Reply #92: "Never trust a word he says" says Ron Harvey of me (My last post to DU)

[dick_eastman]

Ron Harvey says (referring to me):

"He twists everything."

As his example of some of the everything I twist, Ron offers you this statement of a post to this thread:


"For example, Ron Harvey was saying that Riskus saw the Boeing knocking down the poles (which, because I believed Ron Harvey, caused me to publically retract on e-lists and newsgroups my conclusions pending further study etc. -- only to find out from Riskus himself that he only saw the downed poles later as he was driving away (to the south)."

Harvey: Is NOT correct. I only ever said that Steve Riskus said that the plane hit the poles, which was correct; Steve Riskus did say that the plane hit the poles, and to the best of my knowledge he has never since expressed the slightest doubt about the fact, just as he has never yet expressed the slightest doubt that a Boeing B757, Flight 77, hit the Pentagon.

========

Eastman Reply and farewell to DU:

What you did, Ron, was trickery and deceit -- and after you knew that everyone was understanding you to mean that Riskus actually saw the poles going down -- you did not correct or clarify -- (otherwise why even bring Riskus's opinion into the matter since everyone who knew about downed poles naturally assumed given expectations from the WTC and from announcements on radio and TV that the Boeing did it -- why bring up Riskus the witness in a discussion of which aircraft brought down the poles? -- if Riskus the witness did not himself witness the Boeing bringing down the poles then why say that Riskus the witness "said the poles came down..." (note the "...") giving the impression that he is saying that he SAW the poles being downed by the Boeing when he did not?

It so happens I have exactly what you said, below, Ron, for all to see.

First a little background:

Steve Riskus was a witness to the Boeing crossing, he says, one hundred feet in front of him while he Riskus was still north of the crash, driving southbound on Washington Blvd. The downed lamp posts were more than 400 feet ahead. I was arguing that the Boeing, being so close to Riskus could not have knocked down those posts. I said there were no witnesses who both recognized a Boeing 757 and saw it knock down lamp posts.

Then Harvey stated that Riskus had seen the posts being knocked down. I took him at his word and retracted my small-plane conclusions in a post with the subject:

subject: Olive branch: hey! Ron Harvey is right about Riskus seeing the lamp posts go down

Did Harvey come back and say -- "I only said he said they were knocked down by the Boeing, I did not say he said he saw them being knocked down by the Boeing?" NOOOOoooo! He did not. Rather he responded with this:

---------

From: "Ron Harvey" <[email protected]>
To: <[email protected]>
Sent: Wednesday, January 15, 2003 9:50 PM
Subject: Re: Olive branch: hey! Ron Harvey is right about ....


> No matter how many times you care to lie about it,
> Steve Riskus has clearly stated that the B757 hit lamp
> poles before hitting the Pentagon. Ergo wrong trajectory
> to pass over the Cemetery.

-----------

Notice the word "stated" -- witness Riskus -- being a witness is his only claim to fame -- and what he witnessed the only reason why we consider his statements -- Harvey knows he is telling us that the witness stated something (he is keeping from us the fact that what the witness stated was his opinion based on hearsay and not what he actually saw!!!!

The question in my mind is: Why did Harvey state an opinion of Riskus, giving the impression that Riskus observed it happening?

And why, afterwards, when it was clear that I had taken his statement as meaning that Riskus said he saw poles being knocked down by the Boeing -- why did Harvey not correct the false impression he had left of what Riskus said? Rather he accepted the accolades for vanquishing the liar from Yakima.




------------

Next look at this that I wrote:



From: "Eastman" <[email protected]>
To: "populist-talk" <[email protected]>; "nygreens" <[email protected]>; <[email protected]>; "Dave Bosankoe" <[email protected]>; "APFN" <[email protected]>; <[email protected]>; <[email protected]>; <[email protected]>; <[email protected]>; <[email protected]>
Sent: Saturday, January 18, 2003 1:10 PM
Subject: NEW PENTAGON INFO IN BRIEF & Anybody seen Ron Harvey? Tell him Dick Eastman is lookikng for him about words he put in the mouths of Riskus and Omar Campo.

> "Wooster, I'm going to twist your head off and make
> you eat it." -- Stilton Cheeseright
>
> Before we get to whether Ron Harvey has made good
> on his make-or-break claims that 1) witnesses Steve Riskus
> saw AA Flight 77, a Boeing 757, down the lamp posts,
> and 2) that National Cemetery gardener Omar Compo
> was not on cemetery cemetery as Flight 77 flew over
> his head while he was cutting grass -- here is THIS
> further corroboration of the two-plane (Killer jet and Boeing)
> explanation sent by Eric from www.sweden.com:
>
> "They are intelligent planes and they have software limits
> so that pilot error cannot cause passenger injury. ... their
> flight control systems prevents high g maneuvers... They are
> limited to approximately 1.5 g's -- military personnel have
> calculated that the Pentagon plane pulled between five and
> seven g's in its final turn."
> http://www.sweden.com/forums/showthread.php3?threadid=4536
>
> But even though Harvey is now agreeing with my physics
> and geometry, he still rejects the broader conclusion that
> there must have been two planes, in favor of the official story,
> on the basis his unsubstantiated claim that Riksus says that he
> saw the Boeing knock down lamp posts. I have not seen Riskus
> saying this. I have not seen this claim on any other 9-11
> investigators websites or correspondence -- no one but
> Ron Harvey has ever raised this objection, which, if it were
> true would indeed be the coup d'grace for the two plane
> theory. (When I say two plane theory I am referring to the
> killer jet and the Boeing 757 Flight 77 -- I am not referring to
> a helicopter or a C-130 that are also reported to have been
> in the general vicinity at the time, although the C-130 is
> reported to been seen following the Boeing before the
> crash -- which means it was higher up and behind the
> Boeing (and those who were looking at the C-130 would
> certainly have missed the ground-hugging approach of
> the killer jet (still most likely a modified F-16).
>
> So where is Riskus statement. I am, so far, inclined to
> believe Riskus's account, BUT I HAVE NEVER HEARD THIS
> FROM HIM, NOR HAVE I HEARD ANY OTHER INVESTIGATOR
> OR COVERUP PROPAGANDIST MAKE THIS CLAIM ABOUT
> RISKUS. I told Harvey that if he can provide the quote and
> the source, or the url with this statement on it that that would
> be a significant point in favor of the anti-two plane argument
> -- BUT WE ARE STILL WAITING FOR IT. DOES HE HAVE IT
> AND IS DESIRING ME TO GET FRUSTRATED AND CALL HIM
> MORE NAMES BEFORE HE PRODUCES IT OR IS HE UNABLE
> TO PRODUCE IT AND SO HAS TAKEN UP OTHER HOBBIES?????
>
> ALSO, after four days Ron Harvey has still not backed this claim:
> >
> > "The gardener" presumably refers to Omar Campo,
> > a Salvadorean, who was cutting the grass on the other
> > side of the road.
> > You can see where this was in contemporaneous photos.
> > The grass is strewn around on the flyover ramp road.
> > Ergo, not in the Cemetery.
>
The fact that you see grass along the highway overpass does
not at all establish where Campo made his observation. Campo
was working as an Arlington Cemetery Gardener, not as Highway
Department Landscape Maintenance -- if the Arlington Gardener
was cutting Arlington grass, than the road furthest south he could
have been cutting along would be Patton Drive just north of the
Annex -- and the right trajectory through poles and holes could
not have been attained by any Boeing if it was at all over the Annex
or anywhere from the Columbia Pike northward.

> You make some boasts and some accusations below, Harvey.
> Why not give these some credibility by giving us the Riskus
> statement and the Campbo statement that will prove me wrong
> and vindicate all you have ever said. It will be a significant
> contribution to a very important question -- and it will put me
> in my place for good (I don't think I will be able to recover
> if you can produce even one of these pieces of evidence.
> Seriously.)

---------------------------------------


And Harvey's replies to the above:

From: "tw45ph" <[email protected]>
> I provided an abundance of demonstration, web pages full of
> pertinent extracts from witness reports, all fully referenced.
> In return you Mr. Eastman stubbornly neglected to
> acknowledge the work, with no link to my pages ever provided
> in any of your various messages, and it was all too often obvious
> that you'd never even bothered to examine pertinent items even
> after they were pointed out to you. I do not therefore desire
> now to entertain any further disingenuity in that respect.
> For as far as I am concerned you are a great deal worse than a
> complete waste of time.
>
> I do not trust you and I shall continue to caution others not to.
>
> Sincerely,
>
> Ron Harvey

--

And with this:

From: <[email protected]>
To: <[email protected]>
Sent: Saturday, January 18, 2003 9:14 PM
Subject: Re: NEW PENTAGON INFO IN BRIEF & Anybody seen Ron Harvey? Tell him Dick Eastman is lookikng for him about words he put in the mouths of Riskus and Omar Campo.
>
>
> > "...Ron Harvey of London who alone claims that witness
> > Steve Riskus states that he saw the American Airlines
> > Boeing 757 knocking down the lamp posts .." ???
>
>
> This is absurdly, annoyingly tedious.
>
> Will Mr. Eastman perhaps be honest enough at least to tell us on
> how many previous occasions I have urged him and others to give
> Steve Riskus himself a hearing in a recorded interview he gave
> to a French journalist? After all this time, and all this trouble,
> has he still not yet bothered to listen to it? The item is available
> here:
>
> http://digipressetmp3.teaser.fr/uploads/490/Riskus2.ram
> e.g.
> "... It was coming like at tree level probably 20 feet off the
> ground, It was knocking over light poles as it came in towards the
> building, and it stuck the building right near the ground. So it was
> really low. ... "
>
> The same is also confirmed here:
>
>
> i.e.
>
> "I am sorry to rain on your parade, but I saw the plane hit the
> building. It did not hit the ground first... It did not hit the roof
> first... It hit the roof first... It hit dead centre on the side... I
> was close enough (about 100 feet or so) that i could see
> the "American Airlines" logo on the tail as it headed towards the
> building... .. It was not completely level but it was not going
> straight down, kind of like it was landing with no gear down... It
> knocked over a few light poles on its way...
> I did not see any smoke or debris coming from the plane.
> I clearly saw the "AA" logo with the eagle in the middle...
> I don't really remember the engine configuration, but it did have
> those turbine engines on the wing.. and yes, it did impact the
> Pentagon... There was none of this hitting the ground first crap I
> keep hearing... It was definitely an American Airlines jet... there
> is no doubt about that... When i got to work I checked ot out."


----

Note how Harvey has edited the very sentence mentioning the poles.

Note too, Riskus says he saw no smoke or debris coming from the plane. Nor does he mention jet fuel spray or smell.



Only later, when balking at my forced retirement, did I write to Riskus and learn that he had NOT seen the lamp posts being hit after all -- that he only noticed some of them down as he was driving away, continuing south on Washington Blvd (across the path of the killer jet). You will notice that Riskus has definite ideas that the Boeing did not hit the ground -- but he offers no description of the Boeing hitting or entering the Pentagon either. I believe Riskus and I believe Lagasse and I take them literally in their descriptions of what they actually saw -- and their stories fit the facts.

But Ron Harvey knowlingly took credit for winning the debate -- and he know that I conceded precisely because I was believing him that Riskus said he saw the poles being brought down by the Boeing. He did not correct the mistaken impression.

Ron Harvey says I twist everything. He has said it before. And there is always a percentage of discussants who believe him and pass on the news.

And so I spend another fucking night away from my seven year old daugher and my neglected wife -- we have been through hell over what I do -- because of Ron Harvey doing his thing yet again.

I hope at least one person has bothered to read my defense -- but damn it -- what the hell has been proved here.

Why is that fellow able to hang up me up time after time?

I am sorry -- I can no longer take this emotionally or physically.

You who have fight left -- you have the pictures I cam to show you and you have, I have seen, very good minds -- better than mine, at least at this point.

Last tip. The four engine plane may have been the one that was seen diving at an irrecoverable angle that Robbins talked about -- thnking it was the plane that hit the Pentagon -- but just maybe the plane doing acrobatics over the mall did crash on the runway even as the Boeing was overflying and the killer jet was crashing -- perfect reliable distraction if it happened that way -- I am not saying that a crash on the runway happened, although at one point reported -- I am saying that IF there was a plane crash on the runway it was probably the four-engine jet photographed over D.C. that Robbins (from his office at National Review) saw.

In parting, let me say that this is the most intense forum I have ever participated in -- I could not keep up with you all. I am confident I have successfully given the right evidence to the right people.

Dick Eastman
Yakima, Washington