On Feb 8, 7:17=A0pm, Robert Harris <reharr...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
> In article
> <d67d513b-f992-4caf-b6e9-af070793b...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>,
> =A0Chuck Schuyler <chu...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Feb 7, 8:05=A0pm, Robert Harris <reharr...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
> > > In article
> > > <e0d4c9dd-37c0-4b90-8a2a-571b272d2...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>,
> > > =A0Chuck Schuyler <chu...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
>
> > > > On Feb 6, 11:51=A0am, Robert Harris <reharr...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
>
> > > > > > You are dazzled by your own brilliance.
>
> > > > > > I don't "see" any of the things you pur****t, and I watched all
1=
0
> > > > > > minutes of the video.
>
> > > > > Sure you did, Chuck.
>
> > > > I watched the whole thing.
>
> > > > > You saw the same thing I saw and the same thing that Larry
Sturdev=
an and
> > > > > a dozen other conspiracy deniers have already confirmed, back in
t=
he
> > > > > days when some of your predecessors at least had the courage to
tr=
y to
> > > > > explain away those reactions.
>
> > > > The so-called reactions are subjective, Bob.
>
> > > You are absolutely, positively, and beyond all dispute, WRONG,
Chuck.
> > > Look at the video again:
>
> > >http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3DQl6VqZDiC6s
>
> > > Those reactions are both quantifiable and timeable, thanks to the
the
> > > very precise, 1/18th of a second spacing of the Zapruder frames.
>
> > > We know for an absolute fact, that three of those people
simultaneousl=
y
> > > dropped their heads by app. 30 degrees.
>
> > > And we KNOW, that Greer spun to the front and back again, within an
> > > extremely short time frame. Many years ago, I debunked the claim by
> > > Zapruder film critics, that Greer's turns were impossible and
therefor=
e,
> > > proof that the film was altered.
>
> > > I simply sat in a chair and had someone video tape me turning, as
fast=
> > > as I could. We then examined the 30fps video and compared my turning
> > > time with Greer's.
>
> > > It wasn't easy, Chuck and the first couple times I failed. But
finally=
,
> > > I did it. I actually turned a hair faster than he did, even though
the=
> > > action made me a tad dizzy.
>
> > > More im****tantly, we know exactly WHEN those reactions began Chuck.
It=
> > > is quite easy to look at frames, one-at-a-time and determine when
each=
> > > of the reactions began. And they all began within 1/18th of a second
o=
f
> > > Zapruder's reaction at frame 291.
>
> > > Have you EVER stopped to think about how long 1/18th of a second is,
> > > Chuck?
>
> > > No, seriously, have you ever REALLY thought about that?
>
> > > If you and several others TRIED to deliberately do something within
> > > 1/18th of a second of one another, you couldn't do it, Chuck -
> > > especially, if you weren't looking at one another.
>
> > > Chuck, tell me the truth - do you REALLY think it was just a
coinciden=
ce
> > > that those reactions occurred at EXACTLY the same instant?
>
> > > And do you think it was a coincidence that Mrs. Connally just
happened=
> > > to choose that same, tiny point in time to suffer an hallucination,
> > > thinking her husband was hit by a gunshot?
>
> > > And that Mrs. Kennedy, =A0suffered exactly the same delusion,
thinking=
her
> > > husband was "receiving a bullet" as she turned back toward JFK, and
> > > ducked - in perfect unison with Nellie and the others??
>
> > > And was it a coincidence that Kellerman just decided that this was a
> > > great time to duck and scratch his ear? Or do you suppose the
"flurry"=
> > > of gunshots might have had something to do with it??
>
> > > Your problem Chuck, is that no matter how hard you try, you will
NEVER=
> > > be able to pass this off as a subjective interpretation in the mind
of=
a
> > > deluded conspiracy buff. Those reactions are very, =A0very real and
ha=
ve
> > > been confirmed by some of the best educated of your fellow deniers.
>
> > > If those same reactions took place at Z160 or 223, you would be
laughi=
ng
> > > you ass off at anyone who tried to deny a gunshot then, and (for
once)=
,
> > > rightly so.
>
> > > You accept Brennon's statement, IDing Oswald, with ZERO
corroborating
> > > witnesses, ZERO photographic confirmations, and ZERO scientific
analys=
is.
>
> > > Why do you reject objective evidence that is more than 50 times
greate=
r,
> > > in both quantity and quality?
>
> > > Robert Harris- Hide quoted text -
>
> > > - Show quoted text -
>
> > I'll make it real simple for you to understand:
>
> Comprehension is not the issue, Chuck.
>
> In this posting, you used the pronoun "you" or one of its derivatives 19
> times, and words like "evidence" and "facts", ZERO times.
>
> And once again, you evaded every question I presented.
>
> Deal with the facts or recruit someone who can. Until then, these silly
ad=
> hominem rants are not gonna convince anyone with a triple-digit IQ.
>
> Robert Harris- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
The facts were dealt with quite nicely by the Warren Commission.
A few points:
You are a hardcore CT'er. There isn't anything I could say or post, any
evidence I could cite, any book, DVD, do***entary I could refer you to
that would change your mind about your weird theories.
I once responded to posts with links to WC testimony, HSCA exhibits, etc.
but you and your fellow believers, I quickly learned, dispute almost the
whole case-top to bottom-so it really is fruitless at this point. You've
heard and read everything about the case. Your mind is made up.
Have fun videotaping yourself turning your head around real fast like
Greer or 'researching' the dimensions of the Dallas, Elm St. sewers or
whatever other bizarre thing you're up to.
It's really quite funny.
Give it up. You've got nothing. If you had something, the case would be
reopened.
Boy, what a buzzkill it must be to meet you at a party and hear the words,
"Hi, I'm Bob Harris, and I'm a JFK conspiracy researcher."
|
