not be allowed to reply in kind.
I understand how bitter you are, but this is not a religion, Chuck. It's
a murder case, and one in which we are blessed with a vast quantity of
evidence, that you need to stop ignoring.
>
> Are you going to lie at this newsgroup and announce that if humble Chuck
> can find some sort of boffo piece of evidence, that it might change your
> mind about conspriacy?
I never lie Chuck, er.. at least not about the case.
I would cheerfully support your side and you don't even have to find any
spectacular evidence. Just refute my arguments on the Z285 shot, and I'm
your man.
When do the checks go out?
>
> Who are you kidding?
Let's see now, you fantasized yourself finding "boffo" evidence and then
fantasized that I would evade it, and then fantasized that I would lie
about it.
I guess I should hang my head in shame:-)
>
> If you live to be 100 years old, you'll still believe JFK was killed by a
> conspiracy. Nothing will change your mind. You are unreachable.
LOL!!
I have a proposition for you Chuck. I'll give you $200 for every time
you previously admitted in the newsgroups that you were wrong and you
give me $100 for every time I admitted I was wrong.
Do we have a bet?
Robert Harris
Walt
> On Feb 9, 1:17 pm, Robert Harris <reharr...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> How do I offer a rebuttal, Bob?
>
There were three shots fired-that's it. Most people only reported three
shots, and that matches quite nicely with three spent shells recovered on
the TSBD 6th floor
Sounds simple..doesn't it.... If you just ignore the actually
physical evidence that there were at least six shots fired.
1) A bullet hit the curb near James Teague
2) A bullet that made a furrow in the grass near the concrete apron
around the manhole cover on the south side of Elm street
3) A bullet struck the chrome molding near the rear view miiror of the
Lincoln
4) A bullet struck John Connally
5) A bullet struck JFK in the throat
6) A bullet struck the street behind the Lincoln ( possibly they same
bullet from #5 above)
7) A bullet struck Jfk in the head
It all adds up.....for Chuckie. Three shots in 5.6 seconds which
created at least 6 hits.... two of which were from opposite
directions.
It's really simple when yer a simpleton........
John Canal
According to you, that is.
>it is also one of the lamest excuses I have ever seen, for evading the
>facts and evidence.
According to you, that is.
>Did it ever occur to you, that if you really had evidence supporting a
>single assassin scenario,
Oh, so there's really no evidence to support a siongle assassin
conclusion? LOL!!!!!
Have you even glimsed at the WC volumes?
>you wouldn't have to make up a fantasy like
>that?
Just trying, unsuccessfully to get my point across.
>I tell you what, John, since you refuse to tackle my arguments, as you
>have a few dozen other conspiracy claims, why don't you just itemize.
BINOO! You're helping to make my point. You said a few dozen other
conspiracy claims...heck why didn't you say the 100 or so other different
ones? And, earth to Robert, it's not even possible that more than one
could be accurate. If someone addressed all those theories their book
would be bigger than RH.
>your proof that Oswald acted alone??
Good grief, you've heard it all already and have an answer for every bit
of it.....but how about you honor this request and I'll honor your
request...not that we [yes, you and I] haven't been over this before.
Ok, list here, by name,_________ all the researchers who agree with you on
the major points of your theory. Those major points would be: 1. At what
Z-frame was each shot was fired?, 2) What was the location of each
shooter?, 3) Where were the entry and exit points on JFK?, 4) Who (LHO?)
fired the shots?, and 5) Who was behind the conspiracy?
And here are two conditions---1) the list must be more than three,
(besides yourself), and 2) Those who you name must be 100% behind
you...IOW, none of this, "Well, he could be right", stuff.--if these
conditions aren't met, we're done--and if you can't understand why, I'm
sorry for that, but we're still done.
John Canal
Bud
Robert Harris wrote:
> In article
> <1d6356ec-ad43-48c0...@s8g2000prg.googlegroups.com>,
> Chuck Schuyler <chu...@am-mtg.com> wrote:
>
> > On Feb 9, 1:17�pm, Robert Harris <reharr...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> >
> > How do I offer a rebuttal, Bob?
>
> Well, you start off by saying, "Bob, you are wrong in claiming that just
> because 5 people reacted in perfect unison, and they all described shots
> at the same time they reacted, that there really was a shot then, because
> ....(fill in the blank)."
Bob, you are wrong because you have zero witness support for 3 loud
shots and 2 soft shots. You have meager witness support for multiple
directions/locations for the origin of the shots.
> On other issues, you will need to alter the verbiage Chuck. But perhaps,
> you can find other conspiracy deniers who will be able to help you more
> than I can.
I`ll do what I can, provided I don`t have to put a lot of time into
it. I hate conspiracy mongers.
> > There were three shots fired-that's it.
>
> You see, the problem with that statement Chuck, is you forgot to prove it.
The witnesses largely reported three large bangs. You have to pound
your square peg of a theory into the round peg reality of three loud
bangs.
> You forgot to explain why people heard, and reacted to a flurry of shots
> at the end, why they never heard or reacted to the second shot,
You can see through the Stemmons sign? I can see JFK reacting to
the second shot as he emerges from behind it.
And where do you see witnesses jumping out of their skin from the
first shot, the one witnesses placed shortly after the limo turned
onto Elm?
>and why
> the first one, which hit the street sounded so much different and weaker
> than the others.
You only have three loud noises to work with, Bob. If you use one
here, you have only two left.
> Those are the facts which belie your claim, Chuck. And what is really
> laughable, is that you are basing that conclusion on the same witnesses
> whom you call looney tunes when they are describing the spacing of the
> shots, or in other ways, confirming multiple assassins.
Not all information is created equally. There is information that
is easier, and less prone to error, like being aware of how many loud
noises they heard. Putting together exact sequencing of event using
the impressions of confused and frightenened witnesses under attack is
a bit more prone to error.
> You want them to be idiots when they disagree with you, and infallible
> when they don't.
As do you. Kellerman puts the last two shots very close together,
others (like Nellie Connally) put considerable time betwen them. How
do you reconcile this incompatible information?
> Of course, this is part of the reason you don't defend your claims, right
> Chuck:-)
Chuck, being an LN, tends to go to the source of the problem. In
this case, it`s usually not the material, but the person looking at
the material that is source of the problem.
> > Most people only reported three
> > shots, and that matches quite nicely with three spent shells recovered on
> > the TSBD 6th floor that are a match to the Carcano found on the same floor
> > determined to have been owned by Lee Oswald-who rapidly fled the scene of
> > the murder and was later ID'ed as the gunman that killed JD Tippit. It
> > also dovetails quite well with witness reports that a weapon was
> > heard/felt blasting away right over their heads (the fifth floor
> > witnesses) and several people from the street below who saw a rifle being
> > fired from the building. Simple.
>
> Wow! Everything sure is "nice" in your world, Chuck.
>
> But why do you continue to tell me that Oswald was involved in the
> shooting, when I have told you on countless occasions that he probably
> was??
All these years looking at this case, and you can even draw that
simple conclusion?
> Are you so desperate to try to find something to beat me on, that you
> have to pretend that I claimed Oswald was innocent:-)
Your inability to come to a conclusion on this simple matter draws
into question your ability to look into more complex matters, and
speaks to your credibility. Why would I invest time following what
such a person had to say?
> > There isn't a D.A. in the country who wouldn't have loved prosecuting
> > Oswald for this crime.
>
> That's nice.
The truth usually is.
> > This case is only complicated in Kookville. Unfortunately, you live there.
> > In fact, you may be the mayor.
>
> I'm sorry you have to lower yourself to this level, Chuck - especially
> in a newsgroup in which you know I will not be allowed to reply in kind.
Yah, I saw this on the moderated board, and it should not have been
allowed. I`m taking that group out of the header so I can say what I
want.
> I understand how bitter you are, but this is not a religion, Chuck. It's
> a murder case, and one in which we are blessed with a vast quantity of
> evidence, that you need to stop ignoring.
>
> >
> > Are you going to lie at this newsgroup and announce that if humble Chuck
> > can find some sort of boffo piece of evidence, that it might change your
> > mind about conspriacy?
>
> I never lie Chuck, er.. at least not about the case.
>
> I would cheerfully support your side and you don't even have to find any
> spectacular evidence. Just refute my arguments on the Z285 shot, and I'm
> your man.
>
> When do the checks go out?
>
>
> >
> > Who are you kidding?
>
> Let's see now, you fantasized yourself finding "boffo" evidence and then
> fantasized that I would evade it, and then fantasized that I would lie
> about it.
>
> I guess I should hang my head in shame:-)
>
>
> >
> > If you live to be 100 years old, you'll still believe JFK was killed by a
> > conspiracy. Nothing will change your mind. You are unreachable.
>
> LOL!!
>
> I have a proposition for you Chuck. I'll give you $200 for every time
> you previously admitted in the newsgroups that you were wrong and you
> give me $100 for every time I admitted I was wrong.
>
> Do we have a bet?
Being wrong a lot isn`t a virtue, Bob.
>
>
>
> Robert Harris
Robert Harris
<c1f374b0-7211-43e5...@l1g2000hsa.googlegroups.com>,
Bud <sirs...@fast.net> wrote:
> Robert Harris wrote:
> > In article
> > <1d6356ec-ad43-48c0...@s8g2000prg.googlegroups.com>,
> > Chuck Schuyler <chu...@am-mtg.com> wrote:
> >
> > > On Feb 9, 1:17?pm, Robert Harris <reharr...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > >
> > > How do I offer a rebuttal, Bob?
> >
> > Well, you start off by saying, "Bob, you are wrong in claiming that just
> > because 5 people reacted in perfect unison, and they all described shots
> > at the same time they reacted, that there really was a shot then, because
> > ....(fill in the blank)."
>
> Bob, you are wrong because you have zero witness support for 3 loud
> shots and 2 soft shots. You have meager witness support for multiple
> directions/locations for the origin of the shots.
Bud, there were TWO loud shots - almost certainly, fired from high
powered rifles at 285 and 312, not three. I have more evidence to
support that, than you can count.
Likewise, I have truckloads of witnesses who confirm that the first
"noise" at 160 was a weak noise, and totally unlike the two loud ones.
It's true, that most witnesses did not hear the last shot, but a large
majority of the people who were in the area around Brehm, DID hear it.
And the evidence for that shot proves its existence beyond all doubt,
whether anyone heard it or not.
>
> > On other issues, you will need to alter the verbiage Chuck. But perhaps,
> > you can find other conspiracy deniers who will be able to help you more
> > than I can.
>
> I`ll do what I can, provided I don`t have to put a lot of time into
> it. I hate conspiracy mongers.
Then you are a very sick person indeed, Bud.
Do you actually hate everyone, who confirms the existence of crimes
involving two or more perps??
>
> > > There were three shots fired-that's it.
> >
> > You see, the problem with that statement Chuck, is you forgot to prove it.
>
> The witnesses largely reported three large bangs.
LOL!!
But haven't you and Chuck been claiming that these poor witnesses were
totally confused and unreliable??
When did they get so smart, Bud:-)
> You have to pound
> your square peg of a theory into the round peg reality of three loud
> bangs.
Nonsense - you know very well, that those three shots included a single
noise that was totally different than the others, and then two closely
bunched shots at the end.
That means that no-one heard the second shot at 223. Not only did they
not hear it, but they didn't react to it either.
>
> > You forgot to explain why people heard, and reacted to a flurry of shots
> > at the end, why they never heard or reacted to the second shot,
>
> You can see through the Stemmons sign? I can see JFK reacting to
> the second shot as he emerges from behind it.
You can't really be this stupid, Bud.
Of course JFK was hit then. So was Connally. But there were NO startle
reactions by the other passengers as there was following 285 and 312.
>
> And where do you see witnesses jumping out of their skin from the
> first shot, the one witnesses placed shortly after the limo turned
> onto Elm?
You don't Bud. As I have explained to you, 10 times before, the first
two shots were fired from a weapon bearing a suppressor. The ONLY noise
generated by the first shot was the result of it hitting the pavement
and shattering, causing a "firecracker" sound.
But the second shot did not hit the pavement, and so it was heard by
no-one.
That's why nearly every witness in DP that day, reported a single noise,
followed by several seconds of silence and then closely bunched shots at
the end.
>
> >and why
> > the first one, which hit the street sounded so much different and weaker
> > than the others.
>
> You only have three loud noises to work with, Bob. If you use one
> here, you have only two left.
I never said any such thing.
You need to work on reading comprehension, Bud. It doesn't get easier
with age, does it.
Watch my youtube videos, that will be a very good education for you,
Bud, and you won't have to struggle with the tiny print on your computer
screen:-)
Robert Harris
David Von Pein
Which, come to think of it, just might be the very reason that Lee
Oswald's first shot missed the limo entirely.
Maybe it was a partial misfire of some kind.
I'm no gun expert by any means...but isn't it possible that a rifle
shot can be a "dud" (i.e., a partial misfire but not a total
misfire).
Meaning -- The bullet was fired and the empty shell from that shot was
expended from the rifle's chamber, but the bullet came out of the
barrel of the gun at a 'weak-sister' velocity that made it miss its
target by a large (or small) margin?
If so, wouldn't a "weak-sister misfire" (as I'm calling it) produce a
different "weak-sisterish" kind of a sound -- vs. a fully-powered
2100+ fps fully-fired blast from LHO's MC rifle?
Food for (weak-sister round) thought anyway.
Gerry Simone (O)
your previous presentations were informative.
"Robert Harris" <reha...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:reharris1-4EDCC...@news.verizon.net...
>
> I don't expect anyone to agree with or even acknowledge this video. But
> I cannot fathom how anyone can see it and remain convinced that only one
> shooter was involved in the JFK assassination.
>
> There is a lot that I couldn't fit into 10 minutes, but that which I
> could, does a decent job of showing you what I have been talking about
> for thirteen years.
>
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ql6VqZDiC6s
Bud
Robert Harris wrote:
> In article
> <c1f374b0-7211-43e5...@l1g2000hsa.googlegroups.com>,
> Bud <sirs...@fast.net> wrote:
>
> > Robert Harris wrote:
> > > In article
> > > <1d6356ec-ad43-48c0...@s8g2000prg.googlegroups.com>,
> > > Chuck Schuyler <chu...@am-mtg.com> wrote:
> > >
> > > > On Feb 9, 1:17?pm, Robert Harris <reharr...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > How do I offer a rebuttal, Bob?
> > >
> > > Well, you start off by saying, "Bob, you are wrong in claiming that just
> > > because 5 people reacted in perfect unison, and they all described shots
> > > at the same time they reacted, that there really was a shot then, because
> > > ....(fill in the blank)."
> >
> > Bob, you are wrong because you have zero witness support for 3 loud
> > shots and 2 soft shots. You have meager witness support for multiple
> > directions/locations for the origin of the shots.
>
>
> Bud, there were TWO loud shots - almost certainly, fired from high
> powered rifles at 285 and 312, not three. I have more evidence to
> support that, than you can count.
But you don`t have what you need, witnesses reporting 3 loud and
two soft, or any combination that supports your theory.
> Likewise, I have truckloads of witnesses who confirm that the first
> "noise" at 160 was a weak noise, and totally unlike the two loud ones.
But still heard, and counted by witnesses as a shot. If they heard
a shot at 160, and one when JFK was hit and slumped, that only leaves
you one to work with. Which is the better candidate for a shot, 285 or
312.
> It's true, that most witnesses did not hear the last shot,
Didn`t you call the 312 shot very loud? Are you referring to a shot
after the 312 shot?
> but a large
> majority of the people who were in the area around Brehm, DID hear it.
> And the evidence for that shot proves its existence beyond all doubt,
> whether anyone heard it or not.
A shooter nobody saw taking a shot nobody heard? Nice theory.
> > > On other issues, you will need to alter the verbiage Chuck. But perhaps,
> > > you can find other conspiracy deniers who will be able to help you more
> > > than I can.
> >
> > I`ll do what I can, provided I don`t have to put a lot of time into
> > it. I hate conspiracy mongers.
>
> Then you are a very sick person indeed, Bud.
I feel fine. Maybe a little gassy.
> Do you actually hate everyone, who confirms the existence of crimes
> involving two or more perps??
Conspiracy mongers. Those that mong conspiracy.
> > > > There were three shots fired-that's it.
> > >
> > > You see, the problem with that statement Chuck, is you forgot to prove it.
> >
> > The witnesses largely reported three large bangs.
>
> LOL!!
>
> But haven't you and Chuck been claiming that these poor witnesses were
> totally confused and unreliable??
No, you are purposely misrepresenting our position (so much for
never lying about the case).
> When did they get so smart, Bud:-)
They were human, so we viewed them in that context. Lets try an
example, see if that helps (never does). An elephant with the left
tusk bigger than the right and a blue bow on the tail charges into a
crowd of people. I expect some of these folks not to take notice of
the different length tusks, and those that did notice say the wrong
tusk was the longer. I suspect many will miss the bow, and also
believe that some who did see it could report an erroneous color. But
I don`t expect many will miss the elephant.
> > You have to pound
> > your square peg of a theory into the round peg reality of three loud
> > bangs.
>
> Nonsense - you know very well, that those three shots included a single
> noise that was totally different than the others,
Did the witnesses count this as a shot or not, Harris?
> and then two closely
> bunched shots at the end.
Theres you full alotment of shots, leaving no rifle report to hit
Kennedy in the back, causing the slump many noted.
> That means that no-one heard the second shot at 223. Not only did they
> not hear it, but they didn't react to it either.
What about those "I heard a shot and saw Kennedy slump" witnesses?
> > > You forgot to explain why people heard, and reacted to a flurry of shots
> > > at the end, why they never heard or reacted to the second shot,
> >
> > You can see through the Stemmons sign? I can see JFK reacting to
> > the second shot as he emerges from behind it.
>
> You can't really be this stupid, Bud.
>
> Of course JFK was hit then. So was Connally. But there were NO startle
> reactions by the other passengers as there was following 285 and 312.
I wonder why....
http://www.assassinationresearch.com/zfilm/z218.jpg
But it`s interesting that no startle reactions seen when you *know*
there was a shot doesn`t leave you questioning your startle theory.
> > And where do you see witnesses jumping out of their skin from the
> > first shot, the one witnesses placed shortly after the limo turned
> > onto Elm?
>
> You don't Bud. As I have explained to you, 10 times before, the first
> two shots were fired from a weapon bearing a suppressor. The ONLY noise
> generated by the first shot was the result of it hitting the pavement
> and shattering, causing a "firecracker" sound.
And didn`t witnesses count this "firecracker sound" as a shot?
And don`t even suppressed shots cause a sonic boom as the bullet
reaches the speed of sound?
Extra credit question: What was the point of all these extra
shooters when Oz with his crappy rifle was the only person hitting
anything that day?
> But the second shot did not hit the pavement, and so it was heard by
> no-one.
A shot not seen or heard by anyone that hit no one?
> That's why nearly every witness in DP that day, reported a single noise,
> followed by several seconds of silence and then closely bunched shots at
> the end.
Many people reporting seeing JFK react to being hit with the (WC)
second shot. Name one reporting they heard no shots at the time they
saw this reaction. Don`t you think it would be worth a mention if you
saw someone shot when you didin`t hear a shot?
> > >and why
> > > the first one, which hit the street sounded so much different and weaker
> > > than the others.
> >
> > You only have three loud noises to work with, Bob. If you use one
> > here, you have only two left.
>
> I never said any such thing.
Thats all the witnesses are giving you to work with. Once you leave
that, you are making a mockery of your witness worship.
> You need to work on reading comprehension, Bud. It doesn't get easier
> with age, does it.
You are trying to work outside the "three shot" parameters set by
the witnesses. I`m pointing it out, and you are responding with ad
hominems (not that I have anything against them, I use them all the
time).
> Watch my youtube videos, that will be a very good education for you,
> Bud, and you won't have to struggle with the tiny print on your computer
> screen:-)
You`ve done nothing to instill convidence that it would be a
worthwhile expediture of my time.
Bud
Chuck Schuyler wrote:
> On Feb 9, 10:31�pm, Ben Holmes <ad...@khadaji.com> wrote:
>
> > Robert has provided quite convincing evidence for two hits on JFK's head - and
> > this LNT'er is *surely* aware of it.
>
> Then stop goofing around here, and hurry up and get the case reopened,
> b*tch.
>
> Take your "poll results" to your local congressperson and demand to
> have the case reinvestigated.
>
> I suspect that a nice, crew-cut sporting man wearing a blue uniform
> and a shiny badge on his chest will be called to escort you back to
> your rusted-out 1976 AMC Pacer so you can drive back to your dinky
> home to wait for your sub-prime mortgage to adjust.
>
> Kook Holmes thinks Kook Harris has "convincing evidence" for two hits
> on JFK's head!
Not only that, but Kook Holmes thinks the evidence that Kook Harris
is using as the foundation for his theory (the Z-film) is tampered
with.
Walt
> >>> "I have truckloads of witnesses who confirm that the first "noise" at 160 was a weak noise, and totally unlike the two loud ones." <<<
>
> Which, come to think of it, just might be the very reason that Lee
> Oswald's first shot missed the limo entirely.
>
> Maybe it was a partial misfire of some kind.
>
I'm no gun expert by any means...but isn't it possible that a rifle
shot can be a "dud" (i.e., a partial misfire but not a total
misfire).
It's quite obvious that you know nothing about modern firearms and
ammunition.
Modern ammunition does not misfire........ But I'm not surprised that
you would attempt to introduce that screwball idea... Because you
are after all a "screwball" who actually believes the bizarre SBT
( Simply Bullshit Theory)
Bud
Robert Harris wrote:
> In article
> <1d6356ec-ad43-48c0...@s8g2000prg.googlegroups.com>,
> Chuck Schuyler <chu...@am-mtg.com> wrote:
>
> > On Feb 9, 1:17�pm, Robert Harris <reharr...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> >
> > How do I offer a rebuttal, Bob?
>
> Well, you start off by saying, "Bob, you are wrong in claiming that just
> because 5 people reacted in perfect unison, and they all described shots
> at the same time they reacted, that there really was a shot then, because
> ....(fill in the blank)."
Bob, you are wrong because you have zero witness support for 3 loud
shots and 2 soft shots. You have meager witness support for multiple
directions/locations for the origin of the shots.
> On other issues, you will need to alter the verbiage Chuck. But perhaps,
> you can find other conspiracy deniers who will be able to help you more
> than I can.
I`ll do what I can, provided I don`t have to put a lot of time into
it. I hate conspiracy mongers.
> > There were three shots fired-that's it.
>
> You see, the problem with that statement Chuck, is you forgot to prove it.
The witnesses largely reported three large bangs. You have to pound
your square peg of a theory into the round peg reality of three loud
bangs.
> You forgot to explain why people heard, and reacted to a flurry of shots
> at the end, why they never heard or reacted to the second shot,
You can see through the Stemmons sign? I can see JFK reacting to the
second shot as he emerges from behind it.
And where do you see witnesses jumping out of their skin from the first
shot, the one witnesses placed shortly after the limo turned onto Elm?
>and why
> the first one, which hit the street sounded so much different and weaker
> than the others.
You only have three loud noises to work with, Bob. If you use one
here, you have only two left.
> Those are the facts which belie your claim, Chuck. And what is really
> laughable, is that you are basing that conclusion on the same witnesses
> whom you call looney tunes when they are describing the spacing of the
> shots, or in other ways, confirming multiple assassins.
Not all information is created equally. There is information that is
easier, and less prone to error, like being aware of how many loud noises
they heard. Putting together exact sequencing of event using the
impressions of confused and frightenened witnesses under attack is a bit
more prone to error.
> You want them to be idiots when they disagree with you, and infallible
> when they don't.
As do you. Kellerman puts the last two shots very close together, others
(like Nellie Connally) put considerable time betwen them. How do you
reconcile this incompatible information?
> Of course, this is part of the reason you don't defend your claims, right
> Chuck:-)
Chuck, being an LN, tends to go to the source of the problem. In this
case, it`s usually not the material, but the person looking at the
material that is source of the problem.
> > Most people only reported three
> > shots, and that matches quite nicely with three spent shells recovered on
> > the TSBD 6th floor that are a match to the Carcano found on the same floor
> > determined to have been owned by Lee Oswald-who rapidly fled the scene of
> > the murder and was later ID'ed as the gunman that killed JD Tippit. It
> > also dovetails quite well with witness reports that a weapon was
> > heard/felt blasting away right over their heads (the fifth floor
> > witnesses) and several people from the street below who saw a rifle being
> > fired from the building. Simple.
>
> Wow! Everything sure is "nice" in your world, Chuck.
>
> But why do you continue to tell me that Oswald was involved in the
> shooting, when I have told you on countless occasions that he probably
> was??
All these years looking at this case, and you can even draw that
simple conclusion?
> Are you so desperate to try to find something to beat me on, that you
> have to pretend that I claimed Oswald was innocent:-)
Your inability to come to a conclusion on this simple matter draws into
question your ability to look into more complex matters, and speaks to
your credibility. Why would I invest time following what such a person had
to say?
> > There isn't a D.A. in the country who wouldn't have loved prosecuting
> > Oswald for this crime.
>
> That's nice.
The truth usually is.
> > This case is only complicated in Kookville. Unfortunately, you live there.
> > In fact, you may be the mayor.
>
> I'm sorry you have to lower yourself to this level, Chuck - especially
> in a newsgroup in which you know I will not be allowed to reply in kind.
Yah, I saw this on the moderated board, and it should not have been
allowed. I`m taking that group out of the header so I can say what I
want.
> I understand how bitter you are, but this is not a religion, Chuck. It's
> a murder case, and one in which we are blessed with a vast quantity of
> evidence, that you need to stop ignoring.
>
> >
> > Are you going to lie at this newsgroup and announce that if humble Chuck
> > can find some sort of boffo piece of evidence, that it might change your
> > mind about conspriacy?
>
> I never lie Chuck, er.. at least not about the case.
>
> I would cheerfully support your side and you don't even have to find any
> spectacular evidence. Just refute my arguments on the Z285 shot, and I'm
> your man.
>
> When do the checks go out?
>
>
> >
> > Who are you kidding?
>
> Let's see now, you fantasized yourself finding "boffo" evidence and then
> fantasized that I would evade it, and then fantasized that I would lie
> about it.
>
> I guess I should hang my head in shame:-)
>
>
> >
> > If you live to be 100 years old, you'll still believe JFK was killed by a
> > conspiracy. Nothing will change your mind. You are unreachable.
>
> LOL!!
>
> I have a proposition for you Chuck. I'll give you $200 for every time
> you previously admitted in the newsgroups that you were wrong and you
> give me $100 for every time I admitted I was wrong.
>
> Do we have a bet?
Being wrong a lot isn`t a virtue, Bob.
>
>
>
> Robert Harris
David Von Pein
>>> "Modern ammunition does not misfire." <<<
And this "modern" reference includes WCC 6.5mm FMJ bullets that are
used in a 1940 Mannlicher-Carcano as well, Walter?
Plus:
Can you prove your last statement -- "Modern ammunition does not
misfire" -- with 100% certainty? (Including all ammunition ever fired
through 1940-era MC rifles that had been in storage in a garage for a
minimum of two months prior to shooting a certain President on
11/22/63?)
IOW -- Ammunition of the "modern" variety NEVER, EVER once has
suffered a misfire or a dud round, etc.? Is that it, Walt?
Sounds like that'd be a tough thing to prove and place in the "IT
COULD NEVER, EVER HAPPEN" drawer.
But, if Walt says so...Gospel it must be. Right, Walt?
Walt
Well lets say that the possibility of a misfire using modern ammo
falls in the same degree of probability as a bullet traveling at a
down angle striking a man about 6 inches below his shoulder, and then
changing direction to an up angle to emerge at his adams apple, and
then again changing directions in midair to strike another man below
his right arm pit to emerge below his right nipple and then penetrate
his left leg for several inches, and then backing itself out of the
leg to fall spent onto a stretcher that was totally unrelated to the
shooting.
David Von Pein
I wonder when and where all of the above make-believe shit happened??
(Certainly not on Elm Street on November 22, 1963....that's for sure.)
Robert Harris
<ddc611a6-5910-4bdb...@s13g2000prd.googlegroups.com>,
Bud <sirs...@fast.net> wrote:
So, you are still maintaining the pretense that you are ignorant of what
I have been saying for 14 years, and you have replied to, on countless
occasions?
The first two shots were fired from a suppressed weapon, Bud. The muzzle
blast from neither of them was heard.
The final shot was probably fired from the storm drain, from a small
weapon, about half a second after the much louder one at 312, so most
witnesses did not notice it.
>
> > Likewise, I have truckloads of witnesses who confirm that the first
> > "noise" at 160 was a weak noise, and totally unlike the two loud ones.
>
> But still heard, and counted by witnesses as a shot.
In almost every case, it was NOT considered to be a "shot" at the time.
Witnesses later, deduced that it must have been, for obvious reasons.
> If they heard
> a shot at 160, and one when JFK was hit and slumped,
No-one heard the shot at 223, based on both the near unanimous
recollections of the witnesses and the absence of startle reactions
following that shot, as we see following 285 and 312.
> that only leaves
> you one to work with. Which is the better candidate for a shot, 285 or
> 312.
I have no idea what you are talking about.
You seem to be trying to create some kind of straw man, that doesn't
bear even a resemblance to what I have been saying.
>
> > It's true, that most witnesses did not hear the last shot,
>
> Didn`t you call the 312 shot very loud? Are you referring to a shot
> after the 312 shot?
Yes I am Bud, as you know very well. You can learn more about that shot
right here:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IVfIh-8nXyQ
>
> > but a large
> > majority of the people who were in the area around Brehm, DID hear it.
> > And the evidence for that shot proves its existence beyond all doubt,
> > whether anyone heard it or not.
>
> A shooter nobody saw taking a shot nobody heard? Nice theory.
What a strange statement to make, in response to the fact that most of
the people in that area, DID hear it.
Is there some reason you cannot deal with my actual statements Bud,
instead of making up things that I never said?
>
> > > > On other issues, you will need to alter the verbiage Chuck. But
> > > > perhaps,
> > > > you can find other conspiracy deniers who will be able to help you more
> > > > than I can.
> > >
> > > I`ll do what I can, provided I don`t have to put a lot of time into
> > > it. I hate conspiracy mongers.
> >
> > Then you are a very sick person indeed, Bud.
>
> I feel fine. Maybe a little gassy.
It ain't yer bowels I am concerned about, my friend:-)
>
> > Do you actually hate everyone, who confirms the existence of crimes
> > involving two or more perps??
>
> Conspiracy mongers. Those that mong conspiracy.
"mong" is a noun Bud, not a verb.
>
> > > > > There were three shots fired-that's it.
> > > >
> > > > You see, the problem with that statement Chuck, is you forgot to prove
> > > > it.
> > >
> > > The witnesses largely reported three large bangs.
> >
> > LOL!!
> >
> > But haven't you and Chuck been claiming that these poor witnesses were
> > totally confused and unreliable??
>
> No, you are purposely misrepresenting our position (so much for
> never lying about the case).
I tell you what Bud, you give me $5 for every nutter statement I can
find that demeans the witnesses, and I'll give you $10 for every one you
can find that says the witnesses rocked.
The fact that you will refuse such an offer, proves who the liar really
is, don't you think, Bud:-)
>
> > When did they get so smart, Bud:-)
>
> They were human, so we viewed them in that context. Lets try an
> example, see if that helps (never does). An elephant with the left
> tusk bigger than the right and a blue bow on the tail charges into a
> crowd of people. I expect some of these folks not to take notice of
> the different length tusks, and those that did notice say the wrong
> tusk was the longer. I suspect many will miss the bow, and also
> believe that some who did see it could report an erroneous color. But
> I don`t expect many will miss the elephant.
Great analogy, Bud.
But after we look at a photo of Dumbo, should we trust the witnesses
whom we can CONFIRM, got it right??
>
> > > You have to pound
> > > your square peg of a theory into the round peg reality of three loud
> > > bangs.
> >
> > Nonsense - you know very well, that those three shots included a single
> > noise that was totally different than the others,
>
> Did the witnesses count this as a shot or not, Harris?
Not at the time they heard it.
Instead of trying to play cutesy word games, why don't you just deal
with the facts, head-on, bud.
If the first shot came from a high powered rifle, it would have sounded
like the other shots, that provoked extremely dramatic and obvious
startle reactions, as we see following 285 and 312.
And the witnesses would have had no doubt at all, about what they were
hearing.
The FACT is, that they heard no such thing, which is confirmed by BOTH
their statements and their lack of visible reactions.
>
> > and then two closely
> > bunched shots at the end.
>
> Theres you full alotment of shots, leaving no rifle report to hit
> Kennedy in the back, causing the slump many noted.
WTF are you talking about?
>
> > That means that no-one heard the second shot at 223. Not only did they
> > not hear it, but they didn't react to it either.
>
> What about those "I heard a shot and saw Kennedy slump" witnesses?
Cite em.
Each witness's situation is unique, based on his other statements and
position in DP.
Brehm said he saw JFK "slump", but he was referring to a point at which
JFK was "15-20 feet" from him. He also told the FBI that the limo only
travelled "10-12 feet" as three shots were fired, which BTW was a
perfect match with 285, 312, and 323.
>
> > > > You forgot to explain why people heard, and reacted to a flurry of
> > > > shots
> > > > at the end, why they never heard or reacted to the second shot,
> > >
> > > You can see through the Stemmons sign? I can see JFK reacting to
> > > the second shot as he emerges from behind it.
> >
> > You can't really be this stupid, Bud.
> >
> > Of course JFK was hit then. So was Connally. But there were NO startle
> > reactions by the other passengers as there was following 285 and 312.
>
> I wonder why....
>
> http://www.assassinationresearch.com/zfilm/z218.jpg
Duh.... that was a photo of 218, Bud.
The shot was fired at 223, and we get a perfect view of the limo
passengers, when they should have been reacting.
You might have been able to pull this one off, except for the minor
problem that the frame number is part of the link you posted:-)
>
> But it`s interesting that no startle reactions seen when you *know*
> there was a shot doesn`t leave you questioning your startle theory.
LOL!!
It's not MY theory, Mr. Bud.
We KNOW, based on tests by the HSCA that the limo passengers should have
heard a 130 decibel shock wave and a muzzle blast ranging from 115-130
decibels, from each of the shots. The earliest shots were at the high
end of those numbers.
And we KNOW that clinical psychologists provoke involuntary startle
reactions, using sound levels around 90db (2-3 times louder than a noisy
vacuum). The limo passengers were exposed to levels 4-6 times louder
than that used by the shrinks.
HSCA listening testers who heard shots fired from MC in the alleged SN,
could not understand how anyone would mistake such extremely loud noises
for backfires or firecrackers.
And of course, no-one did. When the actual high powered rifle shots were
fired, people dived to the ground, started screaming, etc.
THAT is when Hill jumped from the running board of the followup car, and
Greer panicked and hit the brake.
>
> > > And where do you see witnesses jumping out of their skin from the
> > > first shot, the one witnesses placed shortly after the limo turned
> > > onto Elm?
> >
> > You don't Bud. As I have explained to you, 10 times before, the first
> > two shots were fired from a weapon bearing a suppressor. The ONLY noise
> > generated by the first shot was the result of it hitting the pavement
> > and shattering, causing a "firecracker" sound.
>
> And didn`t witnesses count this "firecracker sound" as a shot?
Not at the time they heard it.
The vast majority of the people who described the nature of that noise,
described it as something other than a gunshot. Many were very specific
that they did NOT think it was a gunshot.
>
> And don`t even suppressed shots cause a sonic boom as the bullet
> reaches the speed of sound?
Not if the bullet is subsonic.
>
> Extra credit question: What was the point of all these extra
> shooters when Oz with his crappy rifle was the only person hitting
> anything that day?
Oswald or someone else, using a MC rifle, appears to have fired the 312
shot. That is the only one he could have fired.
>
> > But the second shot did not hit the pavement, and so it was heard by
> > no-one.
>
> A shot not seen or heard by anyone that hit no one?
Sigh.... Bud, I long for the days when I could debate with Phd's, who
were not quite so dense:-)
The second shot hit both JFK and JBC, as I have only been saying for
over a decade.
>
> > That's why nearly every witness in DP that day, reported a single noise,
> > followed by several seconds of silence and then closely bunched shots at
> > the end.
>
> Many people reporting seeing JFK react to being hit with the (WC)
> second shot.
Yes, that's because he did react to being hit.
> Name one reporting they heard no shots at the time they
> saw this reaction. Don`t you think it would be worth a mention if you
> saw someone shot when you didin`t hear a shot?
They heard the noise at 160, looked around, and saw JFK reacting,
although at least some of them, thought at the time, that he was
clowning around.
Zapruder thought that, BTW, as did Jackie, who was adamant, even in her
testimony that the first noise was NOT a gunshot. Watch her casually
turn away from JFK, following 223 and try to push his arm down.
But obviously, and with the benefit of hindsight, most witnesses
realized that first noise must have been a gunshot, and therefore, must
have caused JFK's wound.
This won't be easy Bud, but THINK!
MOST witnesses reported ONE early noise and then nothing until the very
end of the attack, when they heard closely bunched shots.
So, they HAD to have believed that the "firecracker" noise was the shot
that first wounded Kennedy. There were no other choices.
>
> > > >and why
> > > > the first one, which hit the street sounded so much different and
> > > > weaker
> > > > than the others.
> > >
> > > You only have three loud noises to work with, Bob. If you use one
> > > here, you have only two left.
> >
> > I never said any such thing.
>
> Thats all the witnesses are giving you to work with.
Wrong again, Bud.
The witnesses could only report what they perceived, and that does NOT
include silenced shots, or near simultaneous shots, in which one noise
drowned out the sound of the other.
> Once you leave
> that, you are making a mockery of your witness worship.
No Bud, you are making a mockery of the practice of critical thinking:-)
>
> > You need to work on reading comprehension, Bud. It doesn't get easier
> > with age, does it.
>
> You are trying to work outside the "three shot" parameters set by
> the witnesses. I`m pointing it out, and you are responding with ad
> hominems (not that I have anything against them, I use them all the
> time).
Sorry, but you are are misdefining the parameter. We are talking about
what the witnesses were able to perceive - NOT what actually happened.
By your "reasoning", if a deaf man heard no shots, then no shots were
fired.
That's not how it works.
>
> > Watch my youtube videos, that will be a very good education for you,
> > Bud, and you won't have to struggle with the tiny print on your computer
> > screen:-)
>
> You`ve done nothing to instill convidence that it would be a
> worthwhile expediture of my time.
You're a pathetic liar, Bud.
You've seen the video, which is why you realize that you have to delete
the link. And you can't deal with those facts, to save your miserable
life.
Robert Harris
David Von Pein
Bud is probably like me in this regard -- i.e., he doesn't feel it is
mandatory to keep tabs and a notebook on every kook's silly, random
theories (all of which are pure fiction and reside only in the minds
of those purporting them).
I certainly didn't remember your theory about the "storm drain"
shooter either. That portion of your made-up dreck only further
solidifies your recently-established "Kook" status (seeing as how
there's not a scrap of proof to back up such a shot...or shooter).
Keep going and you'll rival King Kook Garrison, Bob. (In fact, you're
pretty close to him via your "storm drain" crap...because Garrison was
also a believer in a probable shooter in the Dallas sewer system
too.) ....
www.box.net/static/flash/box_explorer.swf?widgetHash=ny0f225ycs&v=1
www.box.net/static/flash/box_explorer.swf?widgetHash=lw7vdwfesk&v=1
Bob Harris
wrote:
> In article <fol0a...@drn.newsguy.com>, John Canal says...
> >
> >In article <reharris1-E620E...@news.verizon.net>, Robert Harris
> >says...
> >>
> >>In article <fohrp...@drn.newsguy.com>,
> >> John Canal <John_...@newsguy.com> wrote:
> >>
> >>> In article <reharris1-0B489...@news.verizon.net>, Robert
> >>> Harris
> >>> says...
> >>> >
> >>> >In article
> >>> ><e0d4c9dd-37c0-4b90...@e6g2000prf.googlegroups.com>,
> >>> > Chuck Schuyler <chu...@am-mtg.com> wrote:
> Sounds like an argument that "we don't need to examine the evidence"... and,
> of
> course, that sort of argument is silly on the face of it.
>
>
>
> >Now, I'm not trying to say that the JFK assassination was as cut and dry
> >as my example, but you get the idea....and the bottom line is that I'd say
> >about 90% of all the folks who have studied this case, CT or LN, feel the
> >same way about your theory.
>
>
> Would you like to put it to a poll?
>
>
> >That's just the way I feel, Robert--if you think I'm narrow minded, well
> >fine--I'll just have to live with that.
> >
> >And, BTW, if you are positing there were two hits to the head, where is
> >your evidence?...
>
> Ouch!! I just keep waiting for that mythical "honest LNT'er", but they just
> don't seem to exist.
>
> Robert has provided quite convincing evidence for two hits on JFK's head -
> and
> this LNT'er is *surely* aware of it.
I posted this link before, in both of the newsgroups. Maybe john would
like to be the first to try to refute it:-)
http://youtube.com/watch?v=IVfIh-8nXyQ
Robert Harris
>
>
> >I hope it's not the "Dog ate my evidence" kind...or that
> >HB&F were all blind in one eye and had trouble seeing out of the other
> >one. :-)
> >
> >John Canal
Robert Harris
<e0b13029-54e1-49cf...@z17g2000hsg.googlegroups.com>,
David Von Pein <davev...@aol.com> wrote:
> >>> "So, you are still maintaining the pretense that you are ignorant of what
> >>> I have been saying for 14 years, and you have replied to, on countless
> >>> occasions? .... The final shot was probably fired from the storm drain,
> >>> from a small weapon, about half a second after the much louder one at
> >>> 312, so most witnesses did not notice it." <<<
>
> Bud is probably like me in this regard -- i.e., he doesn't feel it is
> mandatory to keep tabs and a notebook on every kook's silly, random
> theories (all of which are pure fiction and reside only in the minds
> of those purporting them).
Bud is indeed, just like you.
He is a liar, who feigns ignorance of issues that I explained to him
just a few days ago in another thread.
But I will at least, give him credit for trying to address a few
relevant issues - something that you obviously, lack the courage to do.
Robert Harris
Chuck Schuyler
> In article
>
> The first two shots were fired from a suppressed weapon, Bud. The muzzle
> blast from neither of them was heard.
And you know that two silenced shots were fired based on your own
subjective interpretation of the 'startle' reactions from the limo
occupants?
Hilarious!
>
> The final shot was probably fired from the storm drain, from a small
> weapon, about half a second after the much louder one at 312, so most
> witnesses did not notice it.
Why didn't the guy in the sewer (aka "Sh*tman") use a suppressor? Why
the small weapon? Were they just trying to rub it in a little more? (A
BB gun would've been a nice touch.)
Weren't the plotters worried that the small weapon would leave
different ballistic evidence than the MC?
If they were that brazen, i.e. hiding people in sewers, on the knoll,
etc., why would they care about sound-suppressing any shots in the
first place?
Why didn't they just poison his coffee or arrange for a mechanical
problem with Marine Corp One as he was shuttling to Camp David some
random morning?
Why all the drama?
Back to the drawing board, Harris.
*FLUSH*
A final note:
I made a snarky comment about you in a post that appeared at aaj.
recently. I didn't post it there...I posted it here at the nuthouse,
and somehow it migrated to McAdams's board. Don't know why they signed
off on it, and I definitely didn't originate it at aaj.
Robert Harris
John Canal <John_...@newsguy.com> wrote:
John, you were trying to equate a hypothetical situation in which ALL
relevant evidence proved a single killer was involved, with one in which
ALL relevant evidence proves exactly the opposite.
I think calling that goofy, was being more than kind:-)
>
> >it is also one of the lamest excuses I have ever seen, for evading the
> >facts and evidence.
>
> According to you, that is.
No John, you were arguing for a hypothetical situation, because you
could not support your argument for the real situation.
That is, by definition, an evasion.
>
> >Did it ever occur to you, that if you really had evidence supporting a
> >single assassin scenario,
>
> Oh, so there's really no evidence to support a siongle assassin
> conclusion? LOL!!!!!
Well, let's see what you have then. Maybe I am about to be refuted!
>
> Have you even glimsed at the WC volumes?
Yes, I have the whole thing on CD, and have studied it for many years.
>
> >you wouldn't have to make up a fantasy like
> >that?
>
> Just trying, unsuccessfully to get my point across.
Umm... John, pardon my impatience, but when do you intend to post that
evidence which proves that only one assassin was involved in the attack?
You said "LOL" in reference to my denial of that claim, so I presume you
are going to reveal this exciting new evidence.
>
> >I tell you what, John, since you refuse to tackle my arguments, as you
> >have a few dozen other conspiracy claims, why don't you just itemize.
>
> BINOO! You're helping to make my point.
Umm.. John, the question was, why don't you itemize the evidence you
have which proves that only one assassin was involved in the attack.
> You said a few dozen other
> conspiracy claims...heck why didn't you say the 100 or so other different
> ones? And, earth to Robert, it's not even possible that more than one
> could be accurate. If someone addressed all those theories their book
> would be bigger than RH.
John, it doesn't matter how many silly theories have been advanced over
the last 45 years. That is predictable when a crime of this magnitude
takes place.
But after you post your proof that only one shooter was involved, you
will eliminate not only my case, but a multitude of others as well.
When do you intend to do that, John?
>
> >your proof that Oswald acted alone??
>
> Good grief, you've heard it all already
Umm.. no, I have never seen anyone seriously attempt to do so - until
now of course:-)
> and have an answer for every bit
> of it.....but how about you honor this request and I'll honor your
> request...not that we [yes, you and I] haven't been over this before.
John, where is your evidence?
>
> Ok, list here, by name,_________ all the researchers who agree with you on
> the major points of your theory. Those major points would be: 1. At what
> Z-frame was each shot was fired?, 2) What was the location of each
> shooter?, 3) Where were the entry and exit points on JFK?, 4) Who (LHO?)
> fired the shots?, and 5) Who was behind the conspiracy?
John, why did you say "LOL" when I declared that you have NO, that is
ZERO evidence for your claim that ONLY one assassin was involved?
You have no such evidence, do you John?
And why do you want to conduct a poll, when you believe that 80% or so -
the ones who support conspiracy, are full of crap?
After you remove the undecideds, you have a rather pathetic, single
digit minority, which as you have already confirmed, has ZERO evidence
to support their SA conclusion.
So, why should we care about the opinions of a group like that, which
neither one of us has much faith in?
I have another idea, John.
Let's look at just the evidence and facts that are verifiable, and the
statements of the people who were actually there and heard the shots.
Let's pay particular attention to the ones whose statements can be
confirmed in the photos and films.
>
> And here are two conditions---
I have two conditions also, John.
1. Look at the facts.
2. Look at the evidence.
I'd love to add a third condition, related to being honest, but for now,
I will settle for those.
Robert Harris
Walt
Well I'll be dipped!....Who woulda thunk it?..... Von Pea Brain
finally admitting that the Single Bullet Theory is ...Quote... "make-
believe shit" ...Unquote
Bud
Yah, I think I`ll stick to the truth, and leave your delusions to
you. I`ve never had a serious give-and-take with you about your
theories (I do vaguely remember you assigning some astronomical odds
for the movements of the occupants of the limo), nor have I made much
effort to look at them, or into them. These "countless" discussions
you seem to think we`ve had are as much a product of your imagination
as are the major components of your theories.
> The first two shots were fired from a suppressed weapon, Bud. The muzzle
> blast from neither of them was heard.
> The final shot was probably fired from the storm drain, from a small
> weapon, about half a second after the much louder one at 312, so most
> witnesses did not notice it.
Ah, now I see where you are hiding one of the shots, under another.
Why only one, why not say there were a dozen at the same time?
> > > Likewise, I have truckloads of witnesses who confirm that the first
> > > "noise" at 160 was a weak noise, and totally unlike the two loud ones.
> >
> > But still heard, and counted by witnesses as a shot.
>
> In almost every case, it was NOT considered to be a "shot" at the time.
Yah, that is how the mind often works, through association.
Prervious parades they saw were probably were associated with
fireworks.
> Witnesses later, deduced that it must have been, for obvious reasons.
<snicker> You forgot to address the point. Was that "firecracker"
counted as one of the three loud widely reported noises? Was it
counted as a shot by the witnesses? If so, that leaves you only 2
other reported loud noises to work with.
> > If they heard
> > a shot at 160, and one when JFK was hit and slumped,
>
> No-one heard the shot at 223,
Altgens... "...the shot was just a fraction of a second before my
photo..."
>based on both the near unanimous
> recollections of the witnesses and the absence of startle reactions
> following that shot, as we see following 285 and 312.
312 doesn`t establish a "startle reaction" caused by noise, the
occupants were being sprayed with bone and gore.
> > that only leaves
> > you one to work with. Which is the better candidate for a shot, 285 or
> > 312.
>
> I have no idea what you are talking about.
>
> You seem to be trying to create some kind of straw man, that doesn't
> bear even a resemblance to what I have been saying.
>
> >
> > > It's true, that most witnesses did not hear the last shot,
> >
> > Didn`t you call the 312 shot very loud? Are you referring to a shot
> > after the 312 shot?
>
> Yes I am Bud, as you know very well.
You seem to know more about what I know than I do.
> You can learn more about that shot
> right here:
>
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IVfIh-8nXyQ
We seem to have reached an impass. You won`t tell me what I need to
know, and I`m not watching your stupid viseo until you do.
> > > but a large
> > > majority of the people who were in the area around Brehm, DID hear it.
> > > And the evidence for that shot proves its existence beyond all doubt,
> > > whether anyone heard it or not.
> >
> > A shooter nobody saw taking a shot nobody heard? Nice theory.
>
> What a strange statement to make, in response to the fact that most of
> the people in that area, DID hear it.
>
> Is there some reason you cannot deal with my actual statements Bud,
> instead of making up things that I never said?
>
>
> >
> > > > > On other issues, you will need to alter the verbiage Chuck. But
> > > > > perhaps,
> > > > > you can find other conspiracy deniers who will be able to help you more
> > > > > than I can.
> > > >
> > > > I`ll do what I can, provided I don`t have to put a lot of time into
> > > > it. I hate conspiracy mongers.
> > >
> > > Then you are a very sick person indeed, Bud.
> >
> > I feel fine. Maybe a little gassy.
>
> It ain't yer bowels I am concerned about, my friend:-)
>
> >
> > > Do you actually hate everyone, who confirms the existence of crimes
> > > involving two or more perps??
> >
> > Conspiracy mongers. Those that mong conspiracy.
>
> "mong" is a noun Bud, not a verb.
Just a little word-play, Bob. If a teacher is one who teaches, and
a fisher is one who fishes, then a monger would be one who mongs.
> > > > > > There were three shots fired-that's it.
> > > > >
> > > > > You see, the problem with that statement Chuck, is you forgot to prove
> > > > > it.
> > > >
> > > > The witnesses largely reported three large bangs.
> > >
> > > LOL!!
> > >
> > > But haven't you and Chuck been claiming that these poor witnesses were
> > > totally confused and unreliable??
> >
> > No, you are purposely misrepresenting our position (so much for
> > never lying about the case).
>
>
> I tell you what Bud, you give me $5 for every nutter statement I can
> find that demeans the witnesses, and I'll give you $10 for every one you
> can find that says the witnesses rocked.
Reading the witness statements sometimes make me wonder if they
were all witness to the same event. What you are doing with what they
said is akin to performing precise surgery with a butter knife.
> The fact that you will refuse such an offer, proves who the liar really
> is, don't you think, Bud:-)
I think you are just another kook who sees himself as a crusader for
truth.
> > > When did they get so smart, Bud:-)
> >
> > They were human, so we viewed them in that context. Lets try an
> > example, see if that helps (never does). An elephant with the left
> > tusk bigger than the right and a blue bow on the tail charges into a
> > crowd of people. I expect some of these folks not to take notice of
> > the different length tusks, and those that did notice say the wrong
> > tusk was the longer. I suspect many will miss the bow, and also
> > believe that some who did see it could report an erroneous color. But
> > I don`t expect many will miss the elephant.
>
> Great analogy, Bud.
Don`t say it if you don`t mean it.
> But after we look at a photo of Dumbo, should we trust the witnesses
> whom we can CONFIRM, got it right??
The "elephant" in this case is three shots. They don`t appear on
film, although you claim you can see them.
> > > > You have to pound
> > > > your square peg of a theory into the round peg reality of three loud
> > > > bangs.
> > >
> > > Nonsense - you know very well, that those three shots included a single
> > > noise that was totally different than the others,
> >
> > Did the witnesses count this as a shot or not, Harris?
>
> Not at the time they heard it.
When they reported the number of shots they heard, was this one of
them?
> Instead of trying to play cutesy word games, why don't you just deal
> with the facts, head-on, bud.
I know there is no question an honest man will evade, and that you
are honest, so the problem must be with the question. How about "Was
the 160 "noise" among the three largely reported shots the witnesses
provided?"
> If the first shot came from a high powered rifle, it would have sounded
> like the other shots, that provoked extremely dramatic and obvious
> startle reactions, as we see following 285 and 312.
Just trying to compare what the witnesses provided to what you are
suggesting. Do you know of any witnesses who said they heard three
shots on top of the early firecracker noise? I`m thinking they
included it in as a shot, what do you think?
> And the witnesses would have had no doubt at all, about what they were
> hearing.
>
> The FACT is, that they heard no such thing, which is confirmed by BOTH
> their statements and their lack of visible reactions.
>
>
> >
> > > and then two closely
> > > bunched shots at the end.
> >
> > Theres you full alotment of shots, leaving no rifle report to hit
> > Kennedy in the back, causing the slump many noted.
>
> WTF are you talking about?
I was hoping you would know. I`m still trying to get a handle on
your theory, I just found out this post where you took on of the shots
from, you stole the noise from 223 and moved it to 285. Funny that no
one noticed that Kennedy was acting visually distressed with no shot
to associate with it. And I`m thinking you are going to claim that
different witnesses heard differing 3 loud noises.
> > > That means that no-one heard the second shot at 223. Not only did they
> > > not hear it, but they didn't react to it either.
> >
> > What about those "I heard a shot and saw Kennedy slump" witnesses?
>
> Cite em.
Thats what I was trying to avoid, making this into a homework
assignment.
> Each witness's situation is unique, based on his other statements and
> position in DP.
>
> Brehm said he saw JFK "slump", but he was referring to a point at which
> JFK was "15-20 feet" from him. He also told the FBI that the limo only
> travelled "10-12 feet" as three shots were fired, which BTW was a
> perfect match with 285, 312, and 323.
>
>
>
> >
> > > > > You forgot to explain why people heard, and reacted to a flurry of
> > > > > shots
> > > > > at the end, why they never heard or reacted to the second shot,
> > > >
> > > > You can see through the Stemmons sign? I can see JFK reacting to
> > > > the second shot as he emerges from behind it.
> > >
> > > You can't really be this stupid, Bud.
> > >
> > > Of course JFK was hit then. So was Connally. But there were NO startle
> > > reactions by the other passengers as there was following 285 and 312.
> >
> > I wonder why....
> >
> > http://www.assassinationresearch.com/zfilm/z218.jpg
>
>
> Duh.... that was a photo of 218, Bud.
Yah. What rules out the shot occuring there?
> The shot was fired at 223, and we get a perfect view of the limo
> passengers, when they should have been reacting.
>
> You might have been able to pull this one off, except for the minor
> problem that the frame number is part of the link you posted:-)
Did I say it was any other?
> > But it`s interesting that no startle reactions seen when you *know*
> > there was a shot doesn`t leave you questioning your startle theory.
>
> LOL!!
>
> It's not MY theory, Mr. Bud.
>
> We KNOW, based on tests by the HSCA that the limo passengers should have
> heard a 130 decibel shock wave and a muzzle blast ranging from 115-130
> decibels, from each of the shots. The earliest shots were at the high
> end of those numbers.
>
> And we KNOW that clinical psychologists provoke involuntary startle
> reactions, using sound levels around 90db (2-3 times louder than a noisy
> vacuum). The limo passengers were exposed to levels 4-6 times louder
> than that used by the shrinks.
But you have the z-285 shot being subsonic and missing, right? Then
you have them being startled by the impact of the bullet on the curb?
Did they count this as a shot?
> HSCA listening testers who heard shots fired from MC in the alleged SN,
> could not understand how anyone would mistake such extremely loud noises
> for backfires or firecrackers.
That was probably what they were familiar with. Likely in their
experience, when they were startled by a loud bang, it was one of
those two things, so that is where their minds went with it.
> And of course, no-one did. When the actual high powered rifle shots were
> fired, people dived to the ground, started screaming, etc.
>
> THAT is when Hill jumped from the running board of the followup car, and
> Greer panicked and hit the brake.
I`m interested in where you place the three shots the witnesses
reported.
> > > > And where do you see witnesses jumping out of their skin from the
> > > > first shot, the one witnesses placed shortly after the limo turned
> > > > onto Elm?
> > >
> > > You don't Bud. As I have explained to you, 10 times before, the first
> > > two shots were fired from a weapon bearing a suppressor. The ONLY noise
> > > generated by the first shot was the result of it hitting the pavement
> > > and shattering, causing a "firecracker" sound.
> >
> > And didn`t witnesses count this "firecracker sound" as a shot?
>
> Not at the time they heard it.
At the time they reported the number of shots they heard to the
authorities, was this counted as a shot by witnesses or not?
> The vast majority of the people who described the nature of that noise,
> described it as something other than a gunshot. Many were very specific
> that they did NOT think it was a gunshot.
Ok, it would help me immensly if you would outline what the three
noises the witnesses reported, and what you feel were the causes.
> > And don`t even suppressed shots cause a sonic boom as the bullet
> > reaches the speed of sound?
>
> Not if the bullet is subsonic.
Less kinetic energy in a subsonic bullet, right? That would make
them less lethal. You have a subsonic bullet going through JFK and
Connally at 223? I suspect it is unlikely a subsonic could pull that
off.
> > Extra credit question: What was the point of all these extra
> > shooters when Oz with his crappy rifle was the only person hitting
> > anything that day?
>
> Oswald or someone else, using a MC rifle, appears to have fired the 312
> shot. That is the only one he could have fired.
How many shots fired from the 6th floor of the TSBD?
> > > But the second shot did not hit the pavement, and so it was heard by
> > > no-one.
> >
> > A shot not seen or heard by anyone that hit no one?
>
> Sigh.... Bud, I long for the days when I could debate with Phd's, who
> were not quite so dense:-)
Hey, I`d like to be smarter. I was counting on your help.
> The second shot hit both JFK and JBC, as I have only been saying for
> over a decade.
It`s starting to sink in. A suppressed subsonic bullet fired from
the rear? From...?
> > > That's why nearly every witness in DP that day, reported a single noise,
> > > followed by several seconds of silence and then closely bunched shots at
> > > the end.
> >
> > Many people reporting seeing JFK react to being hit with the (WC)
> > second shot.
>
> Yes, that's because he did react to being hit.
>
>
> > Name one reporting they heard no shots at the time they
> > saw this reaction. Don`t you think it would be worth a mention if you
> > saw someone shot when you didin`t hear a shot?
>
> They heard the noise at 160, looked around, and saw JFK reacting,
He is fine and waving after 160. Visually distressed after 223ish.
None of the dozens of witnesses with their attention fixed on JFK
mention this transformation with no apparent cause?
> although at least some of them, thought at the time, that he was
> clowning around.
>
> Zapruder thought that, BTW, as did Jackie, who was adamant, even in her
> testimony that the first noise was NOT a gunshot. Watch her casually
> turn away from JFK, following 223 and try to push his arm down.
>
> But obviously, and with the benefit of hindsight, most witnesses
> realized that first noise must have been a gunshot, and therefore, must
> have caused JFK's wound.
>
> This won't be easy Bud, but THINK!
I`m trying, but it`s hard. I need your help, Bob.
> MOST witnesses reported ONE early noise and then nothing until the very
> end of the attack, when they heard closely bunched shots.
Just to me the service of breaking down the physical aspects of your
theory (without the accompanying support). First shot, suppressed and
subsonic, fired from Dal-Tax, hits pavement, reported by most
witnesses as a shot (or not), z-frame #, ect, for example. Then I can
take what you are presenting and compare it with the evidence as I
know it.
> So, they HAD to have believed that the "firecracker" noise was the shot
> that first wounded Kennedy. There were no other choices.
>
>
>
> >
> > > > >and why
> > > > > the first one, which hit the street sounded so much different and
> > > > > weaker
> > > > > than the others.
> > > >
> > > > You only have three loud noises to work with, Bob. If you use one
> > > > here, you have only two left.
> > >
> > > I never said any such thing.
> >
> > Thats all the witnesses are giving you to work with.
>
> Wrong again, Bud.
>
> The witnesses could only report what they perceived, and that does NOT
> include silenced shots, or near simultaneous shots, in which one noise
> drowned out the sound of the other.
The witnesses are largely only giving you three loud noises, Bob.
Even if you are having people flinch from a silenced shot hitting a
pavement, those people are still going to count that as one of the
three shots. If people say they heard two shots very close together,
they still are going to count them as two seperate shots heard. Three
is the number of the counting, and the number you must count to is
three.
> > Once you leave
> > that, you are making a mockery of your witness worship.
>
> No Bud, you are making a mockery of the practice of critical thinking:-)
Walk me through it taking baby steps then. Break down your shots as
I requested. In words, not video.
> > > You need to work on reading comprehension, Bud. It doesn't get easier
> > > with age, does it.
> >
> > You are trying to work outside the "three shot" parameters set by
> > the witnesses. I`m pointing it out, and you are responding with ad
> > hominems (not that I have anything against them, I use them all the
> > time).
>
> Sorry, but you are are misdefining the parameter. We are talking about
> what the witnesses were able to perceive - NOT what actually happened.
Fine. Work the three reported shots into your scenario, along with
the silenced.
> By your "reasoning", if a deaf man heard no shots, then no shots were
> fired.
No, just no shots heard by him.
> That's not how it works.
>
>
> >
> > > Watch my youtube videos, that will be a very good education for you,
> > > Bud, and you won't have to struggle with the tiny print on your computer
> > > screen:-)
> >
> > You`ve done nothing to instill convidence that it would be a
> > worthwhile expediture of my time.
>
>
> You're a pathetic liar, Bud.
<snicker> You`d think would all my practice I would be better at it,
eh?
> You've seen the video,
Never. I tried one time to view something of Gil`s on youtube
(actually not Gil`s nonsense, I wouldn`t bother with that, some
supposed headshots he provide links to), and couldn`t get it to work.
I probably didn`t have the right plug-in, or some such thing, Haven`t
had the interest to look into it deeper to see what the problem could
be.
>which is why you realize that you have to delete
> the link.
I never deleted any links. Thanks for confirming I was right in
thinking you were a whack-job.
> And you can't deal with those facts, to save your miserable
> life.
Scratch the surface of any kook, and this is what you find.
Bud
Robert Harris wrote:
> In article
> <e0b13029-54e1-49cf...@z17g2000hsg.googlegroups.com>,
> David Von Pein <davev...@aol.com> wrote:
>
> > >>> "So, you are still maintaining the pretense that you are ignorant of what
> > >>> I have been saying for 14 years, and you have replied to, on countless
> > >>> occasions? .... The final shot was probably fired from the storm drain,
> > >>> from a small weapon, about half a second after the much louder one at
> > >>> 312, so most witnesses did not notice it." <<<
> >
> > Bud is probably like me in this regard -- i.e., he doesn't feel it is
> > mandatory to keep tabs and a notebook on every kook's silly, random
> > theories (all of which are pure fiction and reside only in the minds
> > of those purporting them).
>
> Bud is indeed, just like you.
Damn, thats low. What did DVP do to deserve that?
> He is a liar, who feigns ignorance of issues that I explained to him
> just a few days ago in another thread.
Who is feigning? I is ignorant, and was hoping Bob was the prophet
could lead `po me to the promised land of enlightenment. He said the
answers to all mah questions could be found on youtube. God be
Praised!
> But I will at least, give him credit for trying to address a few
> relevant issues - something that you obviously, lack the courage to do.
Somewhere, Bob Harris sits at his computer in his underwear and a
cape, doing battle with the forces of evil.
John Canal
>John, where is your evidence?
>> Ok, list here, by name,_________ all the researchers who agree with you on
>> the major points of your theory. Those major points would be: 1. At what
>> Z-frame was each shot was fired?, 2) What was the location of each
>> shooter?, 3) Where were the entry and exit points on JFK?, 4) Who (LHO?)
>> fired the shots?, and 5) Who was behind the conspiracy?
So you're not going to list any researchers who agree with your theory? My
guess is, and this is really a wild one, that you don't know of one single
researcher who totally agrees with your theory.....isn't that right,
Robert?
And here's where I go from there--there are hundreds who I agree with that
LHO was the lone assassin!
Bottom line, Robert, is that I'd be foolish if I'd take the time to argue
for the lone assassin conclusion with you when your evidence for a
conspiracy is soooooo frickin unconvincing you can't even name one
researcher out of perhaps a thousand that agrees with you.
But come with a few, by name, and I'll list my evidence. Remember, they
must agree totally with you on those aforementioned major points.
John Canal
David Von Pein
that the Moorman photograph shows the back of JFK's head completely
"intact", which is exactly the opposite of what many different CTers
believe.
A lot of conspiracy kooks love to paint in their interpretation of a
huge "blow-out" hole at the rear of JFK's head within the Moorman
photo (which, of course, is a hole that isn't there at all...but it
never stops a good conspiracist from drawing a great-big hole into the
picture).
So, we've got one CTer (Bob Harris) telling us to believe him
regarding the Moorman picture (i.e., that there's no hole at all
visible at the back of Kennedy's head in Moorman's pic)....but many
other CTers want the world to believe THEM when they claim that the
Moorman picture is depicting a large chunk of JFK's head missing at
the back of the head.
Nice consistency amongst CT-Kooks, huh?
BTW, if anybody gives a care, it's my own opinion (and has been for
some time) that Mary Moorman's B&W Polaroid photograph (linked below,
sans the make-believe cartoon work added in by some CTers) was taken
just a split-second or so BEFORE President Kennedy was hit in the
head.
http://www.erichufschmid.net/JFK/Moorman-full.jpg
If the head shot had ALREADY occurred before Moorman snapped that
shutter on her camera, I have a hard time believing we'd see no
effects of that head shot whatsoever within Moorman's picture. And
there's no "spray" visible, no visible blood or brain particles
(which, of course, are very, very visible from across the street via
Mr. Zapruder's film).
However, I'll also admit that the Moorman photo is of very poor
quality to begin with, so any details are hard to discern within the
image. Which, of course, is one of the main reasons why the "Badge
Man" theory is so ridiculous. Researchers are relying on a super-duper
blow-up of an already-crappy Polaroid to "find" assassins in the far
background of the degraded imagery. Impossible, IMO.
Ben Holmes
Argument by authority now?
If polling is the answer, LNT'ers were never even in the game. There's *NEVER*
been a time that a simple majority believed that it was Oswald alone - as the
WCR asserted.
Robert Harris
<28d50eca-54b3-41d0...@h11g2000prf.googlegroups.com>,
Bud <sirs...@fast.net> wrote:
Bud, this is not about ancient history. I just replied to one of your
messages on 2/9/08, stating,
"Bud, there were TWO loud shots - almost certainly, fired from high
powered rifles at 285 and 312, not three."
You then replied on 2/11/08
"Bob, you are wrong because you have zero witness support for 3 loud
shots and 2 soft shots."
I'm sorry Bud, but unless you have a pretty advanced cased of dementia,
I am not buying the notion that you just forgot. You deliberately
misrepresented me because you thought that you could attack your
distortion much more easily than what I actually said.
That's a very old and tired tactic Bud. Your predecessors have been
pulling that one for decades.
> (I do vaguely remember you assigning some astronomical odds
> for the movements of the occupants of the limo), nor have I made much
> effort to look at them, or into them. These "countless" discussions
> you seem to think we`ve had are as much a product of your imagination
> as are the major components of your theories.
Give it a rest bud. You're busted:-)
>
> > The first two shots were fired from a suppressed weapon, Bud. The muzzle
> > blast from neither of them was heard.
>
> > The final shot was probably fired from the storm drain, from a small
> > weapon, about half a second after the much louder one at 312, so most
> > witnesses did not notice it.
>
> Ah, now I see where you are hiding one of the shots, under another.
> Why only one, why not say there were a dozen at the same time?
More pretense.
I already posted the link that explains in detail what happened. You
undoubtedly looked at it and decided to pretend that you didn't so that
you wouldn't have to deal with the facts and evidence I presented.
Here it is again, in case you want an encore:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IVfIh-8nXyQ
If you really are too stupid to access Youtube, then get some help.
Until then, stop wasting my time.
Robert Harris
David Von Pein
>>> "{Mister D.R. Von Pein, my master} finally admitting that the Single Bullet Theory is ...Quote... "make-believe shit" ...Unquote." <<<
The only problem for Walt The Kook is (of course) the fact that the
SBT doesn't require a single one of those zigs or zags in its flight
path. Walt just THINKS the SBT had to have taken such a nutty route.
Of course, it'd be kinda nice if Walt would utilize the correct
evidence regarding the wound locations when making his posts. Instead,
for some idiotic reason, Walt seems to think there's evidence of JFK's
back wound being located "about 6 inches below his shoulder". (At
least Walter did put the word "about" in there.)
But, of course, no such official, verified "6 inches below his
shoulder" evidence exists at all.
But Walt The K-Word will still continue to say that's where JFK's back
wound was anyway.
~~big ol' shrug~~
Robert Harris
This is the most pathetic and ridiculous argument I have seen yet:-)
I have received hundreds of emails from people over the years, in
agreement with me, although I have never asked for credentials, and a
letter of endorsement for the shot at 285 from Dr. Michael Stroscio, who
wrote an extensive paper on Alvarez's analysis of the Zfilm. He holds a
Phd in Physics and has served on Presidential science commissions.
I think you will also find quite a few people in ACJ who agree with me
as well, but as we all know, you will not consider anyone other than a
conspiracy denier to be a real "researcher", will you John?
Your claim that you will only post your "proof" that a Single assassin
acted alone, if I produce a list of supporters is laughable and beyond
ludicrous.
If you really had such evidence, you would be shouting it from the
rooftops and spamming it to the newsgroups three times a day, without
the slightest concern for how popular I was:-)
Furthermore, if you really believed this was just a popularity contest,
you wouldn't be a denier. You'd have to go with that 70-80 percent who
recognize that this crime was a conspiracy - and that includes
"researchers", which includes the vast majority of authors who have
written on the subject.
But even if I was the only person on the planet to realize what
happened, it wouldn't matter. The facts and evidence trump all. That is
ALL that matters when it comes to solving ANY crime.
And that's why you can only produce pathetically lame excuses, isn't it
John - you have NO, that is ZERO evidence to support a SA conclusion.
Robert Harris
In article <fot92...@drn.newsguy.com>,