Robert Harris

The bottom line question here is not about inches but to what extent we can trust the accuracy of Frazier's recollection. This part of his testimony is critical to any other evaluation, "Well, I say, you know like I say, I didn't pay much attention to the package other than I knew he had it under his arm and I didn't pay too much attention the way he was walking because I was walking along there looking at the railroad cars and watching the men on the diesel switch them cars and I didn't pay too much attention on how he carried the package at all. " And why WOULD he pay attention to a supposed set of curtain rods wrapped in brown paper? If you were with a friend who was carrying something like that, would you give it more than a casual glance? Would you study it and in your mind, try to calculate how many inches long it was? And if you genuinely believe that he was carrying curtain rods then you must be prepared to explain where he got them. Can you do that? Much more importantly, you MUST understand Oswald in order to understand why he in all likelihood, DID bring his rifle to the depository that day. As Carlos Marcello unwittingly admitted to an FBI informant, David Ferrie introduced Oswald to him at his brother's restaurant in New Orleans for the purpose of inviting him to take part in the assassination. And Oswald had to have been eager to do that because he was working then as an informant for the FBI. Oswald spent the last years of his life obsessed with Herbert Philbrick, who had become famous for his years working undercover for the FBI, infiltrating a communist cell in Boston, and who later testified against his former comrades, sending several of them to prison. Within three weeks after the premier episode of "I Led Three Lives", the 13 year old Oswald went to school and refused to salute the American flag, obviously trying to appear to be communist, just like his role model did. Among the numerous confirmations that he was working as an FBI informant in 1963, was DPD chief Currey who stated at a press conference that Oswald met with the FBI on Saturday, 11/16/63 during that weekend when he dropped off of everyone's radar. Shortly after that, during the wee morning hours of 11/17/63 FBI clerk William Walter saw a teletype going out to various FBI offices, warning that an informant had said there would be an assassination attempt on 11/22/63. Of course we would all know that if the "research" community had paid attention to a very important book instead of trashing it as they were urged to do by a particular LN fanatic who pretended to be conspiracy buff. Oswald's status as an informant was further confirmed by the FBI's refusal to release the name of their informant in the Miller/Whitter trial and lied to the federal judge, telling him that he worked for the ATF. But as anyone who has read "Oswald Talked" knows, that informant could only have been Oswald. The assassination was Oswald's big chance to shine. By warning the FBI and saving the President, he might have been a bigger hero than Philbrick. But as we all know, the cavalry never showed up and after more than 15 years of studying the shooting, I have become increasingly convinced that the shot at 285 was a deliberate miss by Oswald, intended to provoke the driver to get the hell out of there. It would also serve as an apparent confirmation to the bad guys that he was taking an active part in the attack. Officer J.W. Foster was adamant that a missed shot struck the concrete surrounding the storm drain cover on the south side of Elm St. At frame 285, a shot from the alleged sniper's nest striking that drain cover would have passed squarely over the center of the limousine but about 15 feet above the pavement. Pat, if you believe nothing else I ever tell you, believe that instead of looking for isolated bits of testimony, look at a multitude of evidence, from key witnesses who corroborate one another and can be corroborated in the films, to an accurate analysis of the angles involved with various shots to a zillion facts which can be found in the best books. When the pieces ALL fit then consider that maybe you are starting to get somewhere.

Martin, I think you are a little off. Notice JFK's right hand in Towner's photo. The best match I can find is about 18 frames prior to JFK starting to raise his hand, which works about to be 9/10ths of a second between the photo and his reaction, based on the Towner camera running at 20fps. As we saw in the Zapruder film, people don't react to these things like they do in the movies. Reactions are often erratic and unpredictable. Perhaps this was a delayed reaction of some kind or perhaps the shooter was using a semi automatic weapon and got off two suppressed shots in a fraction of a second. In fact, it would seem logical that a semi automatic would be the weapon of choice for a sniper in that location. 18 frames seems to last forever when we are single stepping through these films but in real life that's not enough time to draw a deep breath. Let me make a suggestion Martin. Sit down in a chair and mimic JFK during that time period, including his hand motions and his fall to the left. But have someone time you and as closely as possible, try to do what he did, in the same time span that he did them. Then tell me if this was all perfectly natural. Also, look at the DCA films. You will see JFK waving a dozen times or more times. Tell me if you ever seen him ball his hand into a fist as he did in the Towner film. And finally, look at a good blowup of his face in the Towner photo. Tell me if you ever saw him look that way in any other photograph.

It's probably owned by somebody at Fox

Robert, I don't lie. The only reason that I will assist you now, is that I don't like being called a xxxx. There are loads of pages with the spambot profiles that were on your forum, and which are still available for viewing via Google's cache.....If you know how. Here's a direct link to another. http://wellkin.info/ano/browse.php?u=Oi8vd2ViY2FjaGUuZ29vZ2xldXNlcmNvbnRlbnQuY29tL3NlYXJjaD9xPWNhY2hlOmNRb3hDX20wWVk4SjpqZmtoaXN0b3J5LmNvbS9mb3J1bS9pbmRleC5waHAlM0Z0b3BpYyUzRDMzOC4wK2pma2hpc3RvcnkuY29tL2ZvcnVtL2luZGV4LnBocCUzRnRvcGljJTNEMzM4LiZjZD01JmhsPWVuJmN0PWNsbmsmZ2w9dWs%3D&b=29 I hope you appreciate my assistance, and I look forward to your reply. I don't expect an apology, but I would appreciate that you confirm that I was not lying. The question of whether you lie has been resolved long ago and many times over. Obviously, the link you posted connects to the jfkhistory forum and displays a spam message. I find it hard to believe that you are spending your life, so obsessed with me that you think have have to monitor my forum to look for every spammed message that has ever been posted. And I find it equally amazing that you are so desperate to smear me that you pretend that this is some kind of terrible issue that threatens the forum's members. All forums get occasional spam messages. At mine, the process of creating an account virtually eliminates the possibility of a bot signing up. That has to be done manually by a human being and if the person creating the account wants to advertise something, he can do it although he will be banned and his message remove almost immediately afterward. The simple fact that you claimed that half of the members are bots, settles all by itself, the question of whether you are a xxxx Duncan. You are not concerned about my forum or its members. You are eaten up with this crazy, hateful vendetta you are on but you are doing infinitely more damage to your own reputation than you could ever do to mine. No one who reads the crap you are posting could fail to realize who is the one with major problems.

Robert, I tried to help you before via your admin guy, only to be rewarded by being banned from your forum, so to ask me to help you in a search now is a bit of a joke, and a request that I will not be helping you with. You'll just need to take my word from it that what I said is true, and try to track the problem stuff yourself in the Google cache pages. Theres plenty of cached links there, believe me. I am not asking for assistance Duncan. I simply don't believe that you took that screen shot at Google. I think you took it directly from the forum. Please post a link to where you found that screen.

In other words, you can't back up your claim. Duncan, you recently stated, "Google keeps records of old pages which contain links to spambot profiles, both to and from the source." Would you mind posting a link to the Google page where you found the screen that you captured, which displayed headers from the recent SPAM attack on the JFK History forum?

Jim, you need to explain what "it" is. Are you referring to the chronic attacks by Duncan and Miller against every single post I have made recently to this forum, or are you suggesting that I need to let these clowns force me to shut up, and stop posting here completely? And if the latter, then why don't you let their ranting force you to be silent?? Why should I cave in to their harassment but not you? I'm pretty sure that Duncan has called you as many names as he has me. And finally, I hope you take the trouble to actually examine the details related to my analysis as any responsible researcher would do before rejecting or trivializing it. The expression on Kennedy's face then was unlike anything you have ever seen before and his reactions then were unique and unlikely anything you have ever seen him do before. And I am not the only one to be interested in those frames. If the FBI didn't deliberately destroy 7 frames in the film then they were intensely interested in them, to the point where they stopped the film long enough for the projector lamp to destroy them. And finally, the very fact that I have my own little team of disinfo thugs following me around ought to be telling you something.

Duncan, you are absolutely amazing. I am having a hard time even remembering the last post you wrote that contained an honest, accurate statement. Do you really think that anyone buys this crap?

I offered three examples of shooting sequences offered by witnesses who also heard gunfire and they didn't match - that is a fact. People who have seen your claims over the years say that its always been junk research based on the most meaningless details ... like the closed fist garbage you set out to push recently. About the 'when the shots were fired' .... My opinions on that have been known for years by what must be everyone, but you despite my debating my thoughts with you for weeks now. Save this for later reference so not to have to ask me again or to wrongly state that I have not answered this question. Shots that I believe occurred and when .... The first shot came between Betzner's photo and the Willis photo. There are several reasons for my saying this ... one man said he had just snapped his picture when the first loud explosion came and the other man said he heard the explosion and took his photo at the same instant .... possibly a half a second later. JFK on the Zapruder film appears to be waving and smiling at the women with Woodward just as his hand immediately comes back into the limo and across his face where it continues on to both hands being in front of his mouth. This action also falls between the Betzner and Willis photos. The next shot fired would be the one that hit Connally in the shoulder, thus driving him forward and downward immediately on impact. I have stated over the years with stabilized clips showing this moment of impact. I have spoken about the "transfer of momentum" and how it applied to Z223/224 (the moment the energy of the imapct of the bullet was transferred as it went through Connally's shoulder and chest) The next shot came when the man Ed Hoffman saw had fired a shot from the fence which caused smoke drift out from under the trees that Holland, Simmons, Dodd, and so on reported seeing at that instant. The second shot from the fence came from the Badge Man location in my view. I say this because I have seen the Badge Man work that Jack and Gary did. I believe from the photographic film record that Arnold was on the knoll and that Jack and Gary's work support Arnold's story. I also have personally spoke to Earl Golz as to what Yarborough said to him pertaining to seeing Arnold. As to the why the Badgeman shot came second is two fold ... Moorman's photo was taken 3/18ths of a second after JFK's head exploded between Z312 and Z313. Knowing that a bullet traveling at 2000 fps would go from the fence to the street in only a fraction of 1/18th of a second and because Mrs. Edna Hartman said that she witnessed a furrow in the grass leading back to the Badge Man location that an officer confirmed was a bullet strike .... and because JFK's head didn't explode twice, I find suffient evidence that the more likely scenario I have just stated is supported by the evidence when taken as a whole. I am also aware of a shot being reported sparking off the street ... though not during the Towner filming as you attempted to lean towards, but later when the limo was near the Chism's. I also believe a shot missed the car and hit the curb near James Tauge. These additional shots, if they were shots, would total six bullets fired, which is the same amount of impulses thought to be discovered on the Police dicta-belt recording. What I have just stated has been posted on not only this forum, but Lancer's over the years. So please read it - save it to your research notes so not to error again by saying I have never stated my views on this matter. If you continue with the same modus-operandi, then I will have no choice but to refer you to the archives. Bill Miller By the frame number or range of frame numbers please?

I didn't think your theories could get any sillier, Robert, but you're trumping yourself here by a long way, and proving once again that you haven't a clue about varying perspectives in varying photographs. Cutting the limo out of Bronson tp prove a line of sight is just hilarious. ROFLMAO! You seem to think that you can insert a line or an arrow and convince everyone of anything you like, no matter how idiotic it is. Hey! Why don't you draw an arrow pointing upward, over B.L.'s head so that you can claim she was filming a UFO?? I bet Bill would buy it!

Deleting them after I made my post does not hide the truth, Robert. Unfortunately for you, Google keeps records of old pages which contain links to spambot profiles, both to and from the source. Here's just one example. And BTW Duncan, I notice that you grabbed that screen capture at 8:11 AM on 11/2/2010. My forum displays ONLY the local time in the upper-right hand corner, so it doesn't matter what time zone you were in. "rickysantos" joined the forum at 7:39 AM and finished dumping over 50 SPAM postings into the forum by 8:18AM. That certainly was an amazing coincidence, wasn't it Duncan?

Deleting them after I made my post does not hide the truth, Robert. Unfortunately for you, Google keeps records of old pages which contain links to spambot profiles, both to and from the source. LOL!! What you left out was that "rickysantos" joined the forum on 11/2/2010 and immediately began to post ads, supposedly for a Canadian drug company. Within less than an hour after he posted them, all of his messages were removed and his account deleted. (edit) To clarify, I deleted the messages and banned the account. Strangely, this attack began within two days after you "warned" a member of my forum that half of the members are spambots. And yes Duncan, I get it. Spammers don't dump over 50 messages at a time into the same forum because their goal is to make sales and they never want to P.O. the forum members and operators. And no Duncan, Google does not retain screen captures of my forum or any other. For you to have captured that image, you had to have done it within an hour of those messages being posted.

"You don't even care to warn your members that more than half of your membership is made up of fake spambot computer security threatening profiles." And that is another deliberately false statement, isn't it Duncan?? There are ZERO spambots among among my forums membership and there have been zero, almost since the day we opened. Furthermore and contrary to your other phony gibberish, there has never been even a single case of anyone getting a virus or any other form of malware at the jfkhistory forum. Your smears and attempts to libel the forum are pathetic. You don't seem capable of posting even a single accurate, honest message Duncan. Do you really think that no one realizes that?

Thats just ludicrous. Bob, your doing yourself not a favour with that kind of words. Ok Martin, are you saying they did have refutations? Well, don't be bashful, tell us what they were. Or are you suggesting that I was banned within 30 minutes of linking to a new article on the shot at 285 for a legitimate reason? Or have you changed your thinking about the adolescent harassment I experienced in Duncan's forum, since you sent me that last PM?? What I just said about the reason I was banned, is the absolute truth and you know it.

You were banned for spamming, and for spreading crap on this forum, that my forum was a LN forum disguised as a CT forum. Once a weasel, always a weasel. I was here long before you were. If you post something I don't agree with, like your latest junk that the Babushka lady was filming the Umbrella man, then sure, I'll smash your junk into a thousand pieces. It's people like you who give ct's a bad name. Debunking junk motivates me, especially when it concerns the photographic record. What you would really like, Robert, is for people to agree with you, nothing more, nothing less. You're on a dead end train that leads to nowhere........Again!!!! You were banned for spamming, and for spreading crap on this forum, that my forum was a LN forum disguised as a CT forum. Duncan, you define your own integrity every time you open your mouth. You originally stated that you banned be because you thought I was stealing members from your forum when I linked to an article at the jfkhistory forum. And then when I pointed out that you permitted people to link to other forums all the time, you changed your story and said I was banned because I badmouthed you and your forum in the ED forum. But that couldn't be, because I pointed out that your forum is mainly for nutters, AFTER I was banned. Didn't I duncan? And then you changed your story again, claiming that I was "spamming" your forum after I linked to a brand new article that I had never referenced before in your forum or anywhere else. None of those excuses were true, were they Duncan? You banned me because you and your thugs had NO answers or refutations to the fact that a shot was fired at 285. Didn't you Duncan? And in fact, you banned me less than 30 minutes after I posted that article, after which you promptly deleted my article and everything else I ever posted about it. Doesn't it bother you just a tiny bit that in many of your posts, every single sentence you utter is deliberately false???

The thread was doomed from the beginning, Lee, when Bill Kelly and Jim DiEugenio butted in with say nothing relevant to the topic disruptive posts. There's another Fact!!! Yea, it was doomed from the start when you began the third or fourth thread on the subject with no interest other than flaming Harris. And maybe somebody should follow Harris around like TT shadows Prof. Fetzer just to keep him honest and let others know that just saying something doesn't make it so. Claiming somebody like Jim Braden shot JFK's head off isn't supported by any background information on Braden at all, and to accuse him of that without having read his testimony makes one not bother to pay attention to anything Harris says. But I don't think Duncan MacRae is the man if he acknowledges he doesn't bother to read books on the subject under discussion, at least as basic as Sylvia Meagher. Perhaps Jim and I were wrong for butting in and you two guys should just be allowed to butt heads for as long and as hard as you want. Maybe you should just carry on doing this, and stay out of the serious discussions. BK "Claiming somebody like Jim Braden shot JFK's head off isn't supported by any background information on Braden at all" Bill, does it bother you just a tiny bit, that I never said such a thing and specifically stated that the headshots did not come from the Daltex? Isn't it enough that I have the nutter crackpots around her misrepresenting me without you also making up things and then attacking me for them? You have no right to criticize a theory which you don't understand, just as you have no to right to make unsupported assertions about what professional criminals do that is not publicly known. What exactly is wrong with the concept of just making statements that you can support and checking to see if your accusations are accurate??

Duncan's little vendetta goes back to February of this year when he and a few of his thugs started posting almost nothing except personal attacks and insults. That culminated with him banning me from his group after I posted an article about the shot at 285. Since then he's been following me around from forum to forum and thread to thread attacking anything and everything I say. He even tried to attack me in my own forum but gave up after he was blocked from posting insults. What I would love to discover is, what is motivating Duncan to continue his little vendetta. Whatever or whoever it is, could not be very impressed with his performance so far, which has consisted of his little cartoon characters his pretenses that he can't see what everyone else sees, and his claim that he sees a stack of boxes in a particular Daltex window. What I would really like, is to get criticism from somebody who knows enough about the case to look for genuine errors in my analysis and is honest enough to be objective about it.

Well, I suppose but I think it's much more likely that she was filming UM who was certainly unusual enough to merit a second or so of footage. As for poor Duncan, he was obviously wrong again, which is why he went into another incoherent fantasy babble. I cannot imagine what it must feel like being him

At least Von Pein has the integrity to come out and say where he stands. Robert Harris

I have repeatedly said for you to look through the threads mentioning Nellie and what she said and you will find it. It was a source from one of her interviews that I found on Lancer that I believe Ron Hepler posted. I do not feel obligated to go back and look for things so to please some screwball who continually does little more than throw dung at a wall to see if anything sticks that he can make unfounded allegations over. It is up to you to support the claims you have made - Greer shooting JFK - Daltex window broken out - JFK reacting to being hit in Towner ... they all have wasted enough time and all were shown to be bunk in my view. So if you feel that I am not jumping over your unsupported allegations, then so be it for you earned the right to be ignored. You are asking me to debate another one of your poor interpretations of the photographic record. Nellie said the second shot that hit her husband caused him to recoil to his right. I look at Nellie's field of view in the Zapruder film and it is my opinion that she could see both her husband and JFK before the first shot was fired right through to her husband recoiling to his right before she reached out and pulled him back towards her. I'm not going to debate where her eyes are looking because the Zapruder film isn't sharp enough to ever allow that to happen. Only a fool would attempt to sort knat dung out of pepper in that fashion. I can differentiate the difference between Connally uttering 'Oh no, no, no' when he heard the first shot from him 'yelling like a stuck pig' (as Jackie called it). You have convinced me that you are a disgruntled individual. You call people names like "moron" and "idiot" and then complain about insults pertaining to your claims. That's whacked!!! Before the HSCA, Nellie testified under oath that she saw the President clutch his neck. She didn't say 'clutching his neck', but rather this time she said she saw JFK clutch his neck. Mrs. CONNALLY. I heard--you know how we were seated in the car, the President and Mrs. Kennedy, John was in front of the President and I was seated in front of Mrs. Kennedy--I heard a noise that I didn't think of as a gunshot. I just heard a disturbing noise and turned to my right from where I thought the noise had come and looked in the back and saw the President clutch his neck with both hands. The Zapruder film and where Nellie is facing: Z180 to Z187 is shown below. Nellie has her head turned to the right. I have sat in Nellie's seat in the replica car and my field of view when looking to my right allowed me to see both the seat Connally sat in and the seat JFK was sitting in. My peripheral vision could see both locations in that car and if someone sitting where JFK was at would raise their hands to their throat, then I would not have missed it. While I know that JFK didn't actually clutch his throat with his hands, but merely brought them up to his mouth ... would I be justified to believe that Nellie witnessed this with her peripheral vision ... I think her error in that one key point would be justification for leaning that way. Nellie's field of view from Z183 to Z246: In each frame I can see Nellie physically looking in the direction of her husband. Did she turn her attention towards the President ... at some point she did and she didn't have to turn her head to do it in my view. My point is that she could do all she said she did before her husband recoiled to his right between Z223 through Z236. Brehm said the car was "coming down the street" .... my understanding of the English language means that the car is coming towards he and his son. I simply do not agree with your assessment. Bill Miller "I have repeatedly said for you to look through the threads mentioning Nellie and what she said and you will find it. It was a source from one of her interviews that I found on Lancer that I believe Ron Hepler posted. I do not feel obligated to go back and look for things" You're as phony as a proverbial three dollar bill. She never in her life said what you claimed and you never cited her saying such a thing. "I look at Nellie's field of view in the Zapruder film and it is my opinion that she could see both her husband and JFK before the first shot was fired right through to her husband recoiling to his right before she reached out and pulled him back towards her. I'm not going to debate where her eyes are looking because the Zapruder film isn't sharp enough to ever allow that to happen." More bull. Even if you actually believed that she looked at JFk prior to 223, that wouldn't matter because she couldn't have seen him with his hands at throat level. That could ONLY have happened at 258. I can't believe how far you would go to deliberately misrepresent the events that day. You are absolutely pathetic. "I can differentiate the difference between Connally uttering 'Oh no, no, no' when he heard the first shot from him 'yelling like a stuck pig' (as Jackie called it)." So, you can "differentiate the difference", can you? What is your first language Bill? And what the hell is your point? This gibberish doesn't say anything. JBC shouted "Oh, no, no.." and the "kill us all" statement. Obviously Jackie was referring to those sentences. "My point is that she could do all she said she did before her husband recoiled to his right between Z223 through Z236." That may be your "point" but your point is wrong and is a deliberate distortion. You know very well that she could not have seen JFK prior to 258. And even if you actually believed that she could, she certainly didn't react to a gunshot by pulling her husband back to her then. "Before the HSCA, Nellie testified under oath that she saw the President clutch his neck. She didn't say 'clutching his neck', but rather this time she said she saw JFK clutch his neck." What are you talking about? JFK NEVER "clutched" his neck. Have you ever in your life, studied the Zapruder film for any other purpose than to "win" a debate?? This was a ridiculously unimportant, miniscule misstatement on her part. It means nothing and it certainly doesn't mean that what we see in the film was wrong. "Brehm said the car was 'coming down the street'" Yes Bill, the car was indeed, coming down the street and Brehm undoubtedly saw it coming down the street. Nothing gets by you, does is Bill But he also said that JFK was "15-20 feet" from him when the first of three shots was fired, didn't he Bill? And in another interview that day he said JFK was about "15 feet" from him. And he told the FBI that JFK was extremely close to him and that the limo only traveled about 12 feet as all three of those shots were fired, didn't he Bill? Gosh it sure is a strange coincidence that he just happened to be "15-20 feet" from JFK at frame 285, don't you think Bill? And that he said the next shot blew up JFK's head, and that there was a final shot right after that? BTW Bill, I have asked you three times now (four counting this one) to tell us your theory about when the shots were fired. When do you intend to answer?

Actually Robert, I don't drink alcohol, so what's your excuse for the deluded crap that you are pushing? Your latest claim on your own forum really had me in hysterics. The Babushka Lady "was standing quite still and strangely, seems to be focusing her camera on the umbrella man and DC man at that instant" Yes, that is exactly what I said. Are you going to try to disagree with me again, Duncan? You know these things never turn out well for you

"Spitting" was my second choice of words that came to mind. What can you not understand as to what I have said ... I notice that no one else is having trouble with it but you. Read the spacing of shots Millican mentioned ... then Moorman ... neither matching that of Woodward's, so who is right - maybe all of them ... maybe none of them? Nellie heard two shots that came before her husband had recoiled to his right in reaction to being shot through the shoulder ... and then the third shot when JFK's head exploded. Only a screwball would try and make a case from any one witness while ignoring the rest. Like I said, the number of shots heard depended on several factors and one of them was the witnesses location in the plaza at the time each shot was fired. Sorry you don't like hearing this .... blame it on the test firings done for the movie 'JFK'. Bill Miller ROFLMAO!!!! Let me give you a clue here Mr. Miller. In spite of all your pathetically lame excuses and evasions, the number one factor in what the witnesses heard, was the gunshots. It's just that simple. And the witnesses were overwhelmingly consistent about the shots they were able to hear and when they heard them. The fact that you have to endlessly make up excuses for why they fully corroborate me tells us much more about you than it does about them. BTW, when are you going to answer my question about when you think the shots were fired?? Is this just a case of bashfulness or are you still looking for a pair of dry pants

The question you ask is a fools question for I believe there were more than three shots fired during the assassination. So with that being said and Woodward only hearing some of the shots in my view, I cannot agree with her conclusion while at the same time I can agree with her spacing of the only shots she had heard. You are once again spitting into the wind and what you are hoping to accomplish is meaningless ... much like your past allegations. Bill Miller You may finally be right about something. I am indeed, spitting into the wind trying to get a straight answer from you. "I cannot agree with her conclusion while at the same time I can agree with her spacing of the only shots she had heard." Yes Bill, you can indeed agree with her about the spacing of the shots. My question is, do you? This is my sixth try.

So Robert, when it suits your case, you rely on your beloved bedside companion book, The Warren Commision Report. Unfortunately Robert, your use of your beloved Warren Commission in this instance leaves you with a problem. You can't have it both ways. Tell me Robert, how did your beloved Warren Commission report the witness evidence contributors to the spacing of the other 2 shots ( Daltex and Z285 ) which you believe were fired in order to support Daltex shooter ashphalt blasting shot where debris hit JFK's head and hair, which no one heard, and the shot at Z285 which no one heard? Oh, they didn't...What a surprise. Holy crap! Are you drunk when you write this stuff??