Robert Harris

I am not going to argue with a disgruntled loud mouth, Robert. It's not a debate to win or lose, but rather an Education Forum. I explained that Woodward was probably as honest as she could be just as those witnesses who heard the shooting sequence differently were also being as honest as possible. Also, it isn't just Woodward saying that JFK was smiling and waving when he was first shot .... I can see it on the Zapruder film, as well. Now get over it! Bill Miller I didn't ask you if Woodward was honest, Bill. I asked (for the fifth time) if you agreed with her about the spacing of the shots, which matched what most other witnesses heard that day. A simple yes or no will do nicely, Bill. And yes there are other witnesses who thought JFK was smiling. We all know that. But we know better because we can see his reaction begin simultaneously with Jackie's and he was certainly not waving and smiling. He was reacting to a shot at 160, which was very much like the first one. Tell me Bill. Where do you place the shots? How many and when do you think they were fired? And please don't run from this question too, Bill. Man up and just post a simple, straightforward answer And BTW Bill, have you considered growing up a bit and stop stop engaging in childish insults and name calling? "disgruntled loud mouth" is just pathetic, since I neither speak loudly or am disgruntled. At least find something real to insult me about

So, you are a Warren Commission diehard supporter through and through....well well well, it's all coming to the surface now. That has got to be the stupidest argument in this thread. Anyone who is 100% believing or 100% disbelieving of the WC or any other organization is a blithering idiot. The Warren Commission was certainly capable of reporting what their own witnesses said and after reading the testimony of every one of them who commented on the shooting, I have personally confirmed that they were right, although Dulles's statement was a slight exaggeration. This was one of the most important crimes in modern history. You need to stop playing adolescent games, Duncan. You have personally confirmed that they were right??? Now, that has to be the most idiotic and false statement in this thread, beyond any doubt. The only thing that is not in doubt in this thread, is the fact that Bill has meticulously demolished your loony analysis in a dignified yet executionary manner. Yes, I have personally confirmed that the Warren Commission was correct that most witnesses who stated an opinion about the spacing of the shots said they heard a single report, a delay and then closely bunched shots at the end. The technique I used is called, "reading" Duncan. Why don't you try it sometime?

Can someone post an enlargement of Woodward from Altgens? On a side note .... Woodward could just appear to be smiling as she is looking into the sun in A6. But if she was still smiling ... it could be that like so many other witnesses it may have taken her a few moments to realize what was happening. In hindsight ... people like Charles Brehm have said they witnessed the President first being shot and were still clapping, so how could that be? The answer may lie in reaction time in realizing what had just happened. Two seconds is not a long time to have to take in information, process it, and then draw a conclusion from it in my view. Bill Miller When are you going to provide a straight answer to my question? Woodward's recollection of the spacing of the shots was a perfect match with shots at 285 and 312. She also said that the last of those shots was the one that caused the explosion. And your pretense that the witnesses were all over the place on this issue was pure BS. The huge majority of witnesses said the final shots were closely bunched - just as Woodward said they were, and just as the WC confirmed. If you had even a shred of integrity, you would just come out and admit that you think she was full of crap. But you're afraid to do that because you need her right now, saying that JFK was smiling and waving The problem is that you couldn't care less about finding out what really happened. The ONLY value Woodward has for you is to cherry pick a single sentence that you think will help you "win" the current debate.

So, you are a Warren Commission diehard supporter through and through....well well well, it's all coming to the surface now. That has got to be the stupidest argument in this thread. Anyone who is 100% believing or 100% disbelieving of the WC or any other organization is a blithering idiot. The Warren Commission was certainly capable of reporting what their own witnesses said and after reading the testimony of every one of them who commented on the shooting, I have personally confirmed that they were right, although Dulles's statement was a slight exaggeration. This was one of the most important crimes in modern history. You need to stop playing adolescent games, Duncan.

Pat???

It's interesting that in the Altgens photo, taken at the equivalent of 255, after at least two shots have been fired Woodward is still grinning from ear-to-ear, obviously oblivious to JFK being wounded with his arms high in the air.

To understand what happened, you need to look at the entire sequence from 170-193.

Well put, Bill. Here is a short compilation I made, and which shows how some people thought the shots were spaced. What a crock The Warren Commission concluded: " ..a substantial majority of the witnesses stated that the shots were not evenly spaced. Most witnesses recalled that the second and third shots were bunched together." At one point during the hearings, Warren Commissioner Allen Dulles noted the overwhelming consistency of these witnesses, when he described the ratio of those confirming that shooting scenario in comparison with others, "There has been a certain amount of testimony indicating there was a longer pause between the report of the first shot... and the second and third shots, that is not absolutely unanimous but I would say it is something like 5 to 1 or something of that kind.."

I believe that each person told to the best of their ability what they thought they heard whether they heard one shot or as many as six. Now do you have an intelligent question for me that has not already been answered? Bill Miller Bill, do you believe what she said about the spacing and timing of those shots? You only need to provide a one syllable reply.

Bill, do you believe what she said about the spacing and timing of those shots?

Have you actually been following the threads, Bill? If you had, you would know that DVP has made no contributions towards debunking Bob's nonsense. I'm also surprised that you commend someone who has just called you dishonest in his above post. Robert, You can say anything you want about Jim Braden and I won't say a word. I can assure you however, that when the shooters are identified, they will be professional shooters, and not con artists like Braden. And it's Jim Braden's two days of secret testimony that was taken behind closed doors and then sealed for fifty years by G. R. Blakey and was released by the JFK Act. http://www.maryferre...bsPageId=402799 Check out what Braden had to say when he was grilled by the HSCA laywers and investigators. There's certainly more to Braden than meets the eye, especially his activities in New Orleans in the summer of '63 when he operated out of the office of an oil geologist (Vernon Main, Jr.) on the same floor of the Perre Marquette office building, just down the hall from G. Ray Gill and David Ferrie. And Duncan, DVP may have not entered into this argument but you guys seem to have a history of enjoying these little debates, and if you go to McAdams forum you'll find that Mr. Harris has kept all of you guys pretty busy. What is he saying that disturbs you so much? As for him calling me dishonest, well he doesn't know me and he can call me and Jim Braden anything he wants and it doesn't mean anything as far as I'm concerned. Carry on gentlemen. Bill Kelly There is no amount of study which can tell you what a professional criminal did that was not on the public record. It really is just that simple, Bill. And it is impossible for Braden to have given "secret testimony" which exonerates himself, since we already know that he was a chronic xxxx. What difference does it make whether he lied publicly or lied secretly? And no, it is not honest of ANYONE to proclaim as a fact, that he committed no violent crimes. If that is your opinion, then state it as such. Anything beyond that and you need to show us hard, objective proof. Robert, You can believe anything you want about Lee Harvey Oswald and Jim Braden, and whether they were violent persons or killed anyone. While we may not know what lurks beyond what is on the public record, and both LHO and Jim Braden may have been secret sexual serial killers like Ted Bundy, and rack up fifty or more murders before being caught, I don't think so. Could LHO, secretly and covertly and all by himself, assassinate a president in such a way that no one would ever figure out how he did it? No. Therefore he didn't do it. Could Jim Braden have secretly been trained and polished into an expert rifle marksman and sniper, by the mob or anyone else? Would he have it in him to kill professionally, even if nobody noticed that he did? I don't think so. I think that a person's life record stands for itself - and that their personalities are reflected in that record - and while Oswald used an alias and built a charade around his covert operatonal activities, as is SOP, Jim Braden's record indicates that while connected with the mob, and convicted of crimes - like pawning stollen goods, sending bad checks across state lines, and smoozing rich widows, he was also a gentleman, not a violent person. And as far as I can tell, didn't lie when he sat down at the Sheriff's office and made his statement of where he was an what he was doing at 12:30 PM on November 22, 1963. He didn't lie, although he didn't tell them he had legally changed his name and was just returning from visiting his probation office, or that his pals were in town to see H. L. Hunt. And after two hours of extensive sworn testimony before the HSCA, which is a most fascinating story that must be the truth or Mob baiting chief counsel G. R. Blakey would have him indicted for perjury, but instead locked his testimony away saying, "I'll stand on the judgement of historians fifty years from now." Well instead of fifty years, you can read it now and learn who Jim Braden was and believe him or disbelieve him, but you will never know if you don't read it. If you want to imagine him being a lier, okay, that's part of the tradecraft of being a con-man, but if you want to imagine him shooting the President's head off, then you are putting things into the picture that aren't there, or visible to anybody else. Those who imagine Oswald pulling the trigger on the bullet that blow's off JFK's head also imagine him to be a mean, bad, evil, crazy psycho, and anybody who would shoot the president and a cop would have to be crazy, but if there's nothing in his backgroud that indicates psychotic or violence, then maybe you have the wrong man. Maybe there was a sniper in the shadows behind an open window in the upper floors of Dal-Tex, but it wasn't Jim Braden. BK Why are you making this so complicated Bill? You don't know whether Braden committed violent crimes or not. Neither do I or anyone else, who did not know him personally and extremely well. And no, he doesn't have to go to Green Beret school to be trained to shoot somebody. What's wrong with just admitting that like the rest of us, you don't have a clue about whether he committed one or more violent crimes?

Thank you Pat, although I'm sure that we have all read those cites before. BTW, you are aware, are you not that Woodward said the second and third were closely bunched and that it was the third that caused the explosion, aren't you?? When do you suppose that second shot was fired "I heard the second one, and this time I knew what had happened, because I saw the president's motion, and then the third shot came very, very quickly, on top of the second one. And that time, I saw his head blow open.."

Robert, Being a disgruntled blow-hard will not make one correct - common sense and good evidence will. Often times a still image can be deceiving ... this is why film in motion can offer a better interpretation as to what someone is doing. I am sure that if seen by the right angle that someone saluting someone else could look as though they are getting ready to give them a judo chop. Now about JFK not smiling again ... Mary Woodward who had JFK directly in front of her and the women near her said the President smiled and waved to them just as the first shot rang out. (see Woodward article below) Also seeing that Mary was not so delusional to say that it was Greer who turned and shot the President, I will bet on Mary and what I see in the Zfilm. The clip below shows JFK as he is facing Woodward. Even through a slightly out of focus view that this clip offers ... I can still see JFK smiling. Woodward had the clear view. http://www.history-m...22-63_0001a.gif Bill Miller Look at the freaking picture, Bill. No, really looook at it. That is not how people wave and it is certainly not how JFK waved at people in every other video I have ever seen or you have ever seen, although I'm sure that given only a quick glance, Woodward probably thought he was smiling and waving. BTW, since you seem to trust her recollections, do you also believe what she said about the spacing and timing of those shots?? Or do you just cherry pick a single sentence and go with that because it supports your argument at the moment?

I don't know what you see in this Towner Still photo, Bob? Are you aware that there is a serious time gap between the Jim Towner Still photo and the Tina Towner film frames were JfK raised his right hand? It is hard to believe that JFK's reaction (alleged) time was that slow. Martin Show me your analysis and your numbers, Martin. I am disappointed that you would claim that you see nothing unusual about his face then, but I guess the human mind can do strange things.

Have you actually been following the threads, Bill? If you had, you would know that DVP has made no contributions towards debunking Bob's nonsense. I'm also surprised that you commend someone who has just called you dishonest in his above post. Robert, You can say anything you want about Jim Braden and I won't say a word. I can assure you however, that when the shooters are identified, they will be professional shooters, and not con artists like Braden. And it's Jim Braden's two days of secret testimony that was taken behind closed doors and then sealed for fifty years by G. R. Blakey and was released by the JFK Act. http://www.maryferrell.org/mffweb/archive/viewer/showDoc.do?mode=searchResult&absPageId=402799 Check out what Braden had to say when he was grilled by the HSCA laywers and investigators. There's certainly more to Braden than meets the eye, especially his activities in New Orleans in the summer of '63 when he operated out of the office of an oil geologist (Vernon Main, Jr.) on the same floor of the Perre Marquette office building, just down the hall from G. Ray Gill and David Ferrie. And Duncan, DVP may have not entered into this argument but you guys seem to have a history of enjoying these little debates, and if you go to McAdams forum you'll find that Mr. Harris has kept all of you guys pretty busy. What is he saying that disturbs you so much? As for him calling me dishonest, well he doesn't know me and he can call me and Jim Braden anything he wants and it doesn't mean anything as far as I'm concerned. Carry on gentlemen. Bill Kelly There is no amount of study which can tell you what a professional criminal did that was not on the public record. It really is just that simple, Bill. And it is impossible for Braden to have given "secret testimony" which exonerates himself, since we already know that he was a chronic xxxx. What difference does it make whether he lied publicly or lied secretly? And no, it is not honest of ANYONE to proclaim as a fact, that he committed no violent crimes. If that is your opinion, then state it as such. Anything beyond that and you need to show us hard, objective proof.

This is the best I have seen on the web to date. If anyone has a better copy, please post a link.

David, for over forty years, researchers have looked at frame 133 and thought JFK was cheerfully waving and smiling. They thought the same thing about frame 185, but we now know that he was grimacing and within less than half a second, would be twisted more than 90 degrees to his right and shielding his face with his right hand. If people like us who have been able to examine these frames a thousand times could be mistaken about JFK "smiling", how could we expect a witness who was looking through the crowd to get a one-time-only brief glimpse at him, be more accurate? The simple fact is, that many witnesses made the same mistake we did, and the Zapruder film proves it.

This illustration which Phil Dragoo posted at the JFK History forum provides a good explanation for what we are seeing in that window.

Bill, the fact that a professional criminal was never caught shooting anyone does not prove that he didn't or couldn't. And although Braden was the one who got caught, we don't know who else might have been there with him. And your argument that he was not a good marksman tells me that you are clueless about what I said about those early shots, each of which either missed the President entirely or were far off course, and for a very good reason. If you wish to publicly dismiss my theory, I suggest that you at least make an effort to understand it and then provide legitimate justification for your rebuttal - something no-one else has been able to do, at least up to this point. Frankly, I would really appreciate a serious effort by a knowledgeable skeptic to refute my analysis. Robert, I've studied Jim Braden more than any other person on the planet, and would still like to talk with him if he can be located alive. He never hit anybody, shot anybody, or was involved in any violent crimes whatsoever. I have a copy of his rap sheet. Con-men are proud of the fact that they don't resort to violence or even steal, but convince their marks to give them the money because of their own greed. Braden's crime career consisted of bilking wealthy widows, one of whom was an early founder of Magnolia Oil company, a company that comes into play when DeMohrenschildt set up a party of Magnolia employees so Oswald could be introduced to the Paines. The fact that he wasn't caught in any violent crimes in a sixty year career was because he wasn't involved in any. He was a mobster however, and he was connected to a lot of other shaddy people, incuding oil executives, Hunt, and the New Orleans crew that Ferrie was connected with, and he was most certainly in the Dal -Tex building and was taken into custody by Sheffif deputy Lummie Lewis because he was a suspicious person, and there's something suspicious going on here, but I can assure you that Braden was not a shooter. Whoever shot JFK was a professional, and connected to whoever set up the ambush, and not just a bunch of Texas Yahoos. And I'm sorry about not paying attention to your theory, but the only theory that I can debunk totally is the offical theory that Oswald killed the President alone becasue he was a deranged lone nut. That I know is wrong. Rather than propose or debunk all of the theories that can be imagined, I have taken a different approach, and that is to determine what evidence we still have, what new evidence can be developed that can be introduced into a court of law, and identifying what witnesses are still living who have yet to be properly deposed under oath, and try to get that done. From that, the truth will emerge without having to propose or debunk any theories. Bill Kelly Bill, did you even read my response?? Your totally unsupported assertion about Braden is outrageous. You have no idea whether he was involved in violent crimes or not. You only know that he wasn't caught at it. By your reasoning Al Capone was also totally nonviolent and never hurt anyone And why do you ignore the possibility/likelihood that he was with others who DID have a violent track record? This is a very poor argument which originated with lone nutters years ago in the CompuServe forum. And it is just as bogus now as it was then. And no, you are certainly not obligated to read or view my analysis. But attacking analysis which you know nothing about is outrageously dishonest. I expect that from the Duncans and Von Peins of the world, but not from you. I don't discount the idea of a shot being taken from the Dal-Tex building, but Braden didn't take it if there was one. Have you read Peter Noyes' book Legacy of Doubt? Have you read the two days of secret testimony he gave to the HSCA? Mary Ferrell has it. Have you read the postings I've made on Braden at my blog? http://jfkcountercoup.blogspot.com/2009/12/jim-braden-1948-camden-nj-mug-shot.html http://jfkcountercoup.blogspot.com/2009/12/bradens-camden-arrest-report.html And I haven't attacked your analysis other than to say that Jim Braden didn't shoot anybody, and neither did Oswald. And you certainly do keep Duncan and DVP busy, good on you. Keep it up. BK Bill, why do you continue to make the unsupported assertion that Braden didn't fire a weapon that day?? The fact that he wasn't caught in a violent crime does NOT prove that he never committed one. And it sure as hell doesn't prove that he wasn't with people that day who did. And yes, I own and have read Noyes book and I have read at least one of your blogs on Braden. But I saw nothing that proves that he never committed a violent crime - only that he had not been caught or arrested for it. As for a secret HSCA testimony by Noyes, no I have not seen that. Do you have a link to it?

Bill, the fact that a professional criminal was never caught shooting anyone does not prove that he didn't or couldn't. And although Braden was the one who got caught, we don't know who else might have been there with him. And your argument that he was not a good marksman tells me that you are clueless about what I said about those early shots, each of which either missed the President entirely or were far off course, and for a very good reason. If you wish to publicly dismiss my theory, I suggest that you at least make an effort to understand it and then provide legitimate justification for your rebuttal - something no-one else has been able to do, at least up to this point. Frankly, I would really appreciate a serious effort by a knowledgeable skeptic to refute my analysis. Robert, I've studied Jim Braden more than any other person on the planet, and would still like to talk with him if he can be located alive. He never hit anybody, shot anybody, or was involved in any violent crimes whatsoever. I have a copy of his rap sheet. Con-men are proud of the fact that they don't resort to violence or even steal, but convince their marks to give them the money because of their own greed. Braden's crime career consisted of bilking wealthy widows, one of whom was an early founder of Magnolia Oil company, a company that comes into play when DeMohrenschildt set up a party of Magnolia employees so Oswald could be introduced to the Paines. The fact that he wasn't caught in any violent crimes in a sixty year career was because he wasn't involved in any. He was a mobster however, and he was connected to a lot of other shaddy people, incuding oil executives, Hunt, and the New Orleans crew that Ferrie was connected with, and he was most certainly in the Dal -Tex building and was taken into custody by Sheffif deputy Lummie Lewis because he was a suspicious person, and there's something suspicious going on here, but I can assure you that Braden was not a shooter. Whoever shot JFK was a professional, and connected to whoever set up the ambush, and not just a bunch of Texas Yahoos. And I'm sorry about not paying attention to your theory, but the only theory that I can debunk totally is the offical theory that Oswald killed the President alone becasue he was a deranged lone nut. That I know is wrong. Rather than propose or debunk all of the theories that can be imagined, I have taken a different approach, and that is to determine what evidence we still have, what new evidence can be developed that can be introduced into a court of law, and identifying what witnesses are still living who have yet to be properly deposed under oath, and try to get that done. From that, the truth will emerge without having to propose or debunk any theories. Bill Kelly Bill, did you even read my response?? Your totally unsupported assertion about Braden is outrageous. You have no idea whether he was involved in violent crimes or not. You only know that he wasn't caught at it. By your reasoning Al Capone was also totally nonviolent and never hurt anyone And why do you ignore the possibility/likelihood that he was with others who DID have a violent track record? This is a very poor argument which originated with lone nutters years ago in the CompuServe forum. And it is just as bogus now as it was then. And no, you are certainly not obligated to read or view my analysis. But attacking analysis which you know nothing about is outrageously dishonest. I expect that from the Duncans and Von Peins of the world, but not from you.

Bill, the fact that a professional criminal was never caught shooting anyone does not prove that he didn't or couldn't. And although Braden was the one who got caught, we don't know who else might have been there with him. And your argument that he was not a good marksman tells me that you are clueless about what I said about those early shots, each of which either missed the President entirely or were far off course, and for a very good reason. If you wish to publicly dismiss my theory, I suggest that you at least make an effort to understand it and then provide legitimate justification for your rebuttal - something no-one else has been able to do, at least up to this point. Frankly, I would really appreciate a serious effort by a knowledgeable skeptic to refute my analysis.

Rather than Duncan's ridiculous misrepresentation of my analysis, interested readers should look at what I actually said and the evidence I presented. As you watch this, keep several facts in mind: 1. JFK's reactions during the Towner film in which he starts to wave and then balls his hand into a fist and falls to his left, are totally unique. They are dramatically different from anything he did in Dallas that day and different from anything he is known to have done prior to that throughout his entire life. 2. The darkened area in that third floor window contains clear evidence that the cords which held the blinds together had been cut, along with a section of the slats. Even my most fanatical critics were unable to present a plausible alternative explanation for what we see in that window. 3. The third floor of the Daltex was where the only professional criminal to be apprehended in Dealey Plaza that day was located. Arguments that he was not skilled with firearms because he wasn't arrested for shooting anyone are silly. For all we know, he could have shot a hundred people but didn't get caught. And we don't know who was up there with him. What we do know, is that he was a lifelong professional criminal with ties to David Ferrie and Carlos Marcello, and that the night before the assassination he was with Jack Ruby at the Cabana hotel a short distance from the murder scene. For anyone who is objective enough to consider the actual facts associated with this issue, rather than auto-dismissing it with no justification, the following presentations explain them in detail.

You are wasting your time with Harris, Duncan. Geesh ... I don't even see this dramatic fall to the left that JFK was supposed to have done. Of course that would be the dramatic reaction to a shot that no witnesses had seen or at least found it necessary to report to anyone. Harris seems to be an individual who gets hung up on one little thing that he thinks he sees and ignors the evidence to the contrary. Just think about it - who in their right mind would think that the President would be reacting to any type of threat when JFK continued smiling and working the crowd as if nothing happened. Harris won't admit that he has gone down a wrong way street. Bill I can't believe that you and Duncan could be this stupid. Chris Davidson posted a blowup of that frame yesterday which clearly shows JFK's hand in a fist. And your claim that JFK was happily smiling and waving afterward is just more bullxxxx. Even you must have figured out by now that he never smiled or waved again, after his reactions in the Towner film.

Why must I prove you wrong - you do a good enough job of that. Nellie said she saw JFK with his hands up to his throat at the first shot and said the next shot hit her husband which caused him to recoil to the right. The start of all this comes at Z223/224 and she watched it unfold over the next few seconds until she said she reached out and pulled her husband back towards her. Nellie stated how it went down again for Life Magazine ... you just don't seem to get it. You seem to place her first knowing her husband was shot at the later film frame, but Connally is already turned to his right and slumped before Altgens took his photo so when Nellie said she heard the shot and seen her husband first do these things before she pulled Connally back towards her ... there is nothing else to debate. Bill Miller May I take that to be a "no", Bill? You refuse to answer questions? Why do you have to run from every important issue in this discussion Bill? And why are distorting Mrs. Connally's testimony? You said, "Nellie said she saw JFK with his hands up to his throat at the first shot and said the next shot hit her husband.." She never said that she saw him "at" the first shot, did she Bill? And in fact, we KNOW when she looked back and saw JFK about 35 frames after the shot at 223, don't we Bill:ice Then she heard the shot that she believed, hit her husband AFTER that, didn't she Bill? And we see her react to that shot by spinning quickly toward her husband and pulling her back to him - exactly as she said she did and exactly when she said she did. And her reaction was in perfect unison with reactions by Greer, Kellerman, Mrs. Kennedy and Abraham Zapruder. They ALL began with the same 1/6th of a second. Why do you ignore all of that Bill? Why do you ignore Nellie's statement that she never looked to the rear again after she heard that shot? Why did Clint Hill leap from the running board just after 285 and then testify that JFK FIRST reacted to being wounded at the same time he jumped??? Listen to Charles Brehm stating that he was about "15-20 feet" from JFK when he heard the first shot. At 285, he was about 18 feet from him. Keep in mind that neither Brehm nor Hill heard heard any shots prior to 285. In fact, Brehm was still applauding as the limo passed by him. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bOht33whlXk

Chris, I have no idea what angle or frame you are talking about. Why don't you just tell us and make your point? As for that animation, JFK is not making a fist. I took the last five frames from your animation and brightened them up a bit. I think it's quite obvious that his hand was turned inward but it was not a fist. If it was, then he had a very tiny right hand