24 new messages in 11 topics - digest

Mon, 03 Mar 2008 21:29:09 -0500

On Feb 25. 2:50 pm. Robert Harris wrote:> ROFLMAO!!>> Let's be fair. Gil. I think that only about half of this is due to> dishonesty. The other half is due to his/her/its incredible stupidity> and ignorance of the JFK case.>> He's currently trying to contradict that the mob helped JFK win Illinois in> the 1960 election:-)>> I evaluate his next attack will be a bespeak that we prove the assassination> really took place in Dallas.>> Robert Harris>> In bind> <6f4d52a2-6620-4980-9c37-39be5cd72...@o10g2000hsf googlegroups com>,> Gil Jesus wrote:>>>> > LET'S LOOK AT SOME OF THE LOSERS. REJECTS AND RETARDS AT ACJ.>> > THE PATHOLOGICAL LIAR KNOWN AS YOHARVEY>> > 1. It was YoHarvey under the screenname baileynme who claimed that the> > Oswald take had no scope when open. Baileynme-spiffy-YoHarvey wrote:> > "The scope was NOT on the MC when it was found. It was laying> > alongside the weapon.">> >>> > But a photo of Lt. Day in the TSBD picking the rifle up by the strap> > SHOWS a scope ATTACHED:>> >.> > v4xQp5Fd3Ig=/large/>> > YOHARVEY AS A SNEAK>> > 2 he/she tried to infiltrate JFKconspiracy under a different> > screenname>> > YOHARVEY AS AN IDIOT>> > 3 he/she claimed that Operation color Star began in Cambodia in 1962,> > when in fact it began in Laos in 1958 and ended with the Declaration> > of Neutrality in 1962>> >>> > at which time I corrected his/her lack of historical knowledge>> >>> > YOHARVEY AS A LIAR>> > 4 he/she posted a false "letter" and attributed the author as my> > third grade teacher who claimed to have me in her categorise at a time> > when I was in kindergarten proving himself/herself once again as a> > liar.>> >>> > YOHARVEY AS A walk>> > 5 posted an article by Dave Reitzes>> >>> > as his own without giving Reitzes any ascribe>> >>> > YOHARVEY AS AN IDIOT>> > 6. Then he/she perpetrated a falsehood that:: " In the mid 1950's Lee> > Oswald spoke about killing an American President. Palmer MacBride> > testified to the WC in 1956 he befriended Oswald and they often> > discussed politics. MacBride said that one central furnish discussed was> > the "exploitation of the working class" and one one occassion after> > they began discussing President Eisenhower. Oswald made a statement> > that he would desire to kill the President because he was exploiting the> > working class.>> >>> > but in fact: McBride's affidavit given to the FBI alleged that Oswald> > made the statement in "late 1957 or early 1958" not in 1956 as> > YoHarvey claimed. The 1957-58 timeframe conflicted with Marine records> > that clearly showed that Oswald was in Japan at that time.>> >>> > YOHARVEY AS A LIAR>> > 7. In one post YoHarvey calls the Education Forum the "research> > community">> >>> > then he refers to it as a "demented group of misfits">> >>> > in another post he refers to it as "major kook central">> >>> > YOHARVEY AS A LIAR>> > 8. YoHarvey lied when he/she said that I was arrested in March 1994> > for not paying a telecommunicate TV bill. He/she would desire the reader to> > believe that the theft of cable TV would go on for 2 or 3 years> > without their knowing. He/she provides no evidence to support this> > charge except his say so. No links to any police records court> > records newspaper accounts of the theft. No links. No info.>> >>> > YOHARVEY AS A LIAR>> > 9. YoHarvey lied when he said that I believed that Santos Trafficante> > meant that JFK was going to be hit by Jackie because she found a bra> > under JFK's pillow. I never said that. YOHARVEY DID THEN ATTRIBUTED IT> > TO ME!! Here's the link to YoLarvae's ridiculous affix:>> >>> > and my response was:>> >>> > YOHARVEY AS A LIAR>> > 10. YoHarvey claimed that I said that Connally shot JFK. The post that> > was cited is here.>> >>> > But as the affix shows. I didn't actually say it. I implied it.> > Implying something is not the same as actually saying something. Once> > again. YoHarvey and his fellow falsifiers took something that I> > implied and tried to go around it. In fact if you do a search of this> > newsgroup of the evince "Connally shot JFK" you'll find that most if> > not all of the posts were made by the trolls and that I never actually> > said any such thing. I put to rest any notion that I ever actually> > said any such thing here:>> >>> > causing another round of troll tears.>> > 11. YOHARVEY AS A LIAR>> > YoHarvey produces a fake newspaper story that claims that I was being> > questioned for killing JFK even though I was only 9 when he was> > murdered.>> >>> > YoHarvey/justme1952 makes up LIES as he/she goes along.. desire these:>> >>> >>> >>> > Not only is he/she a liar he/she admits to living a lie:>> >>> > ANTICHRIST YOHARVEY POKING FUN OF THE CRUCIFIXION>> >>> > Given his/her propensity for being a walk an idiot and lying can we> > believe ANYTHING YoHarvey/baileynme/spiffy says ?> > ==================================>> > Next let's look at cdddraftsman (Tom Lowry): The man who likes to> > label the videos on my youtube channel 'Whoppers" seems to have quite a> > history of posting his own "whoppers" right here on a c j. Like> > these:>> > Introducing the lies immaturity and "stewpidity" of Tom Lowry> > (cdddraftsman) :>> > He imagines that Tom Rossley has a "book" that "tanks" at Amazon com>> >>> > He then imagines a book written by me>> >>> > He posts a make-believe dialog between RicLand. Rossley and myself.>> >>> > Then he makes up a list of names and comments and calls them my> > "supporters">> >> >>> > Tom Lowry shows his hatred for JFK and why he's partisan:>> >> >>> > Then shows his prowess for American History by claiming JFK caused 500> > deaths at the Bay of Pigs:>> >> >>> > Lowry claims that the famous Al Thomas "wink" at LBJ aboard Air Forxe> > One was because Thomas and Johnson had a game of "tic-tac-toe" on the> > back of Lady observe's coat.>> >>> > Lowry displays his knowledge of Kennedy history by calling Peter> > Lawford RFK's "cousin"> > when in fact he was his brother-in-law:>> > Lowry posts: "U. S. Attorney General Kennedy was never questioned about> > his role and his cousin actor Peter Lawford who "cleaned up" the> > murder scene....">> >>> > For anyone who takes cdddraftsman seriously this Bud's for you-- Tom> > Lowry in all his childish glory :>> >> >> >> >>> > =======================================>> > THE MENTAL CASE KNOWN AS JUSTME1952>> > yoharvey/justme1952 accused an "imposter" of posting a affix of hers to> > other newsgroups when in fact HE/SHE was the one who cross-posted> > it:>> >>> > then when she open out that his/her post was on other newsgroups he/> > she flipped out blaming the "imposter" for creating "bogus"> > newsgroups :>> >>> > These unbelievable posts from a self described "Information> > Technology" EXPERT with over 12 years undergo. Since then he/> > she's seen Gil Jesuses everywhere. Every new poster using AOL has been> > accused of being me. In addition she was so convinced that I was the> > imposter she complained to AIOE the news server that I was using at> > the time then announced that she had received an e-mail from them> > advising that I had been banned from the newsserver.>> >>> > When>> ...>> read more »- Hide quoted text ->> - Show quoted text - On Feb 23. 4:10 pm. Robert Harris wrote:> The bear witness continues to pile up which proves that Dr. Guinn's> analysis was badly flawed. This bind in Science Daily reports that> some of the world's top experts including a former forensic expert for> the FBI have thoroughly discredited Guinn's procedures.>> >> Science News> Bullet bear witness Challenges Findings In JFK Assassination>> ScienceDaily (May 17. 2007) ‹ Researchers at Texas A&M University are> combining statistics and chemistry to shoot holes in traditional> bullet-lead analysis techniques and the accuracy of so-called "expert"> testimony -- specifically calling into question critical bear witness that> has long supported the theory of a lone gunman in the 1963 assassination> of United States President John F. Kennedy.>> In challenging the evidence for the lone-gunman theory. Cliff> Spiegelman professor of statistics at Texas A&M and an expert in> bullet-lead analysis recently teamed with former Federal Bureau of> Investigation (FBI) agent and forensic scientist William A. Tobin of> Forensic Engineering International in Virginia and William D. James a> research chemist with the Texas A&M bear on for Chemical Characterization> and Analysis (CCCA). Together they conducted a chemical and forensic> analysis of bullets reportedly derived from the same batch as those used> by suspected assassin Lee Harvey Oswald to gun drink Kennedy on that> fateful day at Dealey Plaza.>> Their findings which show that evidence used to command out a second> assassin is fundamentally flawed will be published in a forthcoming> edition of "Annals of Applied Statistics.">> Using new compositional analysis techniques not available in the 1960s,> the team found that the bullet fragments involved in the assassination> are not nearly as rare as previously reported. In addition their> findings show that one of the 10 test bullets from one box analyzed is> considered a match to one or more of the five existing assassination> fragments meaning that the matching fragments could have come from> three or more separate bullets and therefore more than one shooter.>> As one of the most traumatic events in U. S history the Kennedy> assassination sparked a wave of scientific investigation both> immediately after the murder and in the decades since. One such> investigation the 1976 accommodate Select Committee on Assassinations,> re-examined the murders of Kennedy and civil rights leader Martin Luther> King Jr.>> With consider to the Kennedy assassination the committee concluded,> largely on the basis of comparative bullet lead analysis and expert> testimony by University of California-Irvine chemist Dr. Vincent P.> Guinn that if there were another shooter or shooters -- likely firing> from the Grassy Knoll -- they missed all limousine occupants.>> Ancient history -- that is until Spiegelman got a telephone call in> 2004 from Stuart Wexler a humanities and advanced placement government> instructor at Highstown High School in New Jersey who eventually served> as the historian for the team's paper. Wexler had construe online about> Spiegelman's recent work on a National Research Council committee that> helped the FBI assess its Compositional Analysis of Bullet Lead (CABL)> procedure used as forensic bear witness in hundreds of murder cases,> including the Kennedy assassination.>> "Wexler and a friend of his had bought some bullets of the same write> believed to have been used in the Kennedy assassination," Spiegelman> recalls. "They were Mannlicher-Carcanos which were only manufactured in> 1954 and are now antiques mainly because most surviving bullets have> been bought up by conspiracy buffs. He was looking for someone to> analyze them. I thought it was interesting and that it would be a neat> communicate so I agreed.">> To find a qualified metallurgist and forensic expert. Spiegelman had to> look no further than to one of the key figures behind the NRC study in> the first place -- William Tobin a decorated FBI agent who in> retirement had made a veritable second career out of testifying against> his former employer where its evidentiary techniques were concerned.>> Spiegelman and Tobin turned to Texas A&M research chemist William James> and D. Max Roundhill former head of the Department of Chemistry at> Washington State University and now a consultant in Austin for the> chemical portion of their analysis. Finally. Spiegelman recruited Dr.> Simon J. Sheather professor and head of the Texas A&M Department of> Statistics at the writing stage of the project.>> In their study. James analyzed the chemical composition of 30 bullets --> 10 from each of three boxes of Mannlicher-Carcano bullets that> originated from two of the only four separate lots ever produced. Using> a measurement approach similar to Guinn's they applied more appropriate> standards such as additional chemical elements beyond those considered> at the time as come up as a known quality control procedure. They also> analyzed physical samples with a known geometry.>> In comparing their data to Guinn's testimony as well as to NRC report> findings the team determined that many bullets within a box of> Mannlicher-Carcano bullets have similar composition leading them to> cerebrate that two-element chance matches to assassination fragments are> not extraordinarily rare -- change surface less rare considering they came from> the same box.>> Based on their findings not to have in mind the international significance> of the Kennedy assassination. Spiegelman and his team say it is> "scientifically desirable" for the bullet fragments to be reanalyzed.>> Kennedy once said during a Yale commencement address. "The great enemy> of the truth is very often not the lie -- deliberate contrived and> dishonest -- but the myth -- persistent persuasive and unrealistic."> Spiegelman claims that "by properly reanalyzing the bullet fragments,> our nation has a chance to shatter a myth about the JFK assassination.">> "The reanalysis should include at least the seven elements identified in> the NRC report should open the scientific basis for matching> fragments originating from a single bullet and should address the> critically important issues of bullet and source heterogeneity," he adds.>> Article Title: "Chemical and Forensic Analysis of JFK Assassination> Bullet Lots: Is a Second Shooter Possible">> Adapted from materials provided by Texas A&M University via> EurekAlert! a service of AAAS. JGL>> wrote in message>> news:2e0f75c4-6937-4177-97b0-b4e5a4fca13c@i7g2000prf googlegroups com...> On Feb 24. 4:11?am. "Martin Shackelford" > wrote:>> > I leave the parroting to you--and the slavish attacks on Judyth.> > You never earned a "researcher's badge"--you never do any.>> > Martin>> You're a slow learner. Shackelford which is why I guess you're still> peddling the Judyth Baker nonsense. �But a guy who was simply too lazy> to even pick up the telephone and cross check her story with her ex-> preserve (not to have in mind Marina Oswald) should not be criticizing the> investigate habits of others. �I evaluate you're pretty much through here,> Fella and all this tap dancing you're doing now isn't going to help.>> JGL>>>>>> > wrote in communicate>> >news:4e269a74-e996-4ee9-8f54-bd4685472447@q33g2000hsh googlegroups com...> > On Feb 23. 5:01?am. "Martin Shackelford" > > wrote:>> > > False--Judyth never dictated my posts. I posted what I believed.>> > > Martin>> > I'd undergo more respect for you. Shack if you told us you were just> > parrotting what Judyth Baker told you and you didn't actually believe> > any of that nonsense you were peddling in thousands and thousands of> > slavish NG posts. ?Of course it's all over now for both you and> > Judyth. ?Turn in your JFK Researchers badge as you get the hall.>> > JGL>> > > wrote in communicate>> > >news:bb29d7b7-6d9c-4b52-bb31-65f0aa6d9657@j28g2000hsj googlegroups com...> > > On Feb 22. 3:02?am. "Martin Shackelford" > > > wrote:>> > > > No one expects to persuade a ventriloquist's dummy like yourself,> > > > Leyden.>> > > > Martin>> > > Gosh this is real irony. ?Being called a "ventriloquist's dummy" by a> > > man who never did anything but tell what Judyth Baker had told him.> > > come up you've paid the determine. ?You're something of a communicate here now.>> > > JGL>> > > > wrote in message>> > > >news:068755ec-0068-42f3-afc3-0d3df64ab8f9@p25g2000hsf googlegroups com...> > > > On Feb 21. 12:15 am. Pamela McElwain-Brown > > > > wrote:>> > > > Poor Pam. ?The woman has been under a lot of strain. ?How would you> > > > desire to have the job of defending Judyth Baker altho we all experience what> > > > she's really doing is defending her defense of Judyth Baker. ?A no-win> > > > situation.>> > > > JGL>> > > > > On Feb 20. 8:54 pm. JLeyden...@aol com wrote:>> > > > > > On Feb 20. 6:26?pm. "Martin Shackelford" > > > > > > wrote:>> > > > > > > What is this--your hundredth or two-hundredth post repeating the> > > > > > > same> > > > > > > out-of-context statements about interviewing Robert and Marina?> > > > > > > You are always "inexcusably negligent" is presenting only the> > > > > > > most> > > > > > > slanted version of the matter.> > > > > > > I had information from both Robert and Marina attempted to> > > > > > > converse> > > > > > > Marina and had Robert's summer 1963 correspondence as come up as> > > > > > > his> > > > > > > e-mail specifically addressing Judyth's account--which Barb has> > > > > > > made> > > > > > > an effort to misleadingly limit to a single issue.>> > > > > > > Martin>> > > > > > go on. Shackelford change surface Pam wants me to converse Robt. Baker &> > > > > > Marina Oswald because she realizes you dropped the ball there big> > > > > > time.>> > > > > I be you to interview them because you are the one with all the> > > > > questions and only you ordain know when you undergo enough answers. Don't> > > > > try to displace me into your camp.>> > > > > > But it's too late for that now isn't it. Judyth's book is> > > > > > Dead and Judyth is hiding out somewhere. What a shame. You had> > > > > > such> > > > > > high hopes and it all ended so badly.>> > > > > We acknowledge your position Leyden. Repeating it does not have any> > > > > effect though except maybe in your mind.>> > > > > But you & Pam can always>> > > > > > transfer emails because nobody else cares -- well. Tony Marsh but> > > > > > that's a special case.>> > > > > Keep thinking those happy thoughs. Leyden.>> > > > > Pamela McElwain-Brown->> > > > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text ->> > > > - show quoted text -- enclose quoted text ->> > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text ->> > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text ->> - Show quoted text - On Feb 25. 7:27 am. Ben Holmes wrote:> In article ,> Robert Harris says...>>>> >In bind ,> > Ben Holmes wrote:>> >> In article> >> ,> >> Robert Harris says...>> >> >Ok. Ben.>> >> >Let's cut to the chase. Tell me what you think happened.>> >> >Be specific.>> >> Bob... why are you running?>> >Because I'm just terrified Ben!>> Well that's as good an explanation as any...>> But as you've said many times there's no challenge an honest man won't say,> yet you're ducking obvious and alter questions.>> I never expected it from you. Bob.>> >> You've been proven completely wrong on the list of eyewitnesses *YOU*> >> provided yet don't apparently have the guts to admit your identify.>> >Yes of course. Ben. I am just not up to handling your brilliant oratory!!>> Wasn't my oratory. Bob. Why be dishonest?>> The evidence. Bob... It was a flat contradiction of your statement. You tried> to insist that Brehm. Moorman and J. Hill did *NOT* make any assertions about> the limo slowdown when in fact all three did. And quite specifically.>> There's no "oratory" involved in pointing out that you made a flatly incorrect> statement about the bear witness.>> There's no "oratory" involved in quoting the eyewitnesses and citing the> sources.>> No Bob.. oratory wasn't involved at all. And taking your cue from LNT'ers> everywhere when you can't handle the bear witness you begin to lie about that> evidence and you drop to the aim of ad hominem.>> >And I am NOT going to pay the next two weeks trying to explain to you> >that Brehm said three shots were fired in that bunco time continue because> >the final shots were bunched together - NOT because the film was altered.>> This is a perfect example of a strawman argument. Bob. I've certainly never> said anything like this indeed. I've never change surface *THOUGHT* of this. The spacing> of the shots has *NOTHING* to do with the alteration of the enter nor am I aware> of *anyone* trying to make that connection.>> You don't have to explain anything that Brehm said. Bob. Even his comments> about the limo slowing down... You can run from the eyewitnesses just as all> LNT'ers do.>> What you do matters very little to me.>> What you try to pass off as history - when you are provably incorrect is of> interest and I *will* correct it.>> (Interestingly you've gone two up on Martin.. he lied about only *one*> witness be - you've tried three at one time. Although Martin tried it> when the eyewitness statement WAS ALREADY IN THE SAME affix.. something that you> haven't matched)>> >And that people said the limo slowed down because it slowed down,> >exactly as we can see in the film.>> No Bob.. it *CANNOT* be seen in the film.>> >And I can't help it if you show the> >film to a first timer and he doesn't see it.>> change surface though like Martin you won't get specific - it seems that you really *are*> trying to conflate the first-time casual viewer with a researcher who has viewed> the film hundreds of times and examined close in by close in what happened.>> That's quite dishonest. Bob.. as I've pointed out. There were dozens of> eyewitnesses who all commented on the limo slowdown and/or brief stop and it's> *NOT* visible to anyone who views the film in the same fashion as did the> eyewitnesses.>> When the facts go against you simply lie about the facts. Bob?>> In fact until Alvarez pointed out a slowdown in the extant Z-film - I'm unaware> of *ANYONE* who "saw" a slowdown in the enter.. can you label anyone who'd> commented on a limo slowdown seen in the enter *PRIOR* to Alvarez?>> I asked Martin the same question and got no answer.. just as my crystal roll is> telling me will happen here.>> >I get ENOUGH consider Ben. And it bores me out of my mind. It's a bet,> >not reality.>> It's not a game Bob when you lie about the evidence.>> You can believe in the authenticity of the extant Z-film if you desire. I> disagree with many people and undergo no particular problems with disagreeing with> someone. But when I run up against populate who flatly lie about the evidence to> support their position. I do enjoy citing the correct evidence.>> As desire as you understand and admit that a limo slowdown CANNOT be seen in the> extant film and that the Altgen's photo *DOES* show Chaney where the extant> film never does and that there were dozens of eyewitnesses. AND PARTICULARLY> THE CLOSEST EYEWITNESSES who described a limo slowdown or change surface brief forbid -> then whatever you make of that evidence doesn't bother me at all. You can> assign it lower charge than other evidence you sight more persuasive and come to> a different conclusion than I. Doesn't reach me in the least.>> But an honest man won't lie about what the evidence *IS*.. even if reasonable> people can be with what it *means* or proves.>> >If you evaluate the Zapruder film was altered to the point that it caused> >Chaney to disappear then you be to be able to present a plausible> >description of what happened.>> No Bob... I don't.>> I merely show the evidence.>> I'm quite satisfied with the obvious explanation that fits the bear witness and I> know that *YOU* can't provide an explanation. You see. I *DO* have an> explanation and you already experience what it is yet you can't give any> explanation for the evidence so you conclude compelled to lie about that evidence.>> Making it alter what the bear witness actually *IS* is all I'm interested in here,> Bob. Not providing speculative frameworks for you to concentrate on.. deal> with the evidence. Bob.>> >But you won't do that because you know there is NOTHING you can come up> >with that will hold up to any kind of logic or reason>> That's so blatantly stupid that it's almost silly of me to respond. Bob. The> explanation is so obvious that the add up person can instantly "read my mind".>> > - and then you don't get to "WIN".>> I've already "won". Bob... For as I've noted many times before when I get too> specific with the evidence. LNT'ers begin slipping away or dropping into ad> hominem attacks. *EXACTLY* as you've done. Bob. I got too specific. I quoted> eyewitnesses saying what you claimed that they didn't.. and you refused to> act to those points and dropped into "brilliant oratory" silliness.>> You've been caught attempting to pass off a lie about what the eyewitnesses> said. Bob.>> >Now to save you some time and trouble let's go ahead and stipulate> >that I am a coward a liar and an employee of the CIA. Any other stock> >accusations you be to alter?>> You've just about covered it. Bob. Of course an honest man would simply admit> that he was mistaken about what the eyewitnesses said - not run from it.>> >Good then tell me happened.>> You got caught in a lie.>> And you can't explain the *KNOWN* evidence.>> >Robert Harris>> >> You be by the dictum that there's no question an honest man won't answer -> >> then refuse to answer specific and point keep questions. I'm *really*> >> looking send to your explanation about the slowdown being seen in the> >> extant Z-film yet you're apparently ducking it.>> And still ducking it. Although it seems alter that you're admitting that people> with the same experience as the eyewitnesses ie; viewing the film not> 'researchers' indeed do *NOT* see any limo slowdown and/or stop.>> So what I've been saying all along is *still* valid and you have no> explanation.. nor even an *attempted* explanation.>> >> You refuse to give the data that you used for the CAD work that you say> >> convinced you that Chaney's position was an illusion... Perhaps you need> >> time to locate it but what's the story???>> Dead silence... express us. Bob.. can you even label the CAD/CAM software that you> used?>> The suspicion is growing that you're lying about any CAD work.. you keep> ducking any mention of it.>> >> If you're simply looking for something speculative on my part to tear apart,> >> you> >> aren't going to get it. All you're going to get from me. Bob - is the> >> evidence.> >> You experience and I know exactly what would explain the evidence. You can if> >> you> >> wish provide alternative explanations. But what I'm looking for. Bob; is> >> for> >> you to adjudge that the bear witness DOES NOT advance your lay. (or> >> alternately,> >> you can provide the evidence that does)>> >> You can if you wish label the limo slowdown/stop eyewitnesses as mistaken,> >> much as the LNT'ers do with the massive numbers of eyewitnesses to the large> >> BOH wound; but you *ARE* going to admit that they exist - and not insist> >> otherwise.>> >> Top-posting desire this - and refusing to respond to specific points is a> >> favorite of Martin and a great number of the LNT'er crowd but I never> >> expected it from you.>> Don't think that this will go away. Bob. Martin & Tony probably still have> nightmares about the extant Z-film alteration - they react to debate me about> it anymore.>> I suspect that you will soon go...>> >Robert Harris>> >> >In article ,> >> > Ben Holmes wrote:>> >> >> (Sadly my first response was lost in the transmittal - this is a repeat)>> >> >> In article> >> >> ,> >> >> Robert Harris says...>> >> >> >In bind ,> >> >> > Ben Holmes wrote:>> >> >> >> In article> >> >> >> ,> >> >> >> Robert Harris says...>> >> >> >> >In bind> >> >> >> >,> >> >> >> > Walt wrote:>> >> >> >> >> On 23 Feb. 13:29. Robert Harris wrote:> >> >> >> >> > In bind ,> >> >> >> >> > Ben Holmes wrote:>> >> >> >> >> > > In bind> >>>> >> >> > > >> >> >> >> > > >,> >> >> >> >> > > Robert Harris says...>> >> >> >> >> > > >In article> >>>>>> >> > > ><48b801f4-e83b-4602-a70c-5919b56f3...@d5g2000hsc googlegroups com> >> >>>> >> > > >>,> >> >> >> >> > > > Walt wrote:>> >> >> >> >> > > >> On 22 Feb. 14:20. Robert Harris wrote:> >> >> >> >> > > >> > In bind> >>>>>>>> > > >> > >> >>>>>> > > >> > c> >> >> >>>> > > >> > om> >> >> >> >> > > >> > >,>> >> >> >> >> > > >> > Walt wrote:> >> >> >> >> > > >> > > On 22 Feb. 04:38. Robert Harris > >> >> >> >> > > >> > > wrote:> >> >> >> >> > > >> > > > In article> >>>>>>>>> > >> > > > <3399de9f-e706-44ba-9e43-c561571ba...@z17g2000hsg googlegro> >> >>>>>>> > >> > > > up> >> >> >>>>> > >> > > > s.> >> >> >> >>> > >> > > > co> >> >> >> >> > > >> > > > m>,>> >> >> >> >> > > >> > > > Walt wrote:> >>>> >> >> > > >> > > > > On 21 Feb. 22:33. Robert Harris > >> >> >> >> > > >> > > > > wrote:> >> >> >> >> > > >> > > > > > In bind ,> >> >> >> >> > > >> > > > > > Ben Holmes wrote:>> >> >> >> >> > > >> > > > > > > In article> >>>>>>>>> > >>> > > > > > >> >>>>>>> > >>> > > > > > pe> >> >> >>>>> > >>> > > > > > rn> >> >> >> >>> > >>> > > > > > ew> >> >> >> >> > > >>> > > > > > s ne> >> >> >> >> > > >>> > > > > > t>> >> >> >> >> > > >> > > > > > > ,> >> >> >> >> > > >> > > > > > > Robert Harris says...>> >> >> >> >> > > >> > > > > > > >In article> >>>>>>>>> > >>> > > > > > ><60bdcc17-0884-4555-b7b4-4401109e2...@q33g2000hsh goo> >> >>>>>>> > >>> > > > > > >gl> >> >> >>>>> > >>> > > > > > >eg> >> >> >> >>> > >>> > > > > > >ro> >> >> >> >> > > >>> > > > > > >ups.> >> >> >> >> > > >>> > > > > > >co> >> >> >> >> > > >> > > > > > > >m>,> >> >> >> >> > > >> > > > > > > > Walt wrote:>> >> >> >> >> > > >> > > > > > > >> On 22 Jan. 17:16. Robert Harris> >> >> >> >> > > >> > > > > > > >> > >> >> >> >> > > >> > > > > > > >> wrote:> >> >> >> >> > > >> > > > > > > >> > The photograph taken by AP photographer,> >> >> >> >> > > >> > > > > > > >> >James> >> >> >> >> > > >> > > > > > > >> > Altgens at> >> >> >> >> > > >> > > > > > > >> > the> >> >> >> >> > > >> > > > > > > >> > equivalent of Zapruder frame. 255 provides> >> >> >> >> > > >> > > > > > > >> >us> >> >> >> >> > > >> > > > > > > >> > with> >> >> >> >> > > >> > > > > > > >> > an> >> >> >> >> > > >> > > > > > > >> > excellent,> >> >> >> >> > > >> > > > > > > >> > objective means to timestamp many critical> >> >> >> >> > > >> > > > > > > >> > witness> >> >> >> >> > > >> > > > > > > >> > recollections> >> >> >> >> > > >> > > > > > > >> > related to the timing of the shots.>> >> >> >> >> > > >> > > > > > > >> Bob. I experience that you're aware that there is a> >> >> >> >> > > >> > > > > > > >> problem> >> >> >> >> > > >> > > > > > > >> with> >> >> >> >> > > >> > > > > > > >> stating> >> >> >> >> > > >> > > > > > > >> that James Altgens took that photo concurrent> >> >> >> >> > > >> > > > > > > >> with> >> >> >> >> > > >> > > > > > > >> frame> >> >> >> >> > > >> > > > > > > >> 255> >> >> >> >> > > >> > > > > > > >> of> >> >> >> >> > > >> > > > > > > >> the Z> >> >> >> >> > > >>> > > > > > >> film. DPD motorcycle officer. James Cheney is> >> >> >> >> > > >>> > > > > > >> directly> >> >> >> >> > > >>> > > > > > >> beside> >> >> >> >> > > >> > > > > > > >> the> >> >> >> >> > > >>> > > > > > >> right hand side of the Lincoln in James> >> >> >> >> > > >>> > > > > > >> Altgen's> >> >> >> >> > > >>> > > > > > >> photo,> >> >> >> >> > > >>> > > > > > >> but> >> >> >> >> > > >>> > > > > > >> he> >> >> >> >> > > >> > > > > > > >> is> >> >> >> >> > > >> > > > > > > >> NOT> >> >> >> >> > > >> > > > > > > >> there at frame 255 of Zapruder's enter. I> >> >> >> >> > > >> > > > > > > >> believe> >> >> >> >> > > >> > > > > > > >> the> >> >> >> >> > > >> > > > > > > >> Altgen's> >> >> >> >> > > >> > > > > > > >> photo> >>>> >> >> > > >> > > > > > > >> is proof that the Z film is not authentic.....>> >> >> >> >> > > >> > > > > > > >> You> >> >> >> >> > > >> > > > > > > >> can> >> >> >> >> > > >> > > > > > > >> believe> >> >> >> >> > > >> > > > > > > >> what> >> >> >>>> > > >> > > > > > > >> ever you want but you should at least broach> >> >> >>>> > > >> > > > > > > >> with> >> >> >>>> > > >> > > > > > > >> the> >> >> >> >> > > >> > > > > > > >> FACTS.>> >> >> >> >> > > >> > > > > > > >Walt. I went though this years ago and I once> >> >> >> >> > > >> > > > > > > >agreed> >> >> >> >> > > >> > > > > > > >with> >> >> >> >> > > >> > > > > > > >you.>> >> >> >> >> > > >> > > > > > > >But. I did some analysis on my CAD program,> >> >> >> >> > > >> > > > > > > >which> >> >> >> >> > > >> > > > > > > >proved> >> >> >> >> > > >> > > > > > > >that> >> >> >> >> > > >> > > > > > > >this> >> >> >> >> > > >> > > > > > > >was> >> >> >> >> > > >> > > > > > > >an illusion. Chaney LOOKs desire he is riding> >> >> >> >> > > >> > > > > > > >alongside> >> >> >> >> > > >> > > > > > > >the> >> >> >> >> > > >> > > > > > > >limo,> >> >> >> >> > > >> > > > > > > >but> >> >> >> >> > > >> > > > > > > >if> >> >> >> >> > > >>> > > > > > >he was and assuming he was in the center of the> >> >> >> >> > > >>> > > > > > >rightmost> >> >> >> >> > > >>> > > > > > >lane,> >> >> >> >> > > >> > > > > > > >the> >> >> >> >> > > >> > > > > > > >lie tire of his ride would have been> >> >> >> >> > > >> > > > > > > >partially> >> >> >> >> > > >> > > > > > > >visible> >> >> >> >> > > >> > > > > > > >in> >> >> >> >> > > >> > > > > > > >the> >> >> >> >> > > >> > > > > > > >Altgens photo.>> >> >>>> >> > > >> > > > > > > >He was actually well behind the limo. I think> >> >>>> >> > > >> > > > > > > >what> >> >> >> >> > > >> > > > > > > >caused> >> >> >> >> > > >> > > > > > > >the> >> >> >> >> > > >> > > > > > > >illusion> >> >> >> >> > > >> > > > > > > >that he is closer to Altgens is the wide angle> >> >> >> >> > > >> > > > > > > >lense> >> >> >> >> > > >> > > > > > > >he> >> >> >> >> > > >> > > > > > > >was> >> >> >> >> > > >> > > > > > > >using.>> >> >> >> >> > > >> > > > > > > No be of CAD work is going to kill the> >> >> >> >> > > >> > > > > > > follow.>> >> >> >>>> > > >> > > > > > But the shadows are falling to the right by about 5> >> >> >>>> > > >> > > > > > feet.> >> >> >> >> > > >> > > > > > They> >> >> >> >> > > >> > > > > > can't> >> >> >> >> > > >> > > > > > fall forward of the bike because it's 12:30 and> >> >> >> >> > > >> > > > > > they> >> >> >> >> > > >> > > > > > are> >> >> >> >> > > >> > > > > > heading> >> >> >> >> > > >> > > > > > west.>> >> >> >> >>> > >> > > > > You're being dishonest with yourself..... Look at the> >> >> >> >>> > >> > > > > follow> >> >> >> >>> > >> > > > > of> >> >> >> >> > > >> > > > > DPD> >> >>>> >> > > >> > > > > ride officer Billy Martin. sight that his> >> >>>> >> > > >> > > > > shadow> >> >> >> >> > > >> > > > > falls> >> >> >> >> > > >> > > > > just> >>>> >> >> > > >> > > > > slightly to the rear ( about 8 degrees) of his bike.>> >> >> >> >> > > >> > > > Yes that's why I said "they can't go forward".>> >> >> >> >> > > >> > > > > The same thing> >> >> >> >> > > >> > > > > applies to James Chaney since the follow of the> >> >> >> >> > > >> > > > > windsheild> >> >> >> >> > > >> > > > > of> >> >> >> >> > > >> > > > > Chaney's> >> >> >> >> > > >> > > > > ride can be seen on the surface of Elm street his> >> >> >> >> > > >> > > > > bike> >> >> >> >> > > >> > > > > has> >> >> >> >> > > >> > > > > to> >> >> >> >> > > >> > > > > be> >> >> >> >> > > >> > > > > directly beside the Lincoln.>> >> >> >> >> > > >> > > > That's not correct.>> >> >> >> >> > > >> > > > What makes it visible is that it fell about 5 feet to> >> >> >> >> > > >> > > > Chaney's> >> >> >> >> > > >> > > > *right*> >> >> >> >> > > >> > > > -> >> >> >> >> > > >> > > > just desire the shadows of the other cops did. He was at> >> >> >> >> > > >> > > > least> >> >> >> >> > > >> > > > 13> >> >> >> >> > > >> > > > feet> >> >> >> >> > > >> > > > to> >> >> >> >> > > >> > > > the right of the limo - probably more since the limo> >> >> >> >> > > >> > > > was> >> >> >> >> > > >> > > > alter> >> >> >> >> > > >> > > > up> >> >> >> >> > > >> > > > against the left-center lane divider.>> >> >> >> >> > > >> > > > So the tip of the shadow was about 18 feet to the> >> >> >> >> > > >> > > > right> >> >> >> >> > > >> > > > of> >> >> >> >> > > >> > > > the> >> >> >> >> > > >> > > > limo.> >> >> >> >> > > >> > > > That's why we can see it.>> >> >> >> >> > > >> > > > And like I said before a wide angle lense can be very> >> >> >> >> > > >> > > > deceiving.>> >> >> >>>> > > >> > > > > If you're not gonna be honest with yourself you're> >> >> >>>> > > >> > > > > bound> >> >> >>>> > > >> > > > > to> >> >> >> >> > > >> > > > > make a> >> >> >> >> > > >> > > > > fool of yourself.>> >> >> >> >> > > >> > > > Come on Walt. deliver that shit for the goonies.>> >> >> >> >> > > >> > > Bob,... I'll try one more time to get you to open your> >> >> >> >> > > >> > > eyes...(> >> >> >> >> > > >> > > I> >> >> >> >> > > >> > > can't> >> >> >> >> > > >> > > compel you to open them)>> >> >> >> >> > > >> > OK. Walt.>> >> >>>> >> > > >> > Open your TKOAP to page 20 and look at the Willis photo at> >> >>>> >> > > >> > the> >> >> >> >> > > >> > furnish.>> >> >> >> >> > > >> > That was snapped about 2.5 seconds prior to the Altgens> >> >> >> >> > > >> > photo.>> >> >> >> >> > > >> How did you determine the interval was 2.5 seconds??>> >> >> >> >> > > >That photo was taken at the equivalent of 207 Walt.>> >> >>>> >> > > >It would act way too long to explain why and you wouldn't> >> >>>> >> > > >believe> >> >> >> >> > > >me> >> >>>> >> > > >anyway but I've been doing this stuff for a looong time and I> >> >>>> >> > > >am> >> >> >> >> > > >right.>> >> >> >> >>> > >> > Where do you see Chaney? act in mind that in this photo> >> >> >> >>> > >> > the> >> >> >> >>> > >> > UM> >> >> >> >>> > >> > and> >> >> >> >> > > >> > his> >> >> >> >>> > >> > bud haven't raised their arm/umbrella yet. They ordain not do> >> >> >> >>> > >> > so> >> >> >> >>> > >> > until> >> >> >> >> > > >> > JFK>> >> >> >> >> > > >> Totally irrelevant..... We are discussing the Altgens> >> >> >> >> > > >> photo.....>> >> >>>> >> > > >It is totally relevant Walt. What I am trying to get across to> >> >>>> >> > > >you> >> >> >> >> > > >is,> >> >> >> >> > > >that Chaney was constantly hanging back and generally closer> >> >> >> >> > > >to> >> >> >> >> > > >the> >> >> >> >> > > >followup car than JFK.>> >> >> >> >> > > >> I> >> >> >> >> > > >> could care less about other photos.>> >> >>>> >> > > >Well you shouldn't. You should care a LOT - if you really be> >> >>>> >> > > >to> >> >> >> >> > > >know> >> >> >> >> > > >the truth about what happened.>> >> >> >> >> > > >> I'm merely attempting to show you> >> >> >> >> > > >> that Chaney was right there along side the Lincoln when> >> >> >> >> > > >> Altgen's> >> >> >> >> > > >> snapper the shutter. He's NOT seen alongside the Lincoln at> >> >> >> >> > > >> Z255.> >> >> >> >> > > >> You evaluate out an explanation.... I'm merely stating the> >> >> >> >> > > >> FACTS.>> >> >> >> >> > > >No you aren't Walt.>> >> >> >> >> > > >You're EVADING the facts.>> >>>> >> >> > > >And you're getting fooled by an illusion which is confirmed by> >> >> >> >> > > >the> >> >> >> >> > > >fact>> >> >> >> >> > > Using the presumed authenticity of the film to be the> >> >> >> >> > > authenticity> >> >> >> >> > > of> >> >> >> >> > > the> >> >> >> >> > > film???>> >> >> >> >> > > Are you trying to pull our leg. Bob?>> >> >> >> >> > READ what is going on Ben!!>> >>>> >> >> > If you jump into a thread you need to read the preceding posts so> >> >> >> >> > that> >> >> >> >> > you don't say something stupid like this.>> >> >> >> >> > I just finished referencing several photos from TKOAP.>> >> >>>> >> > > >that ALL photos of Chaney as change state as we can find to 255,> >> >>>> >> > > >confirm> >> >> >> >> > > >that> >> >> >> >> > > >he was riding to the straighten of the limo both before and after> >> >> >> >> > > >255.>> >> >> >> >> > > Name them. Bob.>> >> >> >> >> > I just did.>> >>>> >> >> > > It looks like you're trying to imply that you have more than the> >> >> >> >> > > films> >> >> >> >> > > believed> >> >> >> >> > > to undergo been altered.>> >> >> >> >> > breathe....>> >> >> >> >> > Read what I actually said and then post a reply.>> >> >> >> >> > The photo I mentioned on p.24 was snapped very change state to the measure> >> >> >> >> > that> >> >> >> >> > Altgens was snapped.>> >> >> >>>> > > Altgen's pic as you well know was published almost immediately> >> >> >>>> > > -> >> >> >>>> > > and> >> >> >> >> > > unlike> >> >>>> >> > > *almost* everything else was never 'filtered' through the hands> >> >>>> >> > > of> >> >> >> >> > > the> >> >> >> >> > > FBI> >> >> >> >> > > prior to being seen by others.>> >>>> >> >> > > >Looking at photos and films can be very tricky business. I have> >> >> >> >> > > >been> >> >> >> >> > > >fooled many times by them. So you have to find objective ways> >> >> >> >> > > >to> >> >> >> >> > > >test> >> >> >> >> > > >what you evaluate you see.>> >> >> >>>> > > There is of cover only *ONE* perfect way to demonstrate your> >> >> >>>> > > point,> >> >> >> >> > > Bob...> >> >> >> >> > > and neither you nor any LNT'er has ever dared to do so.>> >> >> >> >> > > Simply get a limo and a motorcycle put them in the position> >> >> >> >> > > *YOU*> >> >> >> >> > > believe> >> >> >> >> > > them> >> >> >> >> > > to be and photograph with the same camera & lens that Altgen> >> >> >> >> > > used> >> >> >> >> > > -> >> >> >> >> > > along> >> >> >> >> > > with> >> >> >> >> > > photos from the other side *PROVING* that Chaney was where you> >> >> >> >> > > think> >> >> >> >> > > he> >> >> >> >> > > was.>> >> >> >> >> > Great idea. Ben!>> >> >> >> >> > I will put my order in with Ford right after I search every> >> >> >> >> > antique> >> >> >> >> > store in the country to get an identical camera and then order my> >> >> >> >> > 1960> >> >> >> >> > Harley.>> >> >>>> >> > Of course what people these days usually do in situations like> >> >>>> >> > this,> >> >> >> >> > is> >>>> >> >> > use CAD software. 2D programs are VERY easy to use and set up. You> >> >> >> >> > just> >> >> >> >> > overlay your car and bike on the HSCA surveyor's diagram and then> >> >> >> >> > draw a> >> >> >> >> > bevel representing Altgens field of view.>> >> >> >> >> > Even easier you just be at p.25 in TKOAP to see where Chaney> >> >> >> >> > was> >> >> >> >> > at a> >> >> >> >> > point that is extremely change state to the time the Altgens photo was> >> >> >> >> > snapped.> >> >>>> >> > sight that both the umbrella man and his bud have raised their> >> >>>> >> > arms,> >> >> >> >> > so> >> >> >> >> > Kennedy has already been hit. That places this pic sometime AFTER> >> >> >> >> > 223.>> >> >> >> >> > I suppose you could argue that Chaney gunned the bike and within> >> >> >> >> > less> >> >> >> >> > than 2 seconds was alongside the limo and then hit the brakes so> >> >> >> >> > that> >> >> >> >> > he could be back where he originally was just in time for the> >> >> >> >> > Moorman> >> >> >> >> > photo but

Nude Celebrities Blogs global

A great Jessica Beil YouTube video..

Take a little time to say Hi to Carli

Patsy Palmer sex need more free adult websites to visit

24 new messages in 11 topics - digest