Robert Harris

This is a detailed article about the bullet that fell from Governor Connally's gurney at Parkland hospital and was picked by a nurse. She showed the bullet to district attorney, Henry Wade and then gave it to officer Bobby Nolan. Obviously, THIS was the bullet that wounded Connally, and not the stretcher bullet found by Daryl Tomlinson. The evidence for this is overwhelming. http://jfkhistory.com/bell/bellarticle/BellArticle.html

So JFK was killed to stop him from banning flouride, which is part of an insidious, secret plot to make the American people docile and stupid?

Ok, but I was thinking of the body washing, not the time of life-saving measures. During that time, presumably, Henchcliff, Bowron, and Sanders (the orderly) wrapped the head and washed the body. Henchcliff told Wallace Milam she saw no back wound; there may be a reasonable explanation for this, as in, she didn't wash his back but Bowron did; or there may be something important in this, as in, she helped Bowron wash the back and saw no wound because it wasn't there at the time. I find it unreasonable to suppose that Bowron would see a back wound and not report its existence to Henchcliff and Sanders in the course of washing the body. I don't know and would love to find out more about the Milam interview with Henchcliff. Does that seem to you like a reasonable, healthy interest? Or am I still crazy? Respectfully, dAniel This would only be significant if the nurses were searching for wounds. And there had to have been a great deal of emotional impact for them at the time. Its really not surprising that they didn't recall a lot of detail. And if someone poked a hole in the back, he didn't do a very good job because he only made it a couple inches deep and the hole was almost twice as tall as it was wide, obviously because the bullet was tumbling, which also explains why it appeared to have entered at such a steep, downward angle. That also explains why admiral Osborne discovered the bullet which had to have been the one that fell out from the back wound. That's just not the way someone would do it if he wanted to give the false appearance of a wound. As I have argued for many years, the earliest shots were fired from a suppressed weapon that was out of alignment, which caused at least one and probably two shots to miss the limo entirely and a third to misfire, striking well below the head and enter, tumbling at a very low velocity. That is also why only one of the early shots was noticed by most witnesses, and why we see no startle reactions by the limo passengers prior to the end of the attack. And yes, any of us who are still studying this thing, have to be crazy. If we weren't when we started out, it was just a matter of time before we got that way.

I really need to check in here more often. I'm glad you were able to use my presentation to make your point, although when I saw the title, I thought this would be a nasty shot at my weight I would add however, that my own opinion is that the 313 shot did not come from the Daltex, mainly because the shots from that location went almost entirely unnoticed, and provoked no visible startle reactions, as we see beginning at 290, and following the shot at 312-313. I feel quite certain that the early shots, pre-290 were fired from a suppressed weapon. I do however, see rather compelling witness testimony that two shots were fired from the TSBD. That was the conclusion of two out of the three men on the 5th floor, as well as Euinns and Howard Brennon. I think one of those shots was the first headshot that killed JFK. For those who argue that the Zapruder film was altered, I would repeat my challenge from a year ago. Make an 8mm film in DP or some similar area, and then using 1963 technology, alter the film to include the changes which you believe, occurred. Then simply show us the original and the finished product. Oh, and be sure to do the same for three films, since they had to alter the Muchmore and Nix films as well, to make them sychronize with each other, as even Dr. Mantik has admitted, they do. And don't worry, since the Muchmore film was broadcast on TV the following Monday, you've got a little over 48 hours to get the job done - should be a piece of cake Anyway, getting back to reality, I hope that if you get the time, you will look at my much more detailed analysis of the attack which I made recently.

Agreed, Terry, ASSUMING a back wound existed in the first place. Since no one here can produce CONTEMPORANEOUS evidence of a back wound at Parkland, even though there should be such evidence, as you point out, then I can only conclude that no back wound existed at parkland, as David Lifton asserts in BEST EVIDENCE. Agreed, Terry, ASSUMING a back wound existed in the first place. Sigh... I don't know which is worse, the craziest nutters in Duncan's forum or the craziest conspiracy people over here Ok, as one of the crazies here, may I ask this one question: If Nurse Henchcliff did not see the back wound, and said so in an interview long before Bowron spoke to Livingston, would that mean anything to you? Would it at least give pause for thought? Respectfully, crazy Daniel Well... not really. The body was continually lying prone while it was at Parkland. And I'm pretty sure that they were more concerned with trying to save Kennedy than in counting the wounds. When all efforts failed, there was no need for them to continue to search for more wounds. This was not an autopsy and their work was over after they pronounced him dead.

Agreed, Terry, ASSUMING a back wound existed in the first place. Since no one here can produce CONTEMPORANEOUS evidence of a back wound at Parkland, even though there should be such evidence, as you point out, then I can only conclude that no back wound existed at parkland, as David Lifton asserts in BEST EVIDENCE. Agreed, Terry, ASSUMING a back wound existed in the first place. Sigh... I don't know which is worse, the craziest nutters in Duncan's forum or the craziest conspiracy people over here

So Bowron made a mistake, sez Harris, based on his own experience as a QUALIFIED EXPERT in NOTHING WHATSOEVER! Well, I am a decent guitar player But I really do think I'm missing something here. Are we trying to connect Bowron to some sinister plot, or just accusing her of being a xxxx? If the latter, then why didn't she just lie and claim that she did see the back wound? For that matter, why would she have lied at all? What she reported about the BOH was what most of the other Parkland people reported. Why would she have made up a false story?

I think you are picking nits here, Todd. By this reasoning she was also lying because she didn't mention the tracheotomy to the WC. Her job was to wash the body, so undoubtedly, she did see the back wound and the throat wound but perhaps because the BOH damage was so much more massive, she just failed at that instant to think about the other wounds. People make mistakes, particularly when they in a stressful situation like she was in.

I'm looking for a really good, digital copy of the Elm St. sequence in the Bronson film. If anyone has one or can point me to one, please let me know. I saw Robin's BTW, but it only includes a few of the frames.

I don't believe that Zapruder was startled then. If he had been, we would be seeing the limo passengers being startled as well. There are more false positives in the film than actual startle reactions. Also, Alvarez described startle reactions as including more than just one blurred frame. He said there would be a sequence of blurred frames in increments of app. 6 frames. You will see that following 312 and following 285. Those seem to be the only shots that day that came from unsuppressed, high powered rifles. Most witnesses only heard one of the early shots. Some heard none, including Clint Hill, Charles Brehm, Mary Moorman, Jean Hill, and many others.

Carlos Marcello had other motives as well and actually confessed that he ordered the assassination. He also stated that David Ferrie helped him and introduced him to Oswald at a meeting at his brother's restaurant.

I don't believe that Zapruder was startled then. If he had been, we would be seeing the limo passengers being startled as well. There are more false positives in the film than actual startle reactions. Also, Alvarez described startle reactions as including more than just one blurred frame. He said there would be a sequence of blurred frames in increments of app. 6 frames. You will see that following 312 and following 285. Those seem to be the only shots that day that came from unsuppressed, high powered rifles.

This video presentation is an analysis of Hill's statements, testimony and actions during the assassination, which demonstrate that he heard one shot at frame 285 and another after the fatal explosion at frame 313.

If you want to know what really happened on 11/22/63, you look at the earliest statements, NOT what the witness says half a century later, when he probably has to struggle to remember what he had for breakfast that morning. Hill NEVER claimed in 1963, or in 1964 that he saw the head explosion and in fact, he didn't actually claim that in the video. He only said it happened, which we all know. And he didn't recall "three" shots at the time. He only heard two of them. Hill leaped from the limo almost simultaneous with the 313 head explosion, in direct reaction to the gunshot he had heard immediately prior to that. That was the shot at frame 285. The 130 decibel shock wave of that bullet, temporarily deafened the man and he never heard the 312-313 shot. The next one he heard was the final shot, a fraction of a second later. This from his original WC testimony, "This is the first sound that I heard; yes, sir. I jumped from the car, realizing that something was wrong, ran to the Presidential limousine. Just about as I reached it, there was another sound, which was different than the first sound. I think I described it in my statement as though someone was shooting a revolver into a hard object" That same shot was clearly described by Charles Brehm and more than a few other witnesses. There is absolutely nothing in Hill's original statements that contradict the Zapruder film, once one understands the shooting sequence.

Over the years LN advocates have cooked up several rationalizations to explain why most witnesses heard closely bunched shots at the end of attack. They claimed it was the result of "echoes", fragments bouncing off the windshield, or incompetent witnesses. But they have never tried to explain the other problem. How could there be such a large consensus who only heard one early "noise"? And why did most witnesses state that that one noise didn't sound at all like the other shots or like a rifle? Scientists and clinical psychologists have conducted countless tests on the effects of loud noises over the years on human beings, and have confirmed that involuntary startle reactions will be provoked by sound levels of 90 db or more. And the HSCA has confirmed that Oswald's rifle generated sound levels which to the ears of the limo passengers, were sixteen times louder than that. Those sounds included a 130 decibel shock wave as well as a muzzle blast which was almost as loud and of greater duration. And in fact, we see exactly those kinds of dramatic reactions beginning within a third of a second following frames 285 and 312. And yet most witnesses heard only one noise prior to the very end of the attack. And that includes the passengers in the President's limousine who should have perceived the earliest shots as the loudest, since they were closer to the alleged sniper's nest then. Any remaining doubts should be resolved by the fact that among law enforcement professionals that day, not even one of them said the early shots were closer together than the final ones. Among the Secret Service agents, no less than four who are visible in the Altgens #6 photo, described actions which took place after hearing one noise and before hearing two more. In each case, we can easily confirm in that photo, taken at the equivalent of Zapruder frame 255, that those actions had not yet taken place. The obvious conclusion from all this is that the early shots were not very loud and that the witnesses were correct when they described the only one of them they heard, as unlike a rifle shot. Their total lack of startle reactions then corroborates their testimonies with absolute certainty, as do a multitude of other facts. Robert Harris

Rybka’s Secret Service report clearly states that “upon arrival at Love Field,” he “stationed” himself “at the right front fender” of the follow-up car to the “rear” of the President’s limousine, which is where the agent seen in the footage is located. Rybka also stated that when “the motorcade began to move,” he “moved along with it,” which is exactly what the agent on the film is doing before speaking to Roberts and shrugging his shoulders three times. Lawton’s report, on the other hand, says nothing about the follow-up car, the Presidential limousine, or the motorcade. It states that “upon arrival” at Love Field, he was “assigned to the press area.” As for claims that the agent in the film “looks” like Lawton, that is just part of the continuing cover-up. It is simply a matter of stating that another film of Rybka is actually Lawton and then comparing it to the Love Field film and saying that the agent in the Love Field film looks like Lawton, who is allegedly the agent in another film. That’s pretty simple. As for Vince Palamara being the source of information on identifying photos of Rybka and Lawton, I pegged Palamara for a plant as soon as he started to become a well-known Secret Service “expert.” He claims to be an expert on the SS and seems to align himself with the CT community while Bugliosi continues to work on his book, and then when the time is right, Palamara says that Reclaiming History has shown him the light. Then, after about two years, Palamara claims that Doug Horne “turned my world upside down.” Why would Palamara want to become an “expert” on the SS in the first place? Regardless of all else, that really was Lawton. This is from the SSSD video, Now look at photos of the agents.

We've been comparing photos in my forum and I have to admit that it LOOKS more like Lawton, though I cannot be absolutely certain. Isn't there ANYTHING in this case that is simple???

Palamyra was wrong and so was the author of "The Kennedy Detail". Lawton was indeed, at the airport with Rybka. But it was Rybka who was briefly running alongside the cars. This is from his original SS report. "Upon arrival at Love Field, Dallas, Texas aboard Air Force One at 11:35 am, I proced (sp) to the followup-car 679-X and the rear of 100-X. There I stopped everyone from going in between the cars. Once the motor-cade began to move I moved along with it until the motor-cade picked up speed. From this point I returned to the immediate area of Air Force ONE." You can see his report in my video on the subject, http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gl3F9mfC1bA

Over the years I have posted animated GIFs in various JFK forums in order to show the reactions to the shot at frame 285 but no browser is capable of displaying GIFs at 18 fps and so they always appear slower than they should.

 This animation was calibrated in Quicktime at 18 fps. It will give you a good look at how those reactions actually appeared in real time on 11/22/63. Experts unanimously agree that startle reactions must begin within 1/3rd of a second following the stimulus. And each of those reactions began within the same 1/6th of a second of one another and of Zapruder's reaction as confirmed by Dr. Luis Alvarez. This should be of special value to those who suggest that Kellerman leaned forward to have a conversation on the radio or that Jackie was studying her husband's neck. 

 It was not possible for Oswald to have fired both the shot at frame 285 and the one that followed at 312. This proves that Oswald could not have acted alone, if at all. It also explains why Greer in his panic, slowed the limo. Watch him spin around at almost inhuman speed at the same instant that he was lifting his foot from the gas. And watch Kellerman's reactions which were simultaneous with Greer's and the others. to the shot at frame 285

As for Dunkin's moronic claim that Jackie's hand created the false impression that there was a massive protrusion in the back of JFK's head, this video addresses that issue in spades. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=65inNE7dCUE

Did I ask you to butt in? No stunt was pulled by me, nor did I admit I was wrong. You argued with me, that where I outlined Jackie's glove was not a glove at all. As I've told you before, Robert, I'm not interested in what your two million "Greer did it" Youtube groupies have to say. They are not relevant to any serious discussion of the JFK assassination. If they were serious they would be deabating here instead of agreeing with you, that a deranged google eyed scissors snipping Venetian blinds cutting window smashing assassin, fired a missed shot at the turn on to Elm, hitting the ashphalt which caused debris to ricochet on to JFK'S head, causing him to ball his hand in to a fist, stop smiling, regroom his hair, and then continue on his journey waving and pretending that nothing happened. Yes Robert, they have far more common sense than me. Your claim was "Outlined below is the real shape of Kennedy's head." Which is the same as the shape I outlined in the video and posted for you just now and as I posted before, after which, you did indeed, admit that you were wrong. You are also repeating your phony insinuation that I am in the "driver did it" camp, when in reality I posted a video long ago which totally rebuts that theory. You are one real class act, Dunkin.

It's a poor Bob Harris analysis. but that's not unusual. Outlined below is the real shape of Kennedy's head. Duncan, your obsession with me is pathetic and beyond ridiculous. You already pulled this stunt, claiming that I didn't realize the correct outline of the front of JFK's head, and as usual, you were proven wrong. The outline in the very video that you are attacking, proves that. Furthermore, I previously posted that frame for you and you even admitted that you were wrong. You seem to think that since I haven't been hanging out in this forum recently, that you can get away with the same phony accusation. This video has been viewed almost two million times with nearly unanimous approval ratings from viewers who for the most part, are more knowledgeable than you and a helluva lot more honest.

What exactly would be the point of switching the MC found in the depository for another MC?

I thank you Robin for your honesty...as always. And yes, it's right to be peer reviewed to keep on track. Many just don't have the ability and the balls to admit anything. And yes, when you encounter their biased minds too often it's a strenght to put them on an "Ignore List". best to you my friend Martin Martin, your pretense that you are not part of a team going after "Robert Harris" is embarrassingly transparent. And your endless gushing praise of your partners is only useful if one is seeking a gag reflex. The fact which your fearless leader is attacking, is infinitely more important than Robin's admission that he was wrong, or Duncan's admission that he was wrong. It is more important because first, it proves that major damage was inflicted in the rear of the head, well after the 313 explosion had completely subsided. To blow a large piece of skull to the rear, ripping out hair in the upper-superior part of the head, required a great deal of force - more force than can be explained by the momentum of JFK's head being thrown back at less than 13mph. That was when other skull and tissue were blown to the rear as well, including the piece that Clint Hill saw fall off the rear of the trunk and the piece that landed near Charles Brehm. That is also when the brain tissue was blown to the rear that Jackie caught a glimpse of, provoking her to turn around and retrieve it. Of slightly less importance, it also explains the discrepancy between what the Parkland doctors saw and what we see in the autopsy photos. That large piece of skull remained connected to the scalp and when it was folded back into place, most of the damage was covered over - exactly as Dr. Boswell explained in his ARRB testimony - and exactly as we see in some of the autopsy photos. The simple fact is, that while you and your team are trying to mug me, you are actually obstructing my efforts to make this stuff known, which I suppose, was Duncan's main goal anyway. If you are really concerned about "biased minds", you might want to ask yourself why there are so many facts related to this issue that you and your friends won't even discuss?