Several stops in the motorcade (Merged Harris Thread-Post #8-with 3 older threads)

[Karl Kinaski]

The Lincoln came to a halt, or almost to a halt, which is the observation of over 50 eyewitnesses...but this question is not really important...

The importance of the limo-stop-matter is, that none of that observations by Dealy Plaza bystanders can be seen on the Zapruder film...where the Lincoln is gliding down Elm Street with constant speed...a little bit too smooth and a little bit too artificial...

[Len Colby]

If you search this forum for limo stop you'll this has already been gone over, over and over and over again. No reason to go over it again.

I think differently. This is an issue that will not go away, because of the large number of witnesses to the stop.

More likely explanation is that a) some people will dredge up the same topics over and over again even when there are not any new developments that make them relevant again and new members who haven't bothered to do a forum search will bring up the same topics over and over again.

[Robert Prudhomme]

If you search this forum for limo stop you'll this has already been gone over, over and over and over again. No reason to go over it again.

I think differently. This is an issue that will not go away, because of the large number of witnesses to the stop.

More likely explanation is that a) some people will dredge up the same topics over and over again even when there are not any new developments that make them relevant again and new members who haven't bothered to do a forum search will bring up the same topics over and over again.

Mr. Colby

May I invite you to exercise your discretion and ignore this topic, if you find its contents so bothersome?

[Guest Tom Scully]

David,

I disapproved your last post. It is hidden, but intact.

http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=2243&p=169539

[Daniel Gallup]

If you search this forum for limo stop you'll this has already been gone over, over and over and over again. No reason to go over it again.

I think differently. This is an issue that will not go away, because of the large number of witnesses to the stop.

More likely explanation is that a) some people will dredge up the same topics over and over again even when there are not any new developments that make them relevant again and new members who haven't bothered to do a forum search will bring up the same topics over and over again.

Then the question is begged, Len, what constitutes a new development? A new eye-witness is interviewed, as in the case of Toni Foster. How many readers know of this interview, and what she said? They may know who she is, but not what she told Debra Conway in the interview. A new development may be in a related area that has bearing on the lilmo stop. For instance, the suspicious peregrinations of the Z-film or copies of it as recorded by Horne may have a powerful influence on the credence one gives the limo-stop witnesses. Any new attack on the integrity of the extant film, should it come in the future, might cause the reader to doubt the accuracy of the film. Then there is the brain power of those thinkers who are able to synthesize seemingly disparate events into a coherent whole and shed new light on the case, and that synthesis might involve the Z-film and consequently the limo stop. I cannot count myself among such elite thinkers as i am only a casual reader, but they are out there. Then there is the very human tendency to want to sweep inconvenient anomalies under the rug and settle for shallow answers. If a person is convinced that an issue, while discussed in the past, has nevertheless not received the attention it deserves, then why not bring it up again and say why it needs to be reconsidered?

[David Lifton]

David,

I disapproved your last post. It is hidden, but intact.

http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=2243&p=169539

Which "David"?

DSL

[Len Colby]

If you search this forum for limo stop you'll this has already been gone over, over and over and over again. No reason to go over it again.

I think differently. This is an issue that will not go away, because of the large number of witnesses to the stop.

More likely explanation is that a) some people will dredge up the same topics over and over again even when there are not any new developments that make them relevant again and new members who haven't bothered to do a forum search will bring up the same topics over and over again.

Then the question is begged, Len, what constitutes a new development? A new eye-witness is interviewed, as in the case of Toni Foster. How many readers know of this interview, and what she said? They may know who she is, but not what she told Debra Conway in the interview. A new development may be in a related area that has bearing on the lilmo stop. For instance, the suspicious peregrinations of the Z-film or copies of it as recorded by Horne may have a powerful influence on the credence one gives the limo-stop witnesses. Any new attack on the integrity of the extant film, should it come in the future, might cause the reader to doubt the accuracy of the film. Then there is the brain power of those thinkers who are able to synthesize seemingly disparate events into a coherent whole and shed new light on the case, and that synthesis might involve the Z-film and consequently the limo stop. I cannot count myself among such elite thinkers as i am only a casual reader, but they are out there. Then there is the very human tendency to want to sweep inconvenient anomalies under the rug and settle for shallow answers. If a person is convinced that an issue, while discussed in the past, has nevertheless not received the attention it deserves, then why not bring it up again and say why it needs to be reconsidered?

A new development, is well a development (a witness etc.) that is new (i.e. recent or not previously discussed)

[Robert Prudhomme]

If you search this forum for limo stop you'll this has already been gone over, over and over and over again. No reason to go over it again.

I think differently. This is an issue that will not go away, because of the large number of witnesses to the stop.

More likely explanation is that a) some people will dredge up the same topics over and over again even when there are not any new developments that make them relevant again and new members who haven't bothered to do a forum search will bring up the same topics over and over again.

Then the question is begged, Len, what constitutes a new development? A new eye-witness is interviewed, as in the case of Toni Foster. How many readers know of this interview, and what she said? They may know who she is, but not what she told Debra Conway in the interview. A new development may be in a related area that has bearing on the lilmo stop. For instance, the suspicious peregrinations of the Z-film or copies of it as recorded by Horne may have a powerful influence on the credence one gives the limo-stop witnesses. Any new attack on the integrity of the extant film, should it come in the future, might cause the reader to doubt the accuracy of the film. Then there is the brain power of those thinkers who are able to synthesize seemingly disparate events into a coherent whole and shed new light on the case, and that synthesis might involve the Z-film and consequently the limo stop. I cannot count myself among such elite thinkers as i am only a casual reader, but they are out there. Then there is the very human tendency to want to sweep inconvenient anomalies under the rug and settle for shallow answers. If a person is convinced that an issue, while discussed in the past, has nevertheless not received the attention it deserves, then why not bring it up again and say why it needs to be reconsidered?

A new development, is well a development (a witness etc.) that is new (i.e. recent or not previously discussed)

Mr. Colby

If we used your logic as our guide, we would have to shut this forum down entirely. I am sure you would be delighted.

[Daniel Gallup]

If you search this forum for limo stop you'll this has already been gone over, over and over and over again. No reason to go over it again.

I think differently. This is an issue that will not go away, because of the large number of witnesses to the stop.

More likely explanation is that a) some people will dredge up the same topics over and over again even when there are not any new developments that make them relevant again and new members who haven't bothered to do a forum search will bring up the same topics over and over again.

Then the question is begged, Len, what constitutes a new development? A new eye-witness is interviewed, as in the case of Toni Foster. How many readers know of this interview, and what she said? They may know who she is, but not what she told Debra Conway in the interview. A new development may be in a related area that has bearing on the lilmo stop. For instance, the suspicious peregrinations of the Z-film or copies of it as recorded by Horne may have a powerful influence on the credence one gives the limo-stop witnesses. Any new attack on the integrity of the extant film, should it come in the future, might cause the reader to doubt the accuracy of the film. Then there is the brain power of those thinkers who are able to synthesize seemingly disparate events into a coherent whole and shed new light on the case, and that synthesis might involve the Z-film and consequently the limo stop. I cannot count myself among such elite thinkers as i am only a casual reader, but they are out there. Then there is the very human tendency to want to sweep inconvenient anomalies under the rug and settle for shallow answers. If a person is convinced that an issue, while discussed in the past, has nevertheless not received the attention it deserves, then why not bring it up again and say why it needs to be reconsidered?

A new development, is well a development (a witness etc.) that is new (i.e. recent or not previously discussed)

Discussed to what depth? Let me provide an example. The early entrance of Kennedy's body into the Bethesda morgue in a shipping casket and in a body bag -- if true-- is the most significant smoking gun in the entire case because the implications are so vast. It means the chain of possession of Kennedy's body was lost and the autopsy and everything connected with it rendered irrelevant. It strongly suggests the plan to murder the President included a plan to falsify the wounding and create a false solution to the crime. The Boyajian report corroborated Dennis David, Paul O'Connor and others at Bethesda and is thus a valuable contribution to the case. Jim DiEugenio sent a link to his review of Kaleidoscope wherein he defended Livingston's most significant claim-- that despite the above witnesses claims, the body was simply that of an Air Force officer. I attacked that part of the review on several occasions, waiting for Mr. DiEugenio to respond with insights/information that might illumine the matter. Nothing. Zip. Potentially the most important smoking gun in the entire case -- and the forum greets it with a yawn and indifference. Was the matter "discussed"? No. Has Livingston's central claim been subject to proper peer scrutiny on this forum? Not that I have seen. Does anyone care? The silence is deafening. In fact, as you know, there are hopes bysome persons who contribute often here on the forum that the whole issue would just go away. So will the Boyajian report appear again on the forum, this time with proper scrutiny? I sincerely hope so. That would be a new development.

Edited May 24, 2013 by Daniel Gallup