Robert Harris

If you had a shred of integrity Duncan, you would dispense with the cartoon characters and ambiguous insults and deal with these issues in good faith. Are you claiming that you see no cords in those blinds at all? Or are you claiming that you see them but you see no break?? And are you claiming that the back of JFK's head during the 330's was perfectly normal?? Are you saying it is the same as it was prior to the assassination?

.I learned a long time ago that with some people that trying to add common sense to their scenario so to help them see things they obviously didn't consider is like trying to explain Algebra to someone who has yet to learn how to do simple addition and subtraction. However, I will touch on a couple of things you said for the forum record and move on. The first and most obvious observation that makes me think your theory is whacked is that no one would either think they are being shot at or be hit by a bullet and continue to smile and wave at the public to keep up appearances. I think you'll be hard pressed to ever find one case where someone claimed to have done what you suggest. However, if someone in the car had said something, then I could see JFK lean closer to better hear what was said because of all the many other noises going on around him at that time. Once hearing them, then I could see him straighten back up and get back to business of smiling and waving to the crowd as he was doing until he did react to being shot as Mary Woodward stated. In the book 'Rush to Judgment' written by Mark Lane, Mark carefully laid out in detail how many shots were heard by witnesses who gave their accounting. I will ask you to review Mark's data and compare it to what you just said. In the case with JFK and/or Connally ... it is not uncommon they would have heard the shot that hit either man for the impact would come before the sound. This was such a case with Connally when he said he felt the impact of being hit, but never heard the sound of the shot. And again consult Lane's book for there were people who heard the first two shots and reported so. I will also add what has been posted many times in the past concerning the 33 or so takes that were done in the making of the movie "JFK" and that is that depending on where people were standing had a bearing on what shots they heard and from where. It was Groden who proposed the idea that JFK stopped waving around Z160 because he heard a gunshot, but that was not supported by witnesses who were actually there. I will also say that it is not uncommon when hearing a parade of Harley's roaring by and backfiring that there will be people who won't differentiate those loud noises to gunfire just has some might hear backfires and hear them as gunshots. Trying to make a case on anything other than JFK's actions after your chosen point of gunfire is a waste of time. I don't believe for a moment that JFK heard what he took to be a gunshot or was ever hit by a gunshot to the point of being pushed over to only straighten back up and go back to more smiling and waving. Bill Bill, why exactly would you choose to butt in to an issue when you are totally ignorant of what it is all about? I gave you links to videos which explain my analysis but you obviously could not be bothered with looking at them. Don't you think it would be reasonable to at least know what it is you are attacking before you open your mouth? If you had, you would have realized that I never claimed and seriously doubt that JFK realized he was being shot at at the time he first reacted. How could he? He neither heard the shot or was wounded by it. Putting myself in his shoes, I probably would have figured that some kid or redneck in the crowd threw a rock. And it doesn't matter how many shots the witnesses heard. They could only hear the audible shots, which is why most witnesses heard one shot, a period of silence and then closely bunched shots at the endj of the attack. Among professional law enforcement people there were NONE who testified that the early shots were closer together than the final ones. Obviously, they did not hear all the early shots. Are you starting to grasp any of this yet Bill? And if you had ever bothered to read the HSCA reports you would realize that the motorcycle backfires were meaningless. They brought in Harleys during their tests but the sound of the rifle was many times greater and totally drowned out the motorcycles. Do a little research Bill, so that you don't continue to pass on these bogus myths. Oswald's rifle generated sound levels that were 16 times as loud as the minimum level which provokes involuntary startle reactions. And yet there were no startle reactions at all, prior to frame 290. That's because the FIRST high powered rifle shot was fired at 285 and the second at 312. Prior to that, ALL of the shots came from a suppressed weapon. If they had not, then the early shots would have been the loudest of all to the ears of the limo passengers due to their proximity to Oswald. But most of those shots went totally unheard and the only one that some did hear, was not recognized as a gunshot by most witnesses. Why do you suppose Clint Hill never jumped from the running board until just after 285, in direct reaction to a gunshot? Why did Charles Brehm say that JFK was "15-20 feet" from him when he heard the first of three shots? Look at where Brehm and JFK were at 285 Bill. I have them about 18 feet apart. What do you get? If you refuse to look at the video which explains the analysis that you are attacking, why don't you are least look at my presentation on the shot at 285, so that you can educate yourself a bit about this crime? And after all this, you STILL evade the most important questions. Why did JFK react as he did during the Towner film? And why is there clear evidence that someone cut out a section of the blinds in that window?? You should be eager to find answers to those questions, my friend. Why are you instead, evading them?

No robert, YOU are the ONLY one in ANY forum, Who has claimed he is able to see the cords in those blinds. Who has claimed he is able to see that blinds have been cut Who claims to be able to see that a window has been broken No one else is whacky enough to make such claims based on poor images, and state them as fact. Pure bullxxxx as usual! Do you really think people are stupid enough to ignore the guy I just cited in this thread? Hey, I know! Why don't you bring in Mike Williams? Mikey will deny ANYTHING you tell him to! And like you, he doesn't care if he makes a total ass out of himself, doing it And if all else fails, just bring in more cartoon characters, whom you can claim, all agree with you! You're getting desperate Duncan. How long do you think you can get away with denying what everyone else can see? Robert, watch your blood pressure. Swearing does not become you, and you're not getting any younger, so try to stay calm. No one agrees with you.That's a fact!!! As for Mike, don't be timerous, ask him to debate you yourself. You might draw level after the last debate thrashing he demolished you with. I'm sorry Duncan, I just have to constantly remind myself that there really isXXXXXXXXXfollowing this case who couldn't possibly care less about getting at the truth and endlessly lie in order to demean any significant research. You pretended that you couldn't see the massive protrusion on the BOH and you pretended that you can't see the cords that held those blinds together. For what purpose Duncan? I can't believe that anyone would pay you to do this kind of thing. Why do you do it? Why would you discard every shred of integrity that you might have had?

Coming from the Discovery Channel though, I would brace myself for some huge, LN spin.

No robert, YOU are the ONLY one in ANY forum, Who has claimed he is able to see the cords in those blinds. Who has claimed he is able to see that blinds have been cut Who claims to be able to see that a window has been broken No one else is whacky enough to make such claims based on poor images, and state them as fact. Pure bullxxxx as usual! Do you really think people are stupid enough to ignore the guy I just cited in this thread? Hey, I know! Why don't you bring in Mike Williams? Mikey will deny ANYTHING you tell him to! And like you, he doesn't care if he makes a total ass out of himself, doing it And if all else fails, just bring in more cartoon characters, whom you can claim, all agree with you! You're getting desperate Duncan. How long do you think you can get away with denying what everyone else can see?

Duncan, you are the ONLY one in ANY forum, who has claimed he is unable to see the cords in those blinds. No-one else is dishonest enough to pretend such a thing. And I have no clue what debate you are now claiming to have won??? Are you actually saying that that massive protrusion will go away if Jackie made it appear smaller than it really was, as you claim she did?? In this video, you can see EXACTLY what the back of JFK's head would have looked like if Jackie really did that. I'm surprised you haven't thanked me for helping you to demonstrate exactly what your theory proves http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=65inNE7dCUE

Funny, that so far, you are the ONLY one who claims that he can't see the broken cord in those blinds. In the JFKHistory forum, "Mitz" has been one of my toughest skeptics on this issue, but even he acknowledges the broken cord, while pointing out that it still doesn't prove the glass was broken. He said, "I have to be just as open to the possibility that the blind is broken behind an intact window pane." And even Bill Miller hasn't denied seeing the same thing. Odd, isn't it Duncan that no one else has been dishonest enough to pretend that he can't see what everyone else does Of course, we went through the same drill when you denied seeing the protrusion in the back of JFK's head, didn't we??

Your argument totally evades JFK's reactions then. Why did he begin to wave and then pull his hand back within one half of a second, balling it into a fist? Why did he fall to his left and then straighten back up? Those are not actions that any of us would carry out during a Sunday drive in the park. What caused JFK to react like that??? And why did someone cut the cord on the left side of the blinds in that third floor window? No-one heard that shot, including JFK. And in fact, most witnesses heard only one shot, prior to the very end of the attack. Even the WC admitted that, in spite of the fact that tests conducted by the HSCA proved that shots from Oswald's rifle generated ear shattering sound levels of 130 decibels. No-one heard the shot at 223 either Bill, not even Governor Connally. The only early shot that some witnesses heard, was the one at app. 160 which struck the pavement and shattered, causing a "firecracker" noise which most witnesses didn't even recognize as a gunshot. Clint Hill, Charles Brehm, and many others heard NONE of the early shots. That's because ALL of the shots prior to frame 285 were fired from a suppressed weapon, which also explains why two of those early shots missed the President entirely, and the other struck his back, well below his head which was the obvious intended target. Suppressors are notorious for causing wild misses and misfires caused by even microscopic misalignments of the mount. And that's why none of the limo passengers exhibited startle reactions to those shots as they would following the ones at 285 and 313. I think JFK was pelted by debris from a missed shot fired during the Towner film, but he was not hurt and he heard no report. We have no way of knowing what went through his head then, but at some point, perhaps after the shot at 160, he said, "My God I've been hit", and you will NEVER find a photo or film which shows JFK smiling during that time period. I go into more detail on this in an earlier presentation which you can view here: http://www.jfkhistory.com/ALL/ALL.mov or if you have problems with that file, you can see the Youtube version here:

In that third floor window, the blinds are all the way down, so to be able to fire a rifle from there while remaining out of view, it was necessary to cut out an opening in the blinds. In the Altgens photo we see the white outlines of the cords which hold the blinds together. It is very clear, that the cord on the left side has been cut, causing a gap and the top and bottom of that cord to be out of alignment with one another. I also created a video recently, on that subject. First Shot

This is my latest video which discusses the earliest shot fired during the attack on President Kennedy. It covers some of the arguments that have been made by skeptics as well as evidence that I had overlooked before which I believe, proves that the blinds were cut in the area of the apparent damage. First Shot

Well, the only issue I was considering was the question of whether we see an upright LBJ in that photo. The Altens photo could not have been altered, because Altgens took his film directly to the AP, where it was processed and then wired out to hundreds of affiliated newspapers and magazines, before the authorities ever laid their hands on it. And four people (Youngblood, Jacks, LBJ, and Ladybird) confirmed that Youngblood pushed LBJ down then. If memory serves, most of them said that happened after the first shot though of course, most witnesses only heard one of the early shots. FWIW, I am not convinced that we are seeing an upright LBJ then, but I also fail to see why the issue is worth spending a lot of time on.

Looking at a much higher resolution copy of the photo and then zooming in and out, I don't see the outline that you are suggesting. And in fact, the curvature you've drawn in for the top of your LBJ head just does not exist in the Altgens photo. This is the copy of the Altgens photo I am using. The resolution is 4464 × 2902.

Well, this gets a bit complicated First of all, Thompson misquoted the FBI report, stating that Mudd saw the broken windows in the Daltex building when in fact, the report stated that Mudd referred to the "building nearby". That same report however, pointed out that at the time they interviewed Mudd, he certainly knew which building was the Depository, so it was obvious that he was talking about a different building, which could only have been the Daltex. OTOH, there is no photographic evidence that windows facing west, on the fourth floor were broken, but it was not uncommon for witnesses, thinking back to a brief glance, would miscount the number of floors.

We don't see LBJ, obviously because Youngblood has already pushed him down. We may be seeing Youngblood's back/butt however, although it's hard to see much detail in that area.

Actually Robert, it doesn't match perfectly. The image which you are now pimping, shows a completely different visual configuration to the Altgens visual configuration. The Altgens image shows only one darkened area at the lower left window pane, whereas the image which you have posted above shows two darkened areas, one at the lower left window pane, and one at the lower right window pane. In the image above, it is obvious to anyone who doesn't have a blindfold on, that the blind on the lower left window pane is raised higher that the blind at the lower right window pane. I asked Quincy Magoo to point out the darkened lower right window pain for you. Here is his analysis Of course it isn't "perfect". Neither are the square panes in all the other windows. That's because blowups of old photos sometimes look a little blurry around the edges. But it shows the large majority of the damage in the leftmost, lower pane and a smaller quantity in the adjoining frame - EXACTLY as we see in the Altgens photo. You are dead wrong about this, amigo. That damage was very real, no matter how hard you try to ridicule and pretend that you can't see the same thing everyone else does. Your cartoon characters tell us a great deal about how seriously you take all this Duncan, just like your pathetic name-calling and pre-adolescent insults. You're obviously, a wannabe Von Pein/cdddraftsman and you seem to be be well on your way to achieving your goal. Absolute nonsense. Warren commission staff in Dealey Plaza 1964 What do you notice here, Robert? I'll give you a hint. Look at the second floor window, beneath your 3rd floor window. Wow!!!...It's the same dark effect as your 3rd floor window on Nov 22nd 1963. I wonder which member of the commission they were trying and failed to assassinate that day. You're flogging a dead horse, Robert. There's no broken window. On the second floor in your photo, the window is up, as are the blinds. We are probably seeing a couple of light colored boxes to the right and a perfectly square darkened area to the left where there are no boxes. On the third floor on 11/22/63, both the window and the blinds were down. And in the Altgens photo,the damaged area was irregular and clearly defined, and it matched perfectly with what we see in other relatively clear photos. What we see on the third floor is unique. It is unlike any of the other windows. And the ONLY explanation for it is that the third floor windows were damaged.

Actually Robert, it doesn't match perfectly. The image which you are now pimping, shows a completely different visual configuration to the Altgens visual configuration. The Altgens image shows only one darkened area at the lower left window pane, whereas the image which you have posted above shows two darkened areas, one at the lower left window pane, and one at the lower right window pane. In the image above, it is obvious to anyone who doesn't have a blindfold on, that the blind on the lower left window pane is raised higher that the blind at the lower right window pane. I asked Quincy Magoo to point out the darkened lower right window pain for you. Here is his analysis Of course it isn't "perfect". Neither are the square panes in all the other windows. That's because blowups of old photos sometimes look a little blurry around the edges. But it shows the large majority of the damage in the leftmost, lower pane and a smaller quantity in the adjoining frame - EXACTLY as we see in the Altgens photo. You are dead wrong about this, amigo. That damage was very real, no matter how hard you try to ridicule and pretend that you can't see the same thing everyone else does. Your cartoon characters tell us a great deal about how seriously you take all this Duncan, just like your pathetic name-calling and pre-adolescent insults. You're obviously, a wannabe Von Pein/cdddraftsman and you seem to be be well on your way to achieving your goal.

As I'm sure you know Duncan, that "analysis" was not mine. It was the work of another member of the jfkhistory forum and it matches perfectly with the irregular shape of the damage in that window. To respect the rules of this forum, I'm sure that was just an honest "mistake" on your part, wasn't it Duncan This is another photo which actually came from your site, and confirms that same irregular shape.As you also know, THIS is the one that I was referring to.

Duncan "rebuttal" has been thoroughly refuted in the JFK History forum, from which he beat a hasty retreat after learning that a photo from his own site proves him wrong. Rather than copy all the text and photos, you can view the discussion here: http://jfkhistory.com/forum/index.php?topic=369.0

Rather than post them as attachments, try uploading them to a website like photo bucket and then link to them.

Also David, I am disappointed that you would claim that this photo corroborates your argument that there was no BOH damage, since I have previously cited Dr. Boswell to you, clearly stating that he pulled the hair and scalp up over the top of the head, giving the appearance that there was no damage in that area. Why do you now pretend to be ignorant of that fact? Earlier today, I posted a message to this forum entitled, "the Autopsy Photo Mystery", which again, cites Boswell confirming that there was massive damage in the BOH which was covered over. Perhaps you can refresh your memory by reading it and perhaps you will stop spreading false information about the existence and nature of that damage.

IC, and what do you call this Duncan?

Duncan you can blowup any digital image and make it appear pixelated. You need to consider how much you are impressing people who can plainly see the protrusion in Zapruder film frames as well as the Nix film.

One of the most debated issues in JFK forums is that of the apparent discrepancy between the recollections of various witnesses, including the Parkland doctors vs. what we see in this and other autopsy photos. Many people have concluded from this that the autopsy pix were forgeries. But there is actually, a much better explanation for what we see in these photos and it came from the same man whose hand we see in the above picture. Dr. Thornton Boswell was asked about this photo in his ARRB testimony. Q. ..at least with some of the photographs, is it your testimony that the scalp was pulled in a way different from how it was when you first saw it in order to better illustrate either wound of entry or exit? A. Yes. The scalp was essentially loose. In the usual autopsy, you have to cut underneath the scalp in order to reflect it. In this case, the scalp was mobile so that you could pull it forward to obscure the wound or pull it back to make the wound completely lucid. and.. A. I know this--the flap is stretched forward here, because if this fell back down--with him in this sort of recumbent position, yes, this scalp would fold down and cover this wound. Q. So you're saying that on the fourth view, which are the photographs that are in your hand right now, the scalp has been pulled back and folded back over the top of the head in a way different from the way that they appeared in the third view, the superior view of the head? A. Yes. Q. Is that fair? A. In the previous one, it was permitted just to drop. In this one, it's pulled forward up over the forehead, toward the forehead... and.. A. There was a big wound sort of transverse up like this from left posterior to right anterior. The scalp was separated, but it was folded over, and you could fold the scalp over and almost hide the wound. When you lifted the scalp up, you could really lay it back posteriorally, and there was a lot of bone still attached to the scalp but detached from the remainder of the skull. And I think these parts back here probably reflect that. Boswell's statement that "there was a lot of bone still attached to the scalp but detached from the remainder of the skull.", is enormously important because the bone that was still attached, could only have been the large skull piece that we see in the Xrays which is clearly, broken away from the rest of the skull. That skull piece was blown out and flipped to the rear, taking with it hair and scalp, which folded back over its inner surface, forming a large and very grotesque protrusion. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=65inNE7dCUE

Robert, Rick Needham agreeing with you holds no weight with me. He is convinced that Umbrella man fired an ice dart in to JFK's throat in order to paralyse him so that the other shooters would have an easy kill shot. You need to get with it Bob. I think a visit to your optician would be a good start. Duncan Duncan, are you actually claiming that you see no protrusion in the back of the head in that frame??????

And finally, we can see precisely when that damage was inflicted, by examining the Nix film. These images are numbered by their equivalent Zapruder frames. Notice that the BOH was quite flat until 320, after which that massive protrusion appeared.