An observation of Bob Harris

Bud, there is not a single, accurate sentence in that post.

A year or two ago, Duncan McRae, who had thrown me out of his forum for
posting a link to a 285 article, brought his team to the Ed forum and
launched a barrage of personal insults at me.

These were all nutters or pseudo buffs. That hardly proves that
conspiracy people disagree with me.

And even if they did, why would that matter?

Among people in the real world, with no baggage or axes to grind, I get
a seven to one favorable ratio of approvals for my main 285 presentation.

And please don't tell me that they cannot properly identify startle
reactions because they don't have the "experience" of following Fetzer
or Gerald Posner.

What you don't seem to get is that "Robert Harris" is NOT the issue.

The issue is the ridiculously obvious reactions by the limo passengers,
the overwhelming consensus of the witnesses, the specific testimonies of
the people who reacted to that shot, the conclusions of brilliant
scientists that there was a startling noise at precisely the instant
that those people reacted.

And on and on and on.

You should be discussing these facts, even if I had never been born. The
facts and evidence are everything, my friend.

EVERYTHING.

Robert Harris

Post by Bud
As everyone knows, conspiracy hobbyists are always desperate for any
indication they can latch onto that they think indicates that there was a
conspiracy. The Education Forum is heavily populated by this type of
hobbyist, always eager to entertain any sort of silliness if they think it
helps justify the belief that a conspiracy took JFK`s life. Yet when Bob
Harris presented his ideas there he was pretty much greeted with a
raspberry. To me this is like someone making a meal for a ravenously
hungry gathering, having them spit the food back in your face and still
considering yourself to be a good cook.

Steve Barber

2013-08-19 04:05:36 UTC

Post by Robert Harris
Bud, there is not a single, accurate sentence in that post.
A year or two ago, Duncan McRae, who had thrown me out of his forum for
posting a link to a 285 article, brought his team to the Ed forum and
launched a barrage of personal insults at me.
These were all nutters or pseudo buffs. That hardly proves that
conspiracy people disagree with me.
And even if they did, why would that matter?
Among people in the real world, with no baggage or axes to grind, I get
a seven to one favorable ratio of approvals for my main 285 presentation.
And please don't tell me that they cannot properly identify startle
reactions because they don't have the "experience" of following Fetzer
or Gerald Posner.
What you don't seem to get is that "Robert Harris" is NOT the issue.

No? You could have fooled me.

This *is* all bout Robert Harris trying convince everyone in the world of
something that only he and a few others "see" happening in a silent,
subjective film taken by a bystander, during a murder. You've spent nearly
20 years of your life in this very newsgroup just hoping to gain
confidence in people, that you have "found" something that proves
conspiracy in the killing of President Kennedy. In those nearly 20 years,
no one of authority have approached you about what you believe you see
happening in this silent film. That should tell you something, but it
doesn't.

I have watched you jump for one forum to newsgroup to forum, and have
seen the same results at everyone of them. The majority of the members or
posters just don't buy it, but you just won't accept it.

Post by Robert Harris
The issue is the ridiculously obvious reactions by the limo passengers,
the overwhelming consensus of the witnesses, the specific testimonies of
the people who reacted to that shot, the conclusions of brilliant
scientists that there was a startling noise at precisely the instant
that those people reacted.
And on and on and on.
You should be discussing these facts, even if I had never been born. The
facts and evidence are everything, my friend.
EVERYTHING.
Robert Harris

Ott Rovgeisha

2013-08-19 11:09:32 UTC

No? You could have fooled me.
This *is* all bout Robert Harris trying convince everyone in the world of
something that only he and a few others "see" happening in a silent,
subjective film taken by a bystander, during a murder. You've spent nearly
20 years of your life in this very newsgroup just hoping to gain
confidence in people, that you have "found" something that proves
conspiracy in the killing of President Kennedy. In those nearly 20 years,
no one of authority have approached you about what you believe you see
happening in this silent film. That should tell you something, but it
doesn't.
I have watched you jump for one forum to newsgroup to forum, and have
seen the same results at everyone of them. The majority of the members or
posters just don't buy it, but you just won't accept it.

Funny you should call the visual evidence like a Z-film subjective.
Funny you souuld call the analysis of dr Louis Alvarez subjective.
Yeah..right, you don't talk about Alvarez.

Let's talk about subjective Nobel Prize winning physicist, shall we.
Let's have a look at his analysis and discuss this.

Robert Harris

2013-08-20 04:30:13 UTC

No? You could have fooled me.

I didn't realize that Steve. What exactly did I say that convinced you
of such a thing?

Post by Steve Barber
This *is* all bout Robert Harris trying convince everyone in the world of
something that only he and a few others "see" happening in a silent,
subjective film taken by a bystander, during a murder.

Now, that is interesting indeed, coming from someone who has written
articles based entirely on the Zapruder film:-)

There are subjective calls in there I suppose, but I stay away from
those almost 100% of the time.

The issues I talk about, like Mrs. Connally looking at JFK circa 258,
the simultaneous startle reactions, Mrs. Kennedy turning toward JBC
after he began to shout, Greer spinning around at incredible speed, a
laundry list of Kellermans movements during a single second, etc. are
quite clear and not at all in dispute.

The simple truth is that the film presents us with both subjective
issues and objective, indisputable facts. It is the latter that refutes
the lone assassin theory.

Post by Steve Barber
You've spent nearly
20 years of your life in this very newsgroup

Sorry Steve. I tire very quickly of these ad hominem rants. Lets talk
about something new, like the assassination of President Kennedy.

Are you up for that Steve? If not right away, then perhaps after you
post a few more rants, personally attacking Robert Harris?

This is a fascinating case, and much as I hate to admit it, considerably
more important than yours truly:-)

Robert Harris

Steve Barber

2013-08-21 01:40:25 UTC

No? You could have fooled me.

I didn't realize that Steve. What exactly did I say that convinced you
of such a thing?

Now, that is interesting indeed, coming from someone who has written
articles based entirely on the Zapruder film:-)
There are subjective calls in there I suppose, but I stay away from
those almost 100% of the time.
The issues I talk about, like Mrs. Connally looking at JFK circa 258,
the simultaneous startle reactions, Mrs. Kennedy turning toward JBC
after he began to shout, Greer spinning around at incredible speed, a
laundry list of Kellermans movements during a single second, etc. are
quite clear and not at all in dispute.
The simple truth is that the film presents us with both subjective
issues and objective, indisputable facts. It is the latter that refutes
the lone assassin theory.

Post by Steve Barber
You've spent nearly
20 years of your life in this very newsgroup

Sorry Steve. I tire very quickly of these ad hominem rants. Lets talk
about something new, like the assassination of President Kennedy.

"New"? Since when is a 50 year old murder "new"?

Post by Robert Harris
Are you up for that Steve? If not right away, then perhaps after you
post a few more rants, personally attacking Robert Harris?

Sure, I'm "up for that", I'm just not going to waste my valuable time
arguing with you over what you believe you see as "proof" of your theory
in a silent film.

Post by Robert Harris
This is a fascinating case, and much as I hate to admit it, considerably
more important than yours truly:-)
Robert Harris

Robert Harris

2013-08-22 02:00:26 UTC

No? You could have fooled me.

I didn't realize that Steve. What exactly did I say that convinced you
of such a thing?

Now, that is interesting indeed, coming from someone who has written
articles based entirely on the Zapruder film:-)
There are subjective calls in there I suppose, but I stay away from
those almost 100% of the time.
The issues I talk about, like Mrs. Connally looking at JFK circa 258,
the simultaneous startle reactions, Mrs. Kennedy turning toward JBC
after he began to shout, Greer spinning around at incredible speed, a
laundry list of Kellermans movements during a single second, etc. are
quite clear and not at all in dispute.
The simple truth is that the film presents us with both subjective
issues and objective, indisputable facts. It is the latter that refutes
the lone assassin theory.

Post by Steve Barber
You've spent nearly
20 years of your life in this very newsgroup

Sorry Steve. I tire very quickly of these ad hominem rants. Lets talk
about something new, like the assassination of President Kennedy.

"New"? Since when is a 50 year old murder "new"?

Post by Robert Harris
Are you up for that Steve? If not right away, then perhaps after you
post a few more rants, personally attacking Robert Harris?

Sure, I'm "up for that", I'm just not going to waste my valuable time
arguing with you over what you believe you see as "proof" of your theory
in a silent film.

Do you agree with that?

This is a more detailed explanation of what I see. Please be specific
about which of the statements you disagree with.

Loading Image...

Robert Harris

Steve Barber

2013-08-22 06:06:40 UTC

Post by Robert Harris
Bud, there is not a single, accurate sentence in that post.
A year or two ago, Duncan McRae, who had thrown me out of his forum for
posting a link to a 285 article, brought his team to the Ed forum and
launched a barrage of personal insults at me.
These were all nutters or pseudo buffs. That hardly proves that
conspiracy people disagree with me.
And even if they did, why would that matter?
Among people in the real world, with no baggage or axes to grind, I get
a seven to one favorable ratio of approvals for my main 285
presentation.
And please don't tell me that they cannot properly identify startle
reactions because they don't have the "experience" of following Fetzer
or Gerald Posner.
What you don't seem to get is that "Robert Harris" is NOT the issue.

No? You could have fooled me.

I didn't realize that Steve. What exactly did I say that convinced you
of such a thing?

Post by Steve Barber
This *is* all bout Robert Harris trying convince everyone in the world
of
something that only he and a few others "see" happening in a silent,
subjective film taken by a bystander, during a murder.

Now, that is interesting indeed, coming from someone who has written
articles based entirely on the Zapruder film:-)
There are subjective calls in there I suppose, but I stay away from
those almost 100% of the time.
The issues I talk about, like Mrs. Connally looking at JFK circa 258,
the simultaneous startle reactions, Mrs. Kennedy turning toward JBC
after he began to shout, Greer spinning around at incredible speed, a
laundry list of Kellermans movements during a single second, etc. are
quite clear and not at all in dispute.
The simple truth is that the film presents us with both subjective
issues and objective, indisputable facts. It is the latter that refutes
the lone assassin theory.

Post by Steve Barber
You've spent nearly
20 years of your life in this very newsgroup

Sorry Steve. I tire very quickly of these ad hominem rants. Lets talk
about something new, like the assassination of President Kennedy.

"New"? Since when is a 50 year old murder "new"?

Post by Robert Harris
Are you up for that Steve? If not right away, then perhaps after you
post a few more rants, personally attacking Robert Harris?

Sure, I'm "up for that", I'm just not going to waste my valuable time
arguing with you over what you believe you see as "proof" of your theory
in a silent film.

Well then, let's begin by confirming what I "see" that you do or do not. I
believe that Mrs. Kennedy, Mrs. Connally, and SA Kellerman, all began to
drop their heads forward and downward, in the range of 290-292.
http://jfkhistory.com/angles285.jpg
Do you agree with that?
This is a more detailed explanation of what I see. Please be specific
about which of the statements you disagree with.
http://jfkhistory.com/annotated.gif
Robert Harris

Please take your time and re-read what I said in that last post again,
Bob. S-l-o-w-l-y.

Robert Harris

2013-08-23 05:08:56 UTC

Post by Robert Harris
Bud, there is not a single, accurate sentence in that post.
A year or two ago, Duncan McRae, who had thrown me out of his forum for
posting a link to a 285 article, brought his team to the Ed forum and
launched a barrage of personal insults at me.
These were all nutters or pseudo buffs. That hardly proves that
conspiracy people disagree with me.
And even if they did, why would that matter?
Among people in the real world, with no baggage or axes to grind, I get
a seven to one favorable ratio of approvals for my main 285
presentation.
And please don't tell me that they cannot properly identify startle
reactions because they don't have the "experience" of following Fetzer
or Gerald Posner.
What you don't seem to get is that "Robert Harris" is NOT the issue.

No? You could have fooled me.

I didn't realize that Steve. What exactly did I say that convinced you
of such a thing?

Post by Steve Barber
This *is* all bout Robert Harris trying convince everyone in the world
of
something that only he and a few others "see" happening in a silent,
subjective film taken by a bystander, during a murder.

Now, that is interesting indeed, coming from someone who has written
articles based entirely on the Zapruder film:-)
There are subjective calls in there I suppose, but I stay away from
those almost 100% of the time.
The issues I talk about, like Mrs. Connally looking at JFK circa 258,
the simultaneous startle reactions, Mrs. Kennedy turning toward JBC
after he began to shout, Greer spinning around at incredible speed, a
laundry list of Kellermans movements during a single second, etc. are
quite clear and not at all in dispute.
The simple truth is that the film presents us with both subjective
issues and objective, indisputable facts. It is the latter that refutes
the lone assassin theory.

Post by Steve Barber
You've spent nearly
20 years of your life in this very newsgroup

Sorry Steve. I tire very quickly of these ad hominem rants. Lets talk
about something new, like the assassination of President Kennedy.

"New"? Since when is a 50 year old murder "new"?

Post by Robert Harris
Are you up for that Steve? If not right away, then perhaps after you
post a few more rants, personally attacking Robert Harris?

Sure, I'm "up for that", I'm just not going to waste my valuable time
arguing with you over what you believe you see as "proof" of your theory
in a silent film.

Please take your time and re-read what I said in that last post again,
Bob. S-l-o-w-l-y.

Steve, I read your post very carefully. You said that your time was so
valuable that you could not waste it, "arguing" with me.

But I am not asking you to argue. I am simply trying to determine what
we agree on.

I find it hard to understand why you would be unwilling to talk about
your own beliefs and perceptions.

Robert Harris

Steve Barber

2013-08-24 14:31:28 UTC

Post by Robert Harris
Bud, there is not a single, accurate sentence in that post.
A year or two ago, Duncan McRae, who had thrown me out of his forum
for
posting a link to a 285 article, brought his team to the Ed forum
and
launched a barrage of personal insults at me.
These were all nutters or pseudo buffs. That hardly proves that
conspiracy people disagree with me.
And even if they did, why would that matter?
Among people in the real world, with no baggage or axes to grind, I
get
a seven to one favorable ratio of approvals for my main 285
presentation.
And please don't tell me that they cannot properly identify startle
reactions because they don't have the "experience" of following
Fetzer
or Gerald Posner.
What you don't seem to get is that "Robert Harris" is NOT the
issue.

No? You could have fooled me.

I didn't realize that Steve. What exactly did I say that convinced you
of such a thing?

Post by Steve Barber
This *is* all bout Robert Harris trying convince everyone in the
world
of
something that only he and a few others "see" happening in a silent,
subjective film taken by a bystander, during a murder.

Now, that is interesting indeed, coming from someone who has written
articles based entirely on the Zapruder film:-)
There are subjective calls in there I suppose, but I stay away from
those almost 100% of the time.
The issues I talk about, like Mrs. Connally looking at JFK circa 258,
the simultaneous startle reactions, Mrs. Kennedy turning toward JBC
after he began to shout, Greer spinning around at incredible speed, a
laundry list of Kellermans movements during a single second, etc. are
quite clear and not at all in dispute.
The simple truth is that the film presents us with both subjective
issues and objective, indisputable facts. It is the latter that refutes
the lone assassin theory.

Post by Steve Barber
You've spent nearly
20 years of your life in this very newsgroup

Sorry Steve. I tire very quickly of these ad hominem rants. Lets talk
about something new, like the assassination of President Kennedy.

"New"? Since when is a 50 year old murder "new"?

Post by Robert Harris
Are you up for that Steve? If not right away, then perhaps after you
post a few more rants, personally attacking Robert Harris?

Sure, I'm "up for that", I'm just not going to waste my valuable time
arguing with you over what you believe you see as "proof" of your theory
in a silent film.

Please take your time and re-read what I said in that last post again,
Bob. S-l-o-w-l-y.

Don't flatter yourself, Bob.

Post by Robert Harris
I find it hard to understand why you would be unwilling to talk about
your own beliefs and perceptions.

You open yourself up wide with this one. Bob, but I'm afraid that my response will be rejected.

Post by Robert Harris
Robert Harris

Bud

2013-08-24 18:35:45 UTC

Post by Robert Harris
Bud, there is not a single, accurate sentence in that post.
A year or two ago, Duncan McRae, who had thrown me out of his forum
for
posting a link to a 285 article, brought his team to the Ed forum
and
launched a barrage of personal insults at me.
These were all nutters or pseudo buffs. That hardly proves that
conspiracy people disagree with me.
And even if they did, why would that matter?
Among people in the real world, with no baggage or axes to grind, I
get
a seven to one favorable ratio of approvals for my main 285
presentation.
And please don't tell me that they cannot properly identify startle
reactions because they don't have the "experience" of following
Fetzer
or Gerald Posner.
What you don't seem to get is that "Robert Harris" is NOT the
issue.

No? You could have fooled me.

I didn't realize that Steve. What exactly did I say that convinced you
of such a thing?

Post by Steve Barber
This *is* all bout Robert Harris trying convince everyone in the
world
of
something that only he and a few others "see" happening in a silent,
subjective film taken by a bystander, during a murder.

Now, that is interesting indeed, coming from someone who has written
articles based entirely on the Zapruder film:-)
There are subjective calls in there I suppose, but I stay away from
those almost 100% of the time.
The issues I talk about, like Mrs. Connally looking at JFK circa 258,
the simultaneous startle reactions, Mrs. Kennedy turning toward JBC
after he began to shout, Greer spinning around at incredible speed, a
laundry list of Kellermans movements during a single second, etc. are
quite clear and not at all in dispute.
The simple truth is that the film presents us with both subjective
issues and objective, indisputable facts. It is the latter that refutes
the lone assassin theory.

Post by Steve Barber
You've spent nearly
20 years of your life in this very newsgroup

Sorry Steve. I tire very quickly of these ad hominem rants. Lets talk
about something new, like the assassination of President Kennedy.

"New"? Since when is a 50 year old murder "new"?

Post by Robert Harris
Are you up for that Steve? If not right away, then perhaps after you
post a few more rants, personally attacking Robert Harris?

Sure, I'm "up for that", I'm just not going to waste my valuable time
arguing with you over what you believe you see as "proof" of your theory
in a silent film.

Please take your time and re-read what I said in that last post again,
Bob. S-l-o-w-l-y.

Steve, I read your post very carefully. You said that your time was so
valuable that you could not waste it, "arguing" with me.
But I am not asking you to argue. I am simply trying to determine what
we agree on.
I find it hard to understand why you would be unwilling to talk about
your own beliefs and perceptions.

<snicker> You haven`t the slightest interest in anyone else`s beliefs
and perceptions, Harris. You are like a panhandler who begs for food, but
when you hand him a sandwich he throws it away.

Post by Robert Harris
Robert Harris

Anthony Marsh

2013-08-25 02:51:11 UTC

Post by Robert Harris
Bud, there is not a single, accurate sentence in that post.
A year or two ago, Duncan McRae, who had thrown me out of his forum for
posting a link to a 285 article, brought his team to the Ed forum and
launched a barrage of personal insults at me.
These were all nutters or pseudo buffs. That hardly proves that
conspiracy people disagree with me.
And even if they did, why would that matter?
Among people in the real world, with no baggage or axes to grind, I get
a seven to one favorable ratio of approvals for my main 285
presentation.
And please don't tell me that they cannot properly identify startle
reactions because they don't have the "experience" of following Fetzer
or Gerald Posner.
What you don't seem to get is that "Robert Harris" is NOT the issue.

No? You could have fooled me.

I didn't realize that Steve. What exactly did I say that convinced you
of such a thing?

Post by Steve Barber
This *is* all bout Robert Harris trying convince everyone in the world
of
something that only he and a few others "see" happening in a silent,
subjective film taken by a bystander, during a murder.

Now, that is interesting indeed, coming from someone who has written
articles based entirely on the Zapruder film:-)
There are subjective calls in there I suppose, but I stay away from
those almost 100% of the time.
The issues I talk about, like Mrs. Connally looking at JFK circa 258,
the simultaneous startle reactions, Mrs. Kennedy turning toward JBC
after he began to shout, Greer spinning around at incredible speed, a
laundry list of Kellermans movements during a single second, etc. are
quite clear and not at all in dispute.
The simple truth is that the film presents us with both subjective
issues and objective, indisputable facts. It is the latter that refutes
the lone assassin theory.

Post by Steve Barber
You've spent nearly
20 years of your life in this very newsgroup

Sorry Steve. I tire very quickly of these ad hominem rants. Lets talk
about something new, like the assassination of President Kennedy.

"New"? Since when is a 50 year old murder "new"?

Post by Robert Harris
Are you up for that Steve? If not right away, then perhaps after you
post a few more rants, personally attacking Robert Harris?

Sure, I'm "up for that", I'm just not going to waste my valuable time
arguing with you over what you believe you see as "proof" of your theory
in a silent film.

Please take your time and re-read what I said in that last post again,
Bob. S-l-o-w-l-y.

Steve, I read your post very carefully. You said that your time was so
valuable that you could not waste it, "arguing" with me.
But I am not asking you to argue. I am simply trying to determine what
we agree on.
I find it hard to understand why you would be unwilling to talk about
your own beliefs and perceptions.

No, you using Argumentum ad Ignorantiam to ASSuME his not wanting to waste
his time arguing with a brick wall means he concedes all your points.

Post by Robert Harris
Robert Harris

Bud

2013-08-19 04:11:30 UTC

Post by Robert Harris
Bud, there is not a single, accurate sentence in that post.

None that you liked, anyway.

Post by Robert Harris
A year or two ago, Duncan McRae, who had thrown me out of his forum for
posting a link to a 285 article, brought his team to the Ed forum and
launched a barrage of personal insults at me.

Seemed like the regular cast of crackpots that hang out in the EDForum
to me.

Post by Robert Harris
These were all nutters or pseudo buffs.

<snicker> Thats the whole fricken menu on these boards, Harris.

Post by Robert Harris
That hardly proves that
conspiracy people disagree with me.

No, but it does show it.

Post by Robert Harris
And even if they did, why would that matter?

It would mean what I said was accurate. But strangely enough you were
just claiming nothing I wrote was.

Post by Robert Harris
Among people in the real world, with no baggage or axes to grind, I get
a seven to one favorable ratio of approvals for my main 285 presentation.

Real people in the real world haven`t viewed your main presentation. A
particular type of person views it. I`d venture a guess that a good
portion of the people who approved of your presentation also believe the
government was behind 9-11. In a word, idiots.

Post by Robert Harris
And please don't tell me that they cannot properly identify startle
reactions because they don't have the "experience" of following Fetzer
or Gerald Posner.

I don`t know why they voted like they did and neither do you.

Post by Robert Harris
What you don't seem to get is that "Robert Harris" is NOT the issue.

Bob Harris`s fabulous opinions are. Aren`t they grand, the bestest
opinions ever?

Yet you could sell these ideas to very audience that would love to have
a conspiracy established in this case.

Post by Robert Harris
And on and on and on.
You should be discussing these facts, even if I had never been born. The
facts and evidence are everything, my friend.

The fact is you couldn`t sell your ideas to an audience starving for
justifications for their belief that a conspiracy took JFK`s life.

Post by Robert Harris
EVERYTHING.
Robert Harris

Robert Harris

2013-08-20 04:29:33 UTC

Post by Robert Harris
Bud, there is not a single, accurate sentence in that post.

None that you liked, anyway.

No denial, eh Bud:-)

Seemed like the regular cast of crackpots that hang out in the EDForum
to me.

Well, you judgement certainly settles the matter. But I have to admit
that calling this particular little group "crackpots", hits the nail
squarely on the head:-)

Post by Robert Harris
These were all nutters or pseudo buffs.

<snicker> Thats the whole fricken menu on these boards, Harris.

I know that, but since you do too, why did you claim that these were
conspiracy people, attacking me?

Post by Robert Harris
That hardly proves that
conspiracy people disagree with me.

No, but it does show it.

I don't even know how to begin to deal with such gibberish.

Post by Robert Harris
And even if they did, why would that matter?

It would mean what I said was accurate.

The question was not about whether you were right. It was about it
mattering.

Post by Bud
But strangely enough you were
just claiming nothing I wrote was.

I guess you didn't get the "even if they did" part. That doesn't mean
you were right. It means that even if you had been right, it wouldn't
matter.

Why do I have to explain all this stuff to you Bud?

Post by Robert Harris
Among people in the real world, with no baggage or axes to grind, I get
a seven to one favorable ratio of approvals for my main 285 presentation.

Real people in the real world haven`t viewed your main presentation.

And how did you make that discovery?

Post by Bud
A
particular type of person views it.

What type is that and how did you make that determination? I've gotten
positive replies on that video, by doctors, law enforcement people and
educators.

Is that what you meant by a particular type of person?

Or were you just trashing people you know nothing about? I'm giving long
odds on the latter.

Post by Bud
I`d venture a guess that a good
portion of the people who approved of your presentation also believe the
government was behind 9-11. In a word, idiots.

Your "guess" wouldn't cut it my friend. I refute more of the traditional
conspiracy arguments in my videos than I do arguments on your side of
the debate.

Your problem is Bud, that you are helpless to refute the actual content
of my presentations, so all you can do is fabricate these endless
insults and even go so far as to demean people who agree with me,
without so much as a trace of justification.

It really is sad that this is all LN advocates have left in their
arsenal these days. It's even sadder that they would choose to use it.

Robert Harris

Bud

2013-08-20 16:56:41 UTC

Post by Robert Harris
Bud, there is not a single, accurate sentence in that post.

None that you liked, anyway.

No denial, eh Bud:-)

Who am I to contest Bob Harris`s opinion?

Seemed like the regular cast of crackpots that hang out in the EDForum
to me.

Well, you judgement certainly settles the matter. But I have to admit
that calling this particular little group "crackpots", hits the nail
squarely on the head:-)

As did my observation that those conspiracy happy minions lit torches
and drove you away when you would have expected them to welcome with open
arms someone with all the keys that showed conspiracy.

Post by Robert Harris
These were all nutters or pseudo buffs.

<snicker> Thats the whole fricken menu on these boards, Harris.

I know that, but since you do too, why did you claim that these were
conspiracy people, attacking me?

Because they were conspiracy people attacking you on the EDForum. These
people have a history of embracing ideas just as bad as yours, why did
they become haters if you have such compelling arguments?

Post by Robert Harris
That hardly proves that
conspiracy people disagree with me.

No, but it does show it.

I don't even know how to begin to deal with such gibberish.

I demonstrated my point. I can`t begin to tell where you lost it.

Post by Robert Harris
And even if they did, why would that matter?

It would mean what I said was accurate.

The question was not about whether you were right.

The point whether I said anything that was accurate. You claimed I
hadn`t.

Post by Robert Harris
It was about it
mattering.

Post by Bud
But strangely enough you were
just claiming nothing I wrote was.

I guess you didn't get the "even if they did" part. That doesn't mean
you were right. It means that even if you had been right, it wouldn't
matter.

You were allowing I could be right. Apparently everything I wrote was,
because you rebuttal did no harm to a single thing I said.

Post by Robert Harris
Why do I have to explain all this stuff to you Bud?

Post by Robert Harris
Among people in the real world, with no baggage or axes to grind, I get
a seven to one favorable ratio of approvals for my main 285 presentation.

Real people in the real world haven`t viewed your main presentation.

And how did you make that discovery?

Living in the real world. The average person isn`t struck with the idea
of looking into your ideas on the Kennedy assassination. A conspiracy
hobbyist is much more motivated to do so. They are the ones hungry for
justifications for believing a conspiracy took Kennedy`s life.

Post by Bud
A
particular type of person views it.

What type is that and how did you make that determination?

See above.

Post by Robert Harris
I've gotten
positive replies on that video, by doctors, law enforcement people and
educators.

And you think these people can`t be idiots? Ever read a newspaper?

Post by Robert Harris
Is that what you meant by a particular type of person?

No, I mean conspiracy hobbyist.

Post by Robert Harris
Or were you just trashing people you know nothing about? I'm giving long
odds on the latter.

You seem willing to think the best of them.

Post by Bud
I`d venture a guess that a good
portion of the people who approved of your presentation also believe the
government was behind 9-11. In a word, idiots.

Your "guess" wouldn't cut it my friend.

Isn`t it only your guess that they find you presentation compelling? You
equate "likes" with having swayed the viewer to your ideas, right? Aren`t
you guessing about this?

Post by Robert Harris
I refute more of the traditional
conspiracy arguments in my videos than I do arguments on your side of
the debate.
Your problem is Bud, that you are helpless to refute the actual content
of my presentations, so all you can do is fabricate these endless
insults and even go so far as to demean people who agree with me,
without so much as a trace of justification.

Agreeing with you is reason enough. But what I was really pointing out
that in true conspiracy hobbyist fashion you are taking some information
that is nearly devoid of context and spinning it to represent an idea that
is unsupportable by that information. What if the context is what I say,
doesn`t that change how the information should be viewed? Why should it be
viewed how you decide it should be, as a rubber stamp approval of all the
ideas expressed within? And even if it is, with no information on the
people expressing that approval the information is still pretty useless,
despite you being convinced it is made up largely by doctors and lawyers.
My guess is that it`s mostly Truther nosepickers, and that they outnumber
the doctors and lawyers 100 to 1.

Post by Robert Harris
It really is sad that this is all LN advocates have left in their
arsenal these days. It's even sadder that they would choose to use it.

You still aren`t giving and real reason why a group who is hungry for
proof of conspiracy would so utterly reject your ideas.

Post by Robert Harris
Robert Harris

Anthony Marsh

2013-08-19 04:27:19 UTC

I am a conspiracy people and I disagree with you all the time.

Post by Robert Harris
And even if they did, why would that matter?
Among people in the real world, with no baggage or axes to grind, I get
a seven to one favorable ratio of approvals for my main 285 presentation.

False. 9 out of 10 people approve of the video of the cat playing the
piano. That proves nothing.

Post by Robert Harris
And please don't tell me that they cannot properly identify startle
reactions because they don't have the "experience" of following Fetzer
or Gerald Posner.
What you don't seem to get is that "Robert Harris" is NOT the issue.

You are, because you are the only being in this quadrant of the galaxy
who believes there was a shot at Z-285.

Lanny

2013-08-19 05:48:18 UTC

Post by Anthony Marsh

I am a conspiracy people and I disagree with you all the time.

False. 9 out of 10 people approve of the video of the cat playing the
piano. That proves nothing.

Talk about striking a sympathetic chord...

Post by Anthony Marsh

You are, because you are the only being in this quadrant of the galaxy
who believes there was a shot at Z-285.

t***@gmail.com

2013-08-19 04:33:00 UTC

LOL! Well I'm not sure Ott Rovgeisha will be agreeing with that
assessment!

Regards,

Tim Brennan
Sydney, Australia
*Newsgroup(s) Commentator*

*...NOT ONE of the three experts was able to strike the head or the
neck of the target EVEN ONCE.* (Emphasis added).
Mark Lane, Rush to Judgment, page 129, footnoted as: XVII 261-262.

And yet here IS WC XVII 261-262, showing hits to the head...
http://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh17/html/WH_Vol17_0144a.htm

X marks the spot where Mark Lane lied!

Ott Rovgeisha

2013-08-19 05:46:52 UTC

LOL! Well I'm not sure Ott Rovgeisha will be agreeing with that
assessment!
Regards,
Tim Brennan
Sydney, Australia
*Newsgroup(s) Commentator*
*...NOT ONE of the three experts was able to strike the head or the
neck of the target EVEN ONCE.* (Emphasis added).
Mark Lane, Rush to Judgment, page 129, footnoted as: XVII 261-262.
And yet here IS WC XVII 261-262, showing hits to the head...
http://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh17/html/WH_Vol17_0144a.htm
X marks the spot where Mark Lane lied!

On the contrary. I agree with almost every single word in that post..

But you know what: it doesn't matter, what people on the forum think.
it really doesn't matter, who's egos are touched.
I really don't care.
I really son't care about the so-called conspiracy hobbyists.

The truth stays the same, the truth reveals itself...
The truth matters.
People are too eager to be right or the get paid for making up the truth.
But the truth doesn't need anyone's approval.

I do not care what was said in that forum and how was Robert Harris
accepted there. That is not important at all.

What is rather telling however, is the existence of this post.

The truth is: you are SO desperate to badger this man, desperate because
you have no arguments against him, except your subjectivity excuse, you
are SO desperate that your only way is to make posts like this, containing
propaganda.

The truth of the matter is: none of the nutters have come up with a
sensible 1 to 1 argument against any Harris' arguments or my arguments. I
wonder why? No.. Actually I don't. This is all pretty obvious really...

Tim, do get charged by the letter?

I mean really, that X marks the spot where Mark Lane lied and the quotes
are even more annoying than any of Robert Harris' posts. Think of
something new, that a done deal, honestly. You should really start to put
to the footer this incredible number of coincidences in this case.

I really don't care how much Mark Lane lied or not.
Because that does not affect the truth.

t***@gmail.com

2013-08-21 08:33:13 UTC

LOL! Well I'm not sure Ott Rovgeisha will be agreeing with that
assessment!
Regards,
Tim Brennan
Sydney, Australia
*Newsgroup(s) Commentator*
*...NOT ONE of the three experts was able to strike the head or the
neck of the target EVEN ONCE.* (Emphasis added).
Mark Lane, Rush to Judgment, page 129, footnoted as: XVII 261-262.
And yet here IS WC XVII 261-262, showing hits to the head...
http://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh17/html/WH_Vol17_0144a.htm
X marks the spot where Mark Lane lied!

On the contrary. I agree with almost every single word in that post..
But you know what: it doesn't matter, what people on the forum think.
it really doesn't matter, who's egos are touched.
I really don't care.
I really son't care about the so-called conspiracy hobbyists.
The truth stays the same, the truth reveals itself...
The truth matters.
People are too eager to be right or the get paid for making up the truth.
But the truth doesn't need anyone's approval.
I do not care what was said in that forum and how was Robert Harris
accepted there. That is not important at all.
What is rather telling however, is the existence of this post.
The truth is: you are SO desperate to badger this man, desperate because
you have no arguments against him, except your subjectivity excuse, you
are SO desperate that your only way is to make posts like this, containing
propaganda.
The truth of the matter is: none of the nutters have come up with a
sensible 1 to 1 argument against any Harris' arguments or my arguments. I
wonder why? No.. Actually I don't. This is all pretty obvious really...
Tim, do get charged by the letter?
I mean really, that X marks the spot where Mark Lane lied and the quotes
are even more annoying than any of Robert Harris' posts. Think of
something new, that a done deal, honestly. You should really start to put
to the footer this incredible number of coincidences in this case.
I really don't care how much Mark Lane lied or not.
Because that does not affect the truth.

Well I think you've got THAT wrong, Ott.

Mark Lane lied back in the sixties and that DOES affect the truth.

A lot of his nonsense got picked up and repeated in things like the JFK
movie.

The lies roll on over the years and are built on by others.

Perhaps you need to examine how many of the *coincidences* you believe
*nutters* should be concerned about ACTUALLY sprang from the lies Mark
Lane told in Rush To Judgment.

TB

Ott Rovgeisha

2013-08-21 12:59:17 UTC

LOL! Well I'm not sure Ott Rovgeisha will be agreeing with that
assessment!
Regards,
Tim Brennan
Sydney, Australia
*Newsgroup(s) Commentator*
*...NOT ONE of the three experts was able to strike the head or the
neck of the target EVEN ONCE.* (Emphasis added).
Mark Lane, Rush to Judgment, page 129, footnoted as: XVII 261-262.
And yet here IS WC XVII 261-262, showing hits to the head...
http://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh17/html/WH_Vol17_0144a.htm
X marks the spot where Mark Lane lied!

On the contrary. I agree with almost every single word in that post..
But you know what: it doesn't matter, what people on the forum think.
it really doesn't matter, who's egos are touched.
I really don't care.
I really son't care about the so-called conspiracy hobbyists.
The truth stays the same, the truth reveals itself...
The truth matters.
People are too eager to be right or the get paid for making up the truth.
But the truth doesn't need anyone's approval.
I do not care what was said in that forum and how was Robert Harris
accepted there. That is not important at all.
What is rather telling however, is the existence of this post.
The truth is: you are SO desperate to badger this man, desperate because
you have no arguments against him, except your subjectivity excuse, you
are SO desperate that your only way is to make posts like this, containing
propaganda.
The truth of the matter is: none of the nutters have come up with a
sensible 1 to 1 argument against any Harris' arguments or my arguments. I
wonder why? No.. Actually I don't. This is all pretty obvious really...
Tim, do get charged by the letter?
I mean really, that X marks the spot where Mark Lane lied and the quotes
are even more annoying than any of Robert Harris' posts. Think of
something new, that a done deal, honestly. You should really start to put
to the footer this incredible number of coincidences in this case.
I really don't care how much Mark Lane lied or not.
Because that does not affect the truth.

Well I think you've got THAT wrong, Ott.
Mark Lane lied back in the sixties and that DOES affect the truth.
A lot of his nonsense got picked up and repeated in things like the JFK
movie.
The lies roll on over the years and are built on by others.
Perhaps you need to examine how many of the *coincidences* you believe
*nutters* should be concerned about ACTUALLY sprang from the lies Mark
Lane told in Rush To Judgment.
TB

How does it change the reality of what happened???

Sandy McCroskey

2013-08-22 02:00:55 UTC

LOL! Well I'm not sure Ott Rovgeisha will be agreeing with that
assessment!
Regards,
Tim Brennan
Sydney, Australia
*Newsgroup(s) Commentator*
*...NOT ONE of the three experts was able to strike the head or the
neck of the target EVEN ONCE.* (Emphasis added).
Mark Lane, Rush to Judgment, page 129, footnoted as: XVII 261-262.
And yet here IS WC XVII 261-262, showing hits to the head...
http://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh17/html/WH_Vol17_0144a.htm
X marks the spot where Mark Lane lied!

On the contrary. I agree with almost every single word in that post..
But you know what: it doesn't matter, what people on the forum think.
it really doesn't matter, who's egos are touched.
I really don't care.
I really son't care about the so-called conspiracy hobbyists.
The truth stays the same, the truth reveals itself...
The truth matters.
People are too eager to be right or the get paid for making up the truth.
But the truth doesn't need anyone's approval.
I do not care what was said in that forum and how was Robert Harris
accepted there. That is not important at all.
What is rather telling however, is the existence of this post.
The truth is: you are SO desperate to badger this man, desperate because
you have no arguments against him, except your subjectivity excuse, you
are SO desperate that your only way is to make posts like this, containing
propaganda.
The truth of the matter is: none of the nutters have come up with a
sensible 1 to 1 argument against any Harris' arguments or my arguments. I
wonder why? No.. Actually I don't. This is all pretty obvious really...
Tim, do get charged by the letter?
I mean really, that X marks the spot where Mark Lane lied and the quotes
are even more annoying than any of Robert Harris' posts. Think of
something new, that a done deal, honestly. You should really start to put
to the footer this incredible number of coincidences in this case.
I really don't care how much Mark Lane lied or not.
Because that does not affect the truth.

Well I think you've got THAT wrong, Ott.
Mark Lane lied back in the sixties and that DOES affect the truth.
A lot of his nonsense got picked up and repeated in things like the JFK
movie.
The lies roll on over the years and are built on by others.
Perhaps you need to examine how many of the *coincidences* you believe
*nutters* should be concerned about ACTUALLY sprang from the lies Mark
Lane told in Rush To Judgment.
TB

How does it change the reality of what happened???

How can anyone get a grasp of the reality of what happened if they
swallow hook, line and sinker the lies of people like Mark Lane?

Dave Reitzes

2013-08-29 02:06:16 UTC