Discussion:
A sincere request for Brock
Add Reply
Robert Harris
2017-06-08 19:08:41 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Ok, I confess. Usually, when I post a title like this, it is
to get in a dig of some kind.

But this time, I really am sincere, believe it or not.

Brock, the issue before is, were the limo passengers startled
at app. frame 285. Is there any way we can discuss this as
though we were complete strangers, commissioned to resolve
this question?

Isn't it more important than our personal squabbles??

After dozens of posts, I have not seen you address several of
the most important issues.

1. Did the limo passengers drop their heads, spin rapidly,
etc, beginning in the same 1/6th of one second at 290-292?

2. Did Roy Kellerman simultaneously drop his head, shield his
ear and raise his shoulders upward for a fraction of a second
in unison with the other alleged reactions?

3. Did the limo passengers began to react at exactly the same
instant that Alvarez did (at 290-291), according to Dr. Alvarez?

I believe the answer to each of those questions is *yes*. I
will not link the relevant Zapruder segments, since I know
you have already seen them.

I do not dispute your claim that you have addressed the 285
issue, in various ways, in the past. But you have never tried
to answer these questions.

It is only moral to defend the LN theory if you genuinely
believe it is true. But how can you do that if you have not
addressed the most important challenges?





Robert Harris
BT George
2017-06-09 13:23:18 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Robert Harris
Ok, I confess. Usually, when I post a title like this, it is
to get in a dig of some kind.
But this time, I really am sincere, believe it or not.
Brock, the issue before is, were the limo passengers startled
at app. frame 285. Is there any way we can discuss this as
though we were complete strangers, commissioned to resolve
this question?
Isn't it more important than our personal squabbles??
After dozens of posts, I have not seen you address several of
the most important issues.
1. Did the limo passengers drop their heads, spin rapidly,
etc, beginning in the same 1/6th of one second at 290-292?
2. Did Roy Kellerman simultaneously drop his head, shield his
ear and raise his shoulders upward for a fraction of a second
in unison with the other alleged reactions?
3. Did the limo passengers began to react at exactly the same
instant that Alvarez did (at 290-291), according to Dr. Alvarez?
I believe the answer to each of those questions is *yes*. I
will not link the relevant Zapruder segments, since I know
you have already seen them.
I do not dispute your claim that you have addressed the 285
issue, in various ways, in the past. But you have never tried
to answer these questions.
It is only moral to defend the LN theory if you genuinely
believe it is true. But how can you do that if you have not
addressed the most important challenges?
All,

I'm definitely all in favor of reducing the level of hostility in
interchanges between Bob Harris and me. However, I cannot support the
continual *false* claims that I have not addressed his arguments
*repeatedly* and in some considerable *detail*.

It is true that I have used mockery and sarcasm---newsflash---that's a
common device around here to get one's point across. But that doesn't
change the fact that I have made *many* honest and *substantive*
evaluations and criticisms of Bob's various theories, including his most
treasured Z285 beliefs.

.John/Moderators,

Of course, Bob has every right to answer in kind any comments I have to
make to him in a thread, or to respond in kind, should I initiate a thread
directed at him. But going forward I request that he not be allowed to
continue to open up *new* threads initiated for the sole purpose of
engaging or attacking me---especially when it is trying to make the claim
I have never legitimately engaged with him in debate, or is an obvious
attempt to goad me into a response.

IMO, it is becoming a form of unwanted harassment, aimed at forcing me to
either go silent (and let Bob take a "victory lap" for the supposed
"evasion") or to keep responding, and responding, and responding. All of
which is just so much more needless SPAM for the Group.

Brock (BT) George
John McAdams
2017-06-09 13:25:53 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by BT George
Post by Robert Harris
Ok, I confess. Usually, when I post a title like this, it is
to get in a dig of some kind.
But this time, I really am sincere, believe it or not.
Brock, the issue before is, were the limo passengers startled
at app. frame 285. Is there any way we can discuss this as
though we were complete strangers, commissioned to resolve
this question?
Isn't it more important than our personal squabbles??
After dozens of posts, I have not seen you address several of
the most important issues.
1. Did the limo passengers drop their heads, spin rapidly,
etc, beginning in the same 1/6th of one second at 290-292?
2. Did Roy Kellerman simultaneously drop his head, shield his
ear and raise his shoulders upward for a fraction of a second
in unison with the other alleged reactions?
3. Did the limo passengers began to react at exactly the same
instant that Alvarez did (at 290-291), according to Dr. Alvarez?
I believe the answer to each of those questions is *yes*. I
will not link the relevant Zapruder segments, since I know
you have already seen them.
I do not dispute your claim that you have addressed the 285
issue, in various ways, in the past. But you have never tried
to answer these questions.
It is only moral to defend the LN theory if you genuinely
believe it is true. But how can you do that if you have not
addressed the most important challenges?
All,
I'm definitely all in favor of reducing the level of hostility in
interchanges between Bob Harris and me. However, I cannot support the
continual *false* claims that I have not addressed his arguments
*repeatedly* and in some considerable *detail*.
It is true that I have used mockery and sarcasm---newsflash---that's a
common device around here to get one's point across. But that doesn't
change the fact that I have made *many* honest and *substantive*
evaluations and criticisms of Bob's various theories, including his most
treasured Z285 beliefs.
.John/Moderators,
Of course, Bob has every right to answer in kind any comments I have to
make to him in a thread, or to respond in kind, should I initiate a thread
directed at him. But going forward I request that he not be allowed to
continue to open up *new* threads initiated for the sole purpose of
engaging or attacking me---especially when it is trying to make the claim
I have never legitimately engaged with him in debate, or is an obvious
attempt to goad me into a response.
IMO, it is becoming a form of unwanted harassment, aimed at forcing me to
either go silent (and let Bob take a "victory lap" for the supposed
"evasion") or to keep responding, and responding, and responding. All of
which is just so much more needless SPAM for the Group.
You have a point. I think I will start rejecting all "you have not
responded" claims from Harris.

Everybody *has* responded. Bob simply doesn't like the response.

So from now on, he can either *rebut* the response, or remain silent.

.John
-----------------------
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/home.htm
Robert Harris
2017-06-10 02:29:15 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by John McAdams
Post by BT George
Post by Robert Harris
Ok, I confess. Usually, when I post a title like this, it is
to get in a dig of some kind.
But this time, I really am sincere, believe it or not.
Brock, the issue before is, were the limo passengers startled
at app. frame 285. Is there any way we can discuss this as
though we were complete strangers, commissioned to resolve
this question?
Isn't it more important than our personal squabbles??
After dozens of posts, I have not seen you address several of
the most important issues.
1. Did the limo passengers drop their heads, spin rapidly,
etc, beginning in the same 1/6th of one second at 290-292?
2. Did Roy Kellerman simultaneously drop his head, shield his
ear and raise his shoulders upward for a fraction of a second
in unison with the other alleged reactions?
3. Did the limo passengers began to react at exactly the same
instant that Alvarez did (at 290-291), according to Dr. Alvarez?
I believe the answer to each of those questions is *yes*. I
will not link the relevant Zapruder segments, since I know
you have already seen them.
I do not dispute your claim that you have addressed the 285
issue, in various ways, in the past. But you have never tried
to answer these questions.
It is only moral to defend the LN theory if you genuinely
believe it is true. But how can you do that if you have not
addressed the most important challenges?
All,
I'm definitely all in favor of reducing the level of hostility in
interchanges between Bob Harris and me. However, I cannot support the
continual *false* claims that I have not addressed his arguments
*repeatedly* and in some considerable *detail*.
It is true that I have used mockery and sarcasm---newsflash---that's a
common device around here to get one's point across. But that doesn't
change the fact that I have made *many* honest and *substantive*
evaluations and criticisms of Bob's various theories, including his most
treasured Z285 beliefs.
.John/Moderators,
Of course, Bob has every right to answer in kind any comments I have to
make to him in a thread, or to respond in kind, should I initiate a thread
directed at him. But going forward I request that he not be allowed to
continue to open up *new* threads initiated for the sole purpose of
engaging or attacking me---especially when it is trying to make the claim
I have never legitimately engaged with him in debate, or is an obvious
attempt to goad me into a response.
IMO, it is becoming a form of unwanted harassment, aimed at forcing me to
either go silent (and let Bob take a "victory lap" for the supposed
"evasion") or to keep responding, and responding, and responding. All of
which is just so much more needless SPAM for the Group.
You have a point. I think I will start rejecting all "you have not
responded" claims from Harris.
Please stop misrepresenting me. Of course he has "responded".
Did you even read my post? I stated,

"I do not dispute your claim that you have addressed the 285
issue, in various ways, in the past. But you have never tried
to answer these questions."

We all know that Brock has not answered those particular
questions and has never tried.

If he had, you or he could have simiply repeated what he said.

You should not defend evasion, John. As you yourself, have
agreed, evasion is a despicable tactic. It is dishonest and
it prevents us moving the discussion forward.
Post by John McAdams
Everybody *has* responded.
I doubt that, but quite a few have.

As you know however, Brock has never attempted to answer
those three particular questions. And in his response in this
thread, he NEVER claimed he had.
Post by John McAdams
Bob simply doesn't like the response.
That is true. I don't like his "response" at all, because it
never addressed the questions I asked. He said,

"I cannot support the continual *false* claims that I have
not addressed his arguments *repeatedly* and in some
considerable *detail*."

Of course I have never claimed that he did not address some
of my arguments. He claimed for example, that his subjective
opinion was that no one except Kellerman exhibited startle
reactions following 285. And he has made other arguments.

You deliberately use the wrong verb. I did not claim he
failed to "respond". I said he failed to "ANSWER" those
questions.

If I am wrong, all he has to do is say, "Yes I did. My
answers were...".

But he cannot do that because as all of us know, he never
answered them.
Post by John McAdams
So from now on, he can either *rebut* the response, or remain silent.
No, I can't.

I cannot rebut an answer that has never been given.




Robert Harris
John McAdams
2017-06-10 02:37:04 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Robert Harris
Post by John McAdams
Post by BT George
.John/Moderators,
Of course, Bob has every right to answer in kind any comments I have to
make to him in a thread, or to respond in kind, should I initiate a thread
directed at him. But going forward I request that he not be allowed to
continue to open up *new* threads initiated for the sole purpose of
engaging or attacking me---especially when it is trying to make the claim
I have never legitimately engaged with him in debate, or is an obvious
attempt to goad me into a response.
IMO, it is becoming a form of unwanted harassment, aimed at forcing me to
either go silent (and let Bob take a "victory lap" for the supposed
"evasion") or to keep responding, and responding, and responding. All of
which is just so much more needless SPAM for the Group.
You have a point. I think I will start rejecting all "you have not
responded" claims from Harris.
Please stop misrepresenting me. Of course he has "responded".
Did you even read my post? I stated,
"I do not dispute your claim that you have addressed the 285
issue, in various ways, in the past. But you have never tried
to answer these questions."
Unfortunately, Bob, *you* will always insist you have not gotten an
answer when what has really happened is that you have not gotten the
answer you wanted.

You *don't* have the right to badger people by claiming they did not
answer when they did.
Post by Robert Harris
We all know that Brock has not answered those particular
questions and has never tried.
If he had, you or he could have simiply repeated what he said.
It's not your right to keep pestering him with the same questions.

You can respond to what he wrote, and *explain* how you disagree, or
can it.
Post by Robert Harris
You should not defend evasion, John. As you yourself, have
agreed, evasion is a despicable tactic. It is dishonest and
it prevents us moving the discussion forward.
The form of "evasion" I see is your ignoring the responses you get,
and just continuing to badger people with the same questions.
Post by Robert Harris
Post by John McAdams
Everybody *has* responded.
I doubt that, but quite a few have.
As you know however, Brock has never attempted to answer
those three particular questions. And in his response in this
thread, he NEVER claimed he had.
Post by John McAdams
Bob simply doesn't like the response.
That is true. I don't like his "response" at all, because it
never addressed the questions I asked. He said,
"I cannot support the continual *false* claims that I have
not addressed his arguments *repeatedly* and in some
considerable *detail*."
Of course I have never claimed that he did not address some
of my arguments. He claimed for example, that his subjective
opinion was that no one except Kellerman exhibited startle
reactions following 285. And he has made other arguments.
So that was his "subjective opinion?"

Irony alert!
Post by Robert Harris
You deliberately use the wrong verb. I did not claim he
failed to "respond". I said he failed to "ANSWER" those
questions.
You can respond to his *response*, but not badger him for not
"answering."
Post by Robert Harris
If I am wrong, all he has to do is say, "Yes I did. My
answers were...".
But he cannot do that because as all of us know, he never
answered them.
We know he answered, but you didn't like the answers.
Post by Robert Harris
Post by John McAdams
So from now on, he can either *rebut* the response, or remain silent.
No, I can't.
I cannot rebut an answer that has never been given.
You can rebut a "response" that *has* been given.

.John
-----------------------
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/home.htm
Robert Harris
2017-06-14 02:51:25 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by John McAdams
Post by Robert Harris
Post by John McAdams
Post by BT George
.John/Moderators,
Of course, Bob has every right to answer in kind any comments I have to
make to him in a thread, or to respond in kind, should I initiate a thread
directed at him. But going forward I request that he not be allowed to
continue to open up *new* threads initiated for the sole purpose of
engaging or attacking me---especially when it is trying to make the claim
I have never legitimately engaged with him in debate, or is an obvious
attempt to goad me into a response.
IMO, it is becoming a form of unwanted harassment, aimed at forcing me to
either go silent (and let Bob take a "victory lap" for the supposed
"evasion") or to keep responding, and responding, and responding. All of
which is just so much more needless SPAM for the Group.
You have a point. I think I will start rejecting all "you have not
responded" claims from Harris.
Please stop misrepresenting me. Of course he has "responded".
Did you even read my post? I stated,
"I do not dispute your claim that you have addressed the 285
issue, in various ways, in the past. But you have never tried
to answer these questions."
Unfortunately, Bob, *you* will always insist you have not gotten an
answer when what has really happened is that you have not gotten the
answer you wanted.
That is untrue.

If I state that a question has not been answered, it has to
the best of my knowledge, never been answered.

I asked Brock three questions but he never answered them.

It really is just that simple.

If I am wrong, then my adversary need only cite his post
which contained the answers.
Post by John McAdams
You *don't* have the right to badger people by claiming they did not
answer when they did.
But that has never happened.

If it had, you could have proven it with a couple of verbatim
citations.

But you will never do that because such citations do not exist.


Robert Harris
BT George
2017-06-14 18:57:39 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Robert Harris
Post by John McAdams
Post by Robert Harris
Post by John McAdams
Post by BT George
.John/Moderators,
Of course, Bob has every right to answer in kind any comments I have to
make to him in a thread, or to respond in kind, should I initiate a thread
directed at him. But going forward I request that he not be allowed to
continue to open up *new* threads initiated for the sole purpose of
engaging or attacking me---especially when it is trying to make the claim
I have never legitimately engaged with him in debate, or is an obvious
attempt to goad me into a response.
IMO, it is becoming a form of unwanted harassment, aimed at forcing me to
either go silent (and let Bob take a "victory lap" for the supposed
"evasion") or to keep responding, and responding, and responding. All of
which is just so much more needless SPAM for the Group.
You have a point. I think I will start rejecting all "you have not
responded" claims from Harris.
Please stop misrepresenting me. Of course he has "responded".
Did you even read my post? I stated,
"I do not dispute your claim that you have addressed the 285
issue, in various ways, in the past. But you have never tried
to answer these questions."
Unfortunately, Bob, *you* will always insist you have not gotten an
answer when what has really happened is that you have not gotten the
answer you wanted.
That is untrue.
If I state that a question has not been answered, it has to
the best of my knowledge, never been answered.
I asked Brock three questions but he never answered them.
It really is just that simple.
If I am wrong, then my adversary need only cite his post
which contained the answers.
Post by John McAdams
You *don't* have the right to badger people by claiming they did not
answer when they did.
But that has never happened.
If it had, you could have proven it with a couple of verbatim
citations.
But you will never do that because such citations do not exist.
Well most humans can *easily* confirm that the very answer Bob seeks has
been *repeatedly* given to him over here. "Yes. They performed several
simultaneous actions." No. It doesn't mean what Bob thinks it means, and
we should expect to see something like this going on by this point in the
assassination sequence.

Here are a *few* examples of my "not" answering the very questions he is
raising above. He simply didn't *like* my answers then---as his *silence*
usually proved---and I predict he will be no more fond of them now. But
it is simply a *false* claim that the answers have not been provided:

https://groups.google.com/d/msg/alt.assassination.jfk/-Tre5FvOgqo/fznTBwDPru8J

https://groups.google.com/d/msg/alt.assassination.jfk/c5r-RhOvAU0/Y1813UgWCQAJ

https://groups.google.com/d/msg/alt.assassination.jfk/N0sO07J75Wg/fsWZdeUUAAAJ

https://groups.google.com/d/msg/alt.assassination.jfk/lCQu79Z_mT4/HOkNMhYXEQAJ

https://groups.google.com/d/msg/alt.assassination.jfk/Kg6ZtRdROx4/dpsioxNUDAAJ

https://groups.google.com/d/msg/alt.assassination.jfk/y26xKIg5djM/B-dEuPss0PYJ


Now CASE CLOSED regarding this issue of supposed non-response. The above
citations *do* address Bob's contentions about these movements, and the
support he believes he has for them from *several* angles. Note too how
often he failed to respond at all, or to respond *credibly* if he die, to
the points I had made. ....There is a reason for that, of course. :-)
Post by Robert Harris
Robert Harris
Anthony Marsh
2017-06-15 16:43:30 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by BT George
Post by Robert Harris
Post by John McAdams
Post by Robert Harris
Post by John McAdams
Post by BT George
.John/Moderators,
Of course, Bob has every right to answer in kind any comments I have to
make to him in a thread, or to respond in kind, should I initiate a thread
directed at him. But going forward I request that he not be allowed to
continue to open up *new* threads initiated for the sole purpose of
engaging or attacking me---especially when it is trying to make the claim
I have never legitimately engaged with him in debate, or is an obvious
attempt to goad me into a response.
IMO, it is becoming a form of unwanted harassment, aimed at forcing me to
either go silent (and let Bob take a "victory lap" for the supposed
"evasion") or to keep responding, and responding, and responding. All of
which is just so much more needless SPAM for the Group.
You have a point. I think I will start rejecting all "you have not
responded" claims from Harris.
Please stop misrepresenting me. Of course he has "responded".
Did you even read my post? I stated,
"I do not dispute your claim that you have addressed the 285
issue, in various ways, in the past. But you have never tried
to answer these questions."
Unfortunately, Bob, *you* will always insist you have not gotten an
answer when what has really happened is that you have not gotten the
answer you wanted.
That is untrue.
If I state that a question has not been answered, it has to
the best of my knowledge, never been answered.
I asked Brock three questions but he never answered them.
It really is just that simple.
If I am wrong, then my adversary need only cite his post
which contained the answers.
Post by John McAdams
You *don't* have the right to badger people by claiming they did not
answer when they did.
But that has never happened.
If it had, you could have proven it with a couple of verbatim
citations.
But you will never do that because such citations do not exist.
Well most humans can *easily* confirm that the very answer Bob seeks has
been *repeatedly* given to him over here. "Yes. They performed several
simultaneous actions." No. It doesn't mean what Bob thinks it means, and
False. Stop making up kook theories. Don't be a Harris.
Post by BT George
we should expect to see something like this going on by this point in the
assassination sequence.
Here are a *few* examples of my "not" answering the very questions he is
raising above. He simply didn't *like* my answers then---as his *silence*
usually proved---and I predict he will be no more fond of them now. But
https://groups.google.com/d/msg/alt.assassination.jfk/-Tre5FvOgqo/fznTBwDPru8J
https://groups.google.com/d/msg/alt.assassination.jfk/c5r-RhOvAU0/Y1813UgWCQAJ
https://groups.google.com/d/msg/alt.assassination.jfk/N0sO07J75Wg/fsWZdeUUAAAJ
https://groups.google.com/d/msg/alt.assassination.jfk/lCQu79Z_mT4/HOkNMhYXEQAJ
https://groups.google.com/d/msg/alt.assassination.jfk/Kg6ZtRdROx4/dpsioxNUDAAJ
https://groups.google.com/d/msg/alt.assassination.jfk/y26xKIg5djM/B-dEuPss0PYJ
Now CASE CLOSED regarding this issue of supposed non-response. The above
citations *do* address Bob's contentions about these movements, and the
support he believes he has for them from *several* angles. Note too how
often he failed to respond at all, or to respond *credibly* if he die, to
the points I had made. ....There is a reason for that, of course. :-)
Post by Robert Harris
Robert Harris
Conan The Contrarian
2017-06-14 19:02:26 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Bob Harris

After all of your egregious "mistakes" you will have to accept that many
have answered your silly and loaded questions and have also refuted your
ridiculous theories. You are simply choosing to ignore your losses and
that indicates a rather exceptional case of cognitive dissonance on your
part.
Anthony Marsh
2017-06-15 16:40:23 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by BT George
Bob Harris
After all of your egregious "mistakes" you will have to accept that many
have answered your silly and loaded questions and have also refuted your
ridiculous theories. You are simply choosing to ignore your losses and
that indicates a rather exceptional case of cognitive dissonance on your
part.
No, I doubt it. It's like water running off a duck's back.
BT George
2017-06-10 17:05:56 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by John McAdams
Post by BT George
Post by Robert Harris
Ok, I confess. Usually, when I post a title like this, it is
to get in a dig of some kind.
But this time, I really am sincere, believe it or not.
Brock, the issue before is, were the limo passengers startled
at app. frame 285. Is there any way we can discuss this as
though we were complete strangers, commissioned to resolve
this question?
Isn't it more important than our personal squabbles??
After dozens of posts, I have not seen you address several of
the most important issues.
1. Did the limo passengers drop their heads, spin rapidly,
etc, beginning in the same 1/6th of one second at 290-292?
2. Did Roy Kellerman simultaneously drop his head, shield his
ear and raise his shoulders upward for a fraction of a second
in unison with the other alleged reactions?
3. Did the limo passengers began to react at exactly the same
instant that Alvarez did (at 290-291), according to Dr. Alvarez?
I believe the answer to each of those questions is *yes*. I
will not link the relevant Zapruder segments, since I know
you have already seen them.
I do not dispute your claim that you have addressed the 285
issue, in various ways, in the past. But you have never tried
to answer these questions.
It is only moral to defend the LN theory if you genuinely
believe it is true. But how can you do that if you have not
addressed the most important challenges?
All,
I'm definitely all in favor of reducing the level of hostility in
interchanges between Bob Harris and me. However, I cannot support the
continual *false* claims that I have not addressed his arguments
*repeatedly* and in some considerable *detail*.
It is true that I have used mockery and sarcasm---newsflash---that's a
common device around here to get one's point across. But that doesn't
change the fact that I have made *many* honest and *substantive*
evaluations and criticisms of Bob's various theories, including his most
treasured Z285 beliefs.
.John/Moderators,
Of course, Bob has every right to answer in kind any comments I have to
make to him in a thread, or to respond in kind, should I initiate a thread
directed at him. But going forward I request that he not be allowed to
continue to open up *new* threads initiated for the sole purpose of
engaging or attacking me---especially when it is trying to make the claim
I have never legitimately engaged with him in debate, or is an obvious
attempt to goad me into a response.
IMO, it is becoming a form of unwanted harassment, aimed at forcing me to
either go silent (and let Bob take a "victory lap" for the supposed
"evasion") or to keep responding, and responding, and responding. All of
which is just so much more needless SPAM for the Group.
You have a point. I think I will start rejecting all "you have not
responded" claims from Harris.
Everybody *has* responded. Bob simply doesn't like the response.
So from now on, he can either *rebut* the response, or remain silent.
.John
-----------------------
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/home.htm
Thank you. I think it is a good Group policy for everyone---though Bob
has almost certainly been the chief proponent of this kind of strategy.

As I said, Harris has every right to respond when attacked or to make a
new attack on something I or someone else has recently said. It's just
out of bounds to keep claiming that he has *never* been responded to, when
the issue is simply that he didn't *like* the responses he was given.

I don't like a lot of responses I receive either. But it doesn't give me
the right to make (repeated) false claims of non-response when there a
clear record of having received a response/responses from that individual.

And it *certainly* doesn't give me the right to insinuate that someone
else really secretly "agrees" with what I am saying, but is too dishonest
to admit it---which Bob seems to be alluding to at the tail end of the
above post.

Brock
Anthony Marsh
2017-06-11 04:35:44 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by BT George
Post by John McAdams
Post by BT George
Post by Robert Harris
Ok, I confess. Usually, when I post a title like this, it is
to get in a dig of some kind.
But this time, I really am sincere, believe it or not.
Brock, the issue before is, were the limo passengers startled
at app. frame 285. Is there any way we can discuss this as
though we were complete strangers, commissioned to resolve
this question?
Isn't it more important than our personal squabbles??
After dozens of posts, I have not seen you address several of
the most important issues.
1. Did the limo passengers drop their heads, spin rapidly,
etc, beginning in the same 1/6th of one second at 290-292?
2. Did Roy Kellerman simultaneously drop his head, shield his
ear and raise his shoulders upward for a fraction of a second
in unison with the other alleged reactions?
3. Did the limo passengers began to react at exactly the same
instant that Alvarez did (at 290-291), according to Dr. Alvarez?
I believe the answer to each of those questions is *yes*. I
will not link the relevant Zapruder segments, since I know
you have already seen them.
I do not dispute your claim that you have addressed the 285
issue, in various ways, in the past. But you have never tried
to answer these questions.
It is only moral to defend the LN theory if you genuinely
believe it is true. But how can you do that if you have not
addressed the most important challenges?
All,
I'm definitely all in favor of reducing the level of hostility in
interchanges between Bob Harris and me. However, I cannot support the
continual *false* claims that I have not addressed his arguments
*repeatedly* and in some considerable *detail*.
It is true that I have used mockery and sarcasm---newsflash---that's a
common device around here to get one's point across. But that doesn't
change the fact that I have made *many* honest and *substantive*
evaluations and criticisms of Bob's various theories, including his most
treasured Z285 beliefs.
.John/Moderators,
Of course, Bob has every right to answer in kind any comments I have to
make to him in a thread, or to respond in kind, should I initiate a thread
directed at him. But going forward I request that he not be allowed to
continue to open up *new* threads initiated for the sole purpose of
engaging or attacking me---especially when it is trying to make the claim
I have never legitimately engaged with him in debate, or is an obvious
attempt to goad me into a response.
IMO, it is becoming a form of unwanted harassment, aimed at forcing me to
either go silent (and let Bob take a "victory lap" for the supposed
"evasion") or to keep responding, and responding, and responding. All of
which is just so much more needless SPAM for the Group.
You have a point. I think I will start rejecting all "you have not
responded" claims from Harris.
Everybody *has* responded. Bob simply doesn't like the response.
So from now on, he can either *rebut* the response, or remain silent.
.John
-----------------------
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/home.htm
Thank you. I think it is a good Group policy for everyone---though Bob
has almost certainly been the chief proponent of this kind of strategy.
As I said, Harris has every right to respond when attacked or to make a
new attack on something I or someone else has recently said. It's just
out of bounds to keep claiming that he has *never* been responded to, when
the issue is simply that he didn't *like* the responses he was given.
Either way he wins in his own mind. If no one responds he says that no
one can refute him. If people do respond those are only personal attacks
so they must not be able to refute him on the facts.
DON'T PLAY HIS GAME.
Post by BT George
I don't like a lot of responses I receive either. But it doesn't give me
the right to make (repeated) false claims of non-response when there a
clear record of having received a response/responses from that individual.
And it *certainly* doesn't give me the right to insinuate that someone
else really secretly "agrees" with what I am saying, but is too dishonest
to admit it---which Bob seems to be alluding to at the tail end of the
above post.
Brock
Well, your side seems to love character assassination and guilt by
association. If I attack Trump and Putin they claim I agree with them.
Conan The Contrarian
2017-06-11 23:33:40 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Bob Harris


1. Did the limo passengers drop their heads,spin rapidly, etc, beginning
in the same 1/6th of one second at 290-292? 

Did they ALL do it involuntarily with an alleged sound being the only
stimulus? NO!

2. Did Roy Kellerman simultaneously drop his head, shield his ear and
raise his shoulders upward for a fraction of a second in unison with
the other alleged reactions? 

Absolutely NOT and definitely NOT in the timeframe from stupid question
#1. Kellerman's shoulders and part of his head CAN'T EVEN BE SEEN, much
less his left hand!!!!

3. Did the limo passengers began to react at exactly the same instant
that Alvarez did (at 290-291), according to Dr. Alvarez?

Haha! No, because Alvarez wasn't there!!

So there you go, Bob! Your ridiculous theory has been refuted for about
the 100th time by me. Now we can move on from your obsession with
something that can never be proven.

Shall we discuss your serious issues with understanding human anatomy
next?
Anthony Marsh
2017-06-12 16:47:17 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by BT George
Bob Harris
1. Did the limo passengers drop their heads,spin rapidly, etc, beginning
in the same 1/6th of one second at 290-292?
Did they ALL do it involuntarily with an alleged sound being the only
stimulus? NO!
2. Did Roy Kellerman simultaneously drop his head, shield his ear and
raise his shoulders upward for a fraction of a second in unison with
the other alleged reactions?
Absolutely NOT and definitely NOT in the timeframe from stupid question
#1. Kellerman's shoulders and part of his head CAN'T EVEN BE SEEN, much
less his left hand!!!!
3. Did the limo passengers began to react at exactly the same instant
that Alvarez did (at 290-291), according to Dr. Alvarez?
Haha! No, because Alvarez wasn't there!!
So there you go, Bob! Your ridiculous theory has been refuted for about
the 100th time by me. Now we can move on from your obsession with
something that can never be proven.
Shall we discuss your serious issues with understanding human anatomy
next?
Have you ever seen any videos of crash test dummies?
When the car crashes into a wall, do they discuss what to do or decide
which way to fall?
Jason Burke
2017-06-09 13:37:09 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Ok, I confess. Usually, when I post a title like this, it is to get in a
dig of some kind.
But this time, I really am sincere, believe it or not.
Brock, the issue before is, were the limo passengers startled at app.
frame 285. Is there any way we can discuss this as though we were
complete strangers, commissioned to resolve this question?
Isn't it more important than our personal squabbles??
After dozens of posts, I have not seen you address several of the most
important issues.
1. Did the limo passengers drop their heads, spin rapidly, etc,
beginning in the same 1/6th of one second at 290-292?
2. Did Roy Kellerman simultaneously drop his head, shield his ear and
raise his shoulders upward for a fraction of a second in unison with the
other alleged reactions?
3. Did the limo passengers began to react at exactly the same instant
that Alvarez did (at 290-291), according to Dr. Alvarez?
I believe the answer to each of those questions is *yes*. I will not
link the relevant Zapruder segments, since I know you have already seen
them.
I do not dispute your claim that you have addressed the 285 issue, in
various ways, in the past. But you have never tried to answer these
questions.
It is only moral to defend the LN theory if you genuinely believe it is
true. But how can you do that if you have not addressed the most
important challenges?
Robert Harris
Oh, goody! BobHarris is bringing up a new topic. Oh, wait. Same snarky
sh*t. My bad.
Loading...