Robert Harris

Oswald was neither a communist or a Marxist. He was a fanatical anti-communist and a disciple of Herbert Philbrick, who also convinced his family and friends that he was a red. Oswald's first "unpatriotic" act was his refusal to salute the American flag in school. That happened less than three weeks following the premier of "I Led Three Lives" - a TV series based on Philbrick's undercover battle against commies in the Boston area. and

Duke wrote: Mary related how she hadn't believed Beverly was the Babushka Lady at first because, she said, TBL had thick ankles, which Beverly did (in '92) and does not. "Women's ankles don't change," Mary said, pointing out something that I, for one, had never noticed before, the shape of a woman's ankles. Since that time almost 20 years ago, I've noticed women's ankles - particularly the thicker ones - and have even tried to decide for myself whether TBL has thick or thin ankles. I'm undecided on this point, but lean toward them being thick. Beverly's are unquestionably not thick, and if Mary's point was accurate, they never could have been You know Jack, I was thinking the same thing, but was just going to let Duke believe what he wants. I know two women whose ankles swell up and down all the time, mainly because of water accumluation. Water pills must be taken to prevent congential heart failure and the swelling of the ankles is the first sign the doctors say to look for. So ankles don't stay the same. And another thing he said: Duke: Here we get the impression that it was the Warren Report alone that said Jack had dinner with his sometimes partner Paul, when in fact Ralph Paul himself said that he had dinner with Ruby. BK: I rechecked Ralph Paul's testimony, and both times he testifimed they failed to ask him about having dinner with Ruby on Thursday, though Paul volunteers this on both occassions, they let it slide and never ask him. Paul says he had Ruby had dinner at either Egyptian or Delmonicos, and that he never met or heard of Larry Meyers. Now I'm not calling Paul a lier, I'm just saying he could have had dinner with Ruby earlier in the evening and Ruby could have went to Egyptian with Meyers and Oliver late, as it was between 10 pm and midnight, late for dinner. Nor were the others who were known to have seen Ruby at the Egyptian questioned about who he was with, including the ad salesman from the Dallas Morning News who also provided an alibi for Ruby at the time of the assassination. Duke: Yet Beverly introduces another twist, suggesting that she had dinner with the typically asexual Ruby as some sort of "special guest" (really? why was she such an apple in his eye that he'd single her out to accompany him?) along with one Larry Meyers, thus "proving" that Ruby did not have dinner with Paul, but with Meyers and her, the big bad Report - and Ralph Paul - lying once again. If that was so, then Beverly can presumably tell us whether there where two or three other people also part of that party, and who they were, right? What proof is there of any of these assertions? Things aren't so just because one wants them to be. BK: And the reason Ruby asked Beverly Oliver out with him that night was because he was meeting Larry Meyers, who Ruby had met earlier at the Carousl Club when Meyers was with Jean Aase, the "dumb but accomidating broad" that he brought down from Chicago. Ruby thought Meyers was going to be with a women so he brought along a date too. But since Meyers was also meeting his brother and his wife, who were attending the Pepsi convention, and he was a married man, Jean Aase was left out of the proceedings. What I get out of all of this is that Beverly Oliver accompanied Ruby and Meyers to the Egyptian (or if Beverly is mistaken and it wasn't Meyers but Ralph Paul, so be it), and while there Ruby and Meyers/Paul went into the back office to make a/some phone call(s). And since Campisis are known gamblers, running junkets to Vegas, and connected to known mob bosses, the phone should have been tapped. And DPD officer Joe Cody and Dallas Sheriff's offficer Al Maddox both say that that particular phone was used to call Campisi's friend in New Orleans, Carlos Marcello, who later became Larry Meyers golf partner. The thing about the Babes of Dealey Plaza is that they don't know what they know is important. BK In 1963 Texas, gay men would make a point of going out with a woman occasionally in order to keep up the appearance that they were straight. It is not at all surprising that Ruby would have invited her to dinner. Except Robert, Ruby wan't gay, he had an on and off girlfriend. BK Hmm.. well, I think the jury still may be out on that one. Ruby was a real a.h. but there isn't a single case that I'm aware of, of him getting frisky with his dancers or any other women for that matter. But getting back to Beverly. What is her reply to the argument that Regis Kennedy was in N.O. on 11/25? Is there any possibility that she encountered him in the A.M. and that he flew in to question Martin in the afternoon - or that she just got the date wrong?

Jim, All sots of people with all sorts of opinions are on my Forum. They are free to post as they choose, whatever side of the fence they stand on. Just because I think DVP is a great researcher who puts fact before fiction, does not mean that I am his mouthpiece. Duncan, I too have some respect for DVP, and have found that many of his arguments are solid. But he is way off the grid on certain points--including his bizarre insistence that the back wound photo proves the back wound was far above the throat wound. I can't consider someone pushing such nonsense someone putting "fact" before fiction. Are you with DVP on this point? Just curious. LOL!! Well, I have no respect at all for DVP, but am in absolute agreement with him that the back wound was higher than the neck wound. In fact, I find it hard to believe that anyone could think otherwise. Please look at this illustation Pat. The blue line represents what I believe is the trajectory, based on the autopsy photos. The green line is what you must believe to be correct, if the entry was below the neck wound. Are you really claiming that this accurately represents the entry wound on the back?? Robert, you've got to be kidding. I devote much of my online book, and several parts of my video series, to establishing the level of the back wound depicted in the autopsy photos and as measured at autopsy. They are in the same place, at or just below the level of the throat wound when the body is in the anatomic position. In short, the HSCA FPP got this bit right. This back wound location--all by itself--destroys the single-bullet theory as proposed by most single-assassin theorists. This is why they always change its location and/or distort Kennedy's forward lean in their depictions of the shooting. This is demonstrated beyond any doubt in chapters 10-12C at patspeer.com. Let's try again. Pat, are you suggesting that the green line in the image I posted, accurately depicts the entry location of the back wound? No. Ok, so would you be kind enough to overlay your own line on this photo to depict the trajectory you believe is correct?

I believe it was Groden who made the claim that a witness told him she was giving Oswald change while the shots were being fired. He's been saying this for roughly a year now, but to the best of my knowledge has never given a name or any kind of evidence that a witness said that. He says that information will be in his next book. As for Brennon, I believe his claim was that he lied when he failed to ID Oswald because he was afraid that the killers would retaliate against him. Whether we believe that or not is each person's own call. My own belief is that Oswald took part in the attack, though certainly not alone. It would have been impossible for the perps to be certain that he would have remained out of sight of other TSBD employees during the shooting, who could have given him a solid alibi. Carlos Marcello unwittingly confessed to a reliable FBI informant that he ordered the assassination and stated that David Ferrie introduced him to Oswald at his brother's restaurant.

Jim, All sots of people with all sorts of opinions are on my Forum. They are free to post as they choose, whatever side of the fence they stand on. Just because I think DVP is a great researcher who puts fact before fiction, does not mean that I am his mouthpiece. Duncan, I too have some respect for DVP, and have found that many of his arguments are solid. But he is way off the grid on certain points--including his bizarre insistence that the back wound photo proves the back wound was far above the throat wound. I can't consider someone pushing such nonsense someone putting "fact" before fiction. Are you with DVP on this point? Just curious. LOL!! Well, I have no respect at all for DVP, but am in absolute agreement with him that the back wound was higher than the neck wound. In fact, I find it hard to believe that anyone could think otherwise. Please look at this illustation Pat. The blue line represents what I believe is the trajectory, based on the autopsy photos. The green line is what you must believe to be correct, if the entry was below the neck wound. Are you really claiming that this accurately represents the entry wound on the back?? Robert, you've got to be kidding. I devote much of my online book, and several parts of my video series, to establishing the level of the back wound depicted in the autopsy photos and as measured at autopsy. They are in the same place, at or just below the level of the throat wound when the body is in the anatomic position. In short, the HSCA FPP got this bit right. This back wound location--all by itself--destroys the single-bullet theory as proposed by most single-assassin theorists. This is why they always change its location and/or distort Kennedy's forward lean in their depictions of the shooting. This is demonstrated beyond any doubt in chapters 10-12C at patspeer.com. Let's try again. Pat, are you suggesting that the green line in the image I posted, accurately depicts the entry location of the back wound?

What kind of crap is this you are coming away with now. You did read the terms and conditions when you signed up, didn't you? The rules are in there, but you would know that anyway,having ticked the box to acknowledge that you had read them. As for cross posting from any other forum, or from my forum to here. Make sure that you get the author's permissions to do so. I would also advise that you check with John Simkin, and/or the Admins here, that it appropriate for you to mass crosspost from my venue to here. Duncan, you specifically stated to me in email that there are "no rules" in your forum and you confirmed that by never in your life (according to you), deleting an objectionable post. I'm sure that looks great to you while the thugs are all nutters but that will change once the more radical CT's find their way to the forum.

I don't think Altgens was able to see JFK very well when that shot was fired and it's hard to imagine how he could have known which direction the bullet was traveling in. However, his recollection of JFK's reaction when the limo was almost at his position is IMO, much more important. "He was at an angle but when it hit him, it seemed to have just lodged--it seemed as if he were hung up on a seat button or something like that. It knocked him just enough forward that he came right on down. There was flesh particles that flew out of the side of his head in my direction from where I was standing, so much so that it indicated to me that the shot came out of the left side of his head." That could only have been the result of a second headshot, which came from the front-right, and blew material to Kennedy's left-rear.

Jim, All sots of people with all sorts of opinions are on my Forum. They are free to post as they choose, whatever side of the fence they stand on. Just because I think DVP is a great researcher who puts fact before fiction, does not mean that I am his mouthpiece. No, it means you are just as wrong as he is. BK No, it means that i'm open minded to anything that anyone has to say on the assassination. As far as I am aware, other than the John Mcadams site, my forum, JFK Assassination Forum is the only available venue where anyone has the opportunity to debate freely and openly with David Von Pein. I don't see his critics, including you Bill, Jim DiEugenio, or anyone else rushing to join to debate DVP. The invite is open to anyone to join and debate with him, so don't hide in your DVP free comfort zones, after all, you have all of the solid unimpeachable facts to destroy any of his arguments, right? Duncan Why would you say "other than John Mcadams site"? His forum btw, is usenet - not a website. And it is heavily censored, with a strong bias in favor of nutters - exactly the opposite of yours, which permits unlimited slander and personal attacks. Usenet is a website, Robert. Re: My Forum: I don't think this is an appropriate venue to discuss how my forum is run, however, I will say this in response to your false criticisms. The only person who has ever moaned to me personally about how my forum is run is you. In the 2 years that it has been online not one other person has ever complained to me about how it is run. Usenet is not part of the web. The data in it can be viewed on the web, just as information from a public library can be viewed at a website. But the two are comprised of totally different systems. It's origin as well as the way servers are linked, is totally different and independent from the web. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Usenet As for your claim that no-one has ever complained about the absence of rules in your forum, have you considered that the reason no-one complains is that you have no rules to enforce? Tell me Duncan - exactly what benefit do you expect to derive from postings that contain nothing but personal smears and name calling? Would you like me to repost some of those messages from your little team of nutter pitbulls? Would 100 be enough or would you want more?

Just a small correction Pat. It is true that the back of the head was not blown out at 313, but it certainly was a fraction of a second later. I see hair on a badly damaged back of the skull, and a large defect at the top of the head above the ear...exactly what's shown in the autopsy photos and x-rays. Are you claiming you see a hole on the back of the head? And, if so, can you explain to us what happened to the blood that erupted from this hole? Pat I am disappointed that you dropped this issue without replying to the brief article I linked for you. In particular, I hope you will look at the last image in the article. http://jfkhistory.com/LastShot/BOHDamage.html At some point in time, a large section of skull in the upper-rear of the head was blown to the rear, taking with it hair and scalp that had previously been superior to it, but remained suspended in the scalp - exactly as Dr. Boswell described. THAT is what Beverly Oliver would have seen less than half a second after the explosion at 313 and whether it was technically in the "back" of the head or not, it certainly would have given that appearance. Of course, what is important is not where that damage was located on the head. What is important is WHEN it was inflicted.

Duke wrote: Mary related how she hadn't believed Beverly was the Babushka Lady at first because, she said, TBL had thick ankles, which Beverly did (in '92) and does not. "Women's ankles don't change," Mary said, pointing out something that I, for one, had never noticed before, the shape of a woman's ankles. Since that time almost 20 years ago, I've noticed women's ankles - particularly the thicker ones - and have even tried to decide for myself whether TBL has thick or thin ankles. I'm undecided on this point, but lean toward them being thick. Beverly's are unquestionably not thick, and if Mary's point was accurate, they never could have been You know Jack, I was thinking the same thing, but was just going to let Duke believe what he wants. I know two women whose ankles swell up and down all the time, mainly because of water accumluation. Water pills must be taken to prevent congential heart failure and the swelling of the ankles is the first sign the doctors say to look for. So ankles don't stay the same. And another thing he said: Duke: Here we get the impression that it was the Warren Report alone that said Jack had dinner with his sometimes partner Paul, when in fact Ralph Paul himself said that he had dinner with Ruby. BK: I rechecked Ralph Paul's testimony, and both times he testifimed they failed to ask him about having dinner with Ruby on Thursday, though Paul volunteers this on both occassions, they let it slide and never ask him. Paul says he had Ruby had dinner at either Egyptian or Delmonicos, and that he never met or heard of Larry Meyers. Now I'm not calling Paul a lier, I'm just saying he could have had dinner with Ruby earlier in the evening and Ruby could have went to Egyptian with Meyers and Oliver late, as it was between 10 pm and midnight, late for dinner. Nor were the others who were known to have seen Ruby at the Egyptian questioned about who he was with, including the ad salesman from the Dallas Morning News who also provided an alibi for Ruby at the time of the assassination. Duke: Yet Beverly introduces another twist, suggesting that she had dinner with the typically asexual Ruby as some sort of "special guest" (really? why was she such an apple in his eye that he'd single her out to accompany him?) along with one Larry Meyers, thus "proving" that Ruby did not have dinner with Paul, but with Meyers and her, the big bad Report - and Ralph Paul - lying once again. If that was so, then Beverly can presumably tell us whether there where two or three other people also part of that party, and who they were, right? What proof is there of any of these assertions? Things aren't so just because one wants them to be. BK: And the reason Ruby asked Beverly Oliver out with him that night was because he was meeting Larry Meyers, who Ruby had met earlier at the Carousl Club when Meyers was with Jean Aase, the "dumb but accomidating broad" that he brought down from Chicago. Ruby thought Meyers was going to be with a women so he brought along a date too. But since Meyers was also meeting his brother and his wife, who were attending the Pepsi convention, and he was a married man, Jean Aase was left out of the proceedings. What I get out of all of this is that Beverly Oliver accompanied Ruby and Meyers to the Egyptian (or if Beverly is mistaken and it wasn't Meyers but Ralph Paul, so be it), and while there Ruby and Meyers/Paul went into the back office to make a/some phone call(s). And since Campisis are known gamblers, running junkets to Vegas, and connected to known mob bosses, the phone should have been tapped. And DPD officer Joe Cody and Dallas Sheriff's offficer Al Maddox both say that that particular phone was used to call Campisi's friend in New Orleans, Carlos Marcello, who later became Larry Meyers golf partner. The thing about the Babes of Dealey Plaza is that they don't know what they know is important. BK In 1963 Texas, gay men would make a point of going out with a woman occasionally in order to keep up the appearance that they were straight. It is not at all surprising that Ruby would have invited her to dinner.

Jim, All sots of people with all sorts of opinions are on my Forum. They are free to post as they choose, whatever side of the fence they stand on. Just because I think DVP is a great researcher who puts fact before fiction, does not mean that I am his mouthpiece. Duncan, I too have some respect for DVP, and have found that many of his arguments are solid. But he is way off the grid on certain points--including his bizarre insistence that the back wound photo proves the back wound was far above the throat wound. I can't consider someone pushing such nonsense someone putting "fact" before fiction. Are you with DVP on this point? Just curious. LOL!! Well, I have no respect at all for DVP, but am in absolute agreement with him that the back wound was higher than the neck wound. In fact, I find it hard to believe that anyone could think otherwise. Please look at this illustation Pat. The blue line represents what I believe is the trajectory, based on the autopsy photos. The green line is what you must believe to be correct, if the entry was below the neck wound. Are you really claiming that this accurately represents the entry wound on the back??

Jim, All sots of people with all sorts of opinions are on my Forum. They are free to post as they choose, whatever side of the fence they stand on. Just because I think DVP is a great researcher who puts fact before fiction, does not mean that I am his mouthpiece. No, it means you are just as wrong as he is. BK No, it means that i'm open minded to anything that anyone has to say on the assassination. As far as I am aware, other than the John Mcadams site, my forum, JFK Assassination Forum is the only available venue where anyone has the opportunity to debate freely and openly with David Von Pein. I don't see his critics, including you Bill, Jim DiEugenio, or anyone else rushing to join to debate DVP. The invite is open to anyone to join and debate with him, so don't hide in your DVP free comfort zones, after all, you have all of the solid unimpeachable facts to destroy any of his arguments, right? Duncan Why would you say "other than John Mcadams site"? His forum btw, is usenet - not a website. And it is heavily censored, with a strong bias in favor of nutters - exactly the opposite of yours, which permits unlimited slander and personal attacks.

Jim, All sots of people with all sorts of opinions are on my Forum. They are free to post as they choose, whatever side of the fence they stand on. Just because I think DVP is a great researcher who puts fact before fiction, does not mean that I am his mouthpiece. Duncan, "great researchers" don't have to continually misrepresent people who disagree with them, evade more issues than they address and rely almost totally on ad hominem smears. But tell me Duncan. Do you believe John Connally's claim that the bullet fell from his leg and was retrieved by a nurse who put it in her pocket, and District Attorney Wade who said the nurse held it in her hand, telling him that she had the bullet that came from Connally's leg, and that the nurse told Officer Nolan that the envelope she gave him contained a "bullet" from Connally's leg? And do you believe the FBI's own documentation, stating that they sent TWO bullets in from Parkland? Where did the other one go, Duncan? The ONLY logical explanation is, that the envelope Nolan brought in to the DPD, was altered to appear to have contained fragments from Connally's wrist. That's how they made the actual bullet from Connally's thigh disappear. Read Bell's description of events and then listen to Nolan's. They were not even remotely similar. That could NOT have been Bell who handed him that envelope. Robert, According to you everyone attacks and misrepresents you. That's a rather strange accusation, coming from someone I have never accused of either attacking or misrepresenting me. But if you were right, then you should have no problem naming one or two people whom I falsely accused of such a thing. Can you give us a name or two? Or is it possible, that you only said that to evade my questions?

Jim, All sots of people with all sorts of opinions are on my Forum. They are free to post as they choose, whatever side of the fence they stand on. Just because I think DVP is a great researcher who puts fact before fiction, does not mean that I am his mouthpiece. Duncan, "great researchers" don't have to continually misrepresent people who disagree with them, evade more issues than they address and rely almost totally on ad hominem smears. But tell me Duncan. Do you believe John Connally's claim that the bullet fell from his leg and was retrieved by a nurse who put it in her pocket, and District Attorney Wade who said the nurse held it in her hand, telling him that she had the bullet that came from Connally's leg, and that the nurse told Officer Nolan that the envelope she gave him contained a "bullet" from Connally's leg? And do you believe the FBI's own documentation, stating that they sent TWO bullets in from Parkland? Where did the other one go, Duncan? The ONLY logical explanation is, that the envelope Nolan brought in to the DPD, was altered to appear to have contained fragments from Connally's wrist. That's how they made the actual bullet from Connally's thigh disappear. Read Bell's description of events and then listen to Nolan's. They were not even remotely similar. That could NOT have been Bell who handed him that envelope.

Bernice, What's wrong with pointing out a blatant discrepancy between the real evidence of the motorcycle cop's movements as seen in the Zapruder film, and the blatantly wrong description given by Beverly Oliver to Vince Palamara on video? I don't believe that she is genuine, but i'm not stopping anyone from believing that she is genuine. Duncan Whether she is legitimate or not, this is a poor attempt to refute her. I would bet you that 90% of the witnesses who definitely were in DP that day, could not tell you exactly how many motorcycles were there. And B.L. was even less likely to know that since she seemed to be totally focused (pardon the pun) on JFK. The camera seems to be a critical issue. Has anyone been able to solidly confirm or deny that such an experimental model existed on 11/63? It would seem to have been quite easy for her to have made up a model number that really did exist. Why lie about it?

It's called "separating the wheat from the chaff."A funny thing happened on the way to the forum. Some years ago - I think it was around 1992 - a "debate" was held at a barbecue restaurant in Irving, Texas, to determine or decide "once and for all" if Beverly Oliver was indeed the Babushka Lady. It was not an event to air facts and discuss their merits, but a staged event with more of an air of a revival and witch hunt, the "witch" being one Larry Dunkel (spelling?), "a.k.a. Gary Mack," as a homemade cardboard placard - it might easily be called a "protest sign" as its owner pumped it over his head for all to call their attention to whenever Gary spoke, which was seldom enough - proclaimed. The event was sponsored and dominated by the JFK Assassination Information Center, best known for its colorful ownership and their backing and promotion of Ricky White's abortive commercial venture to assassinate his father's memory (which, despite its fiscal failure, remains fixed in some less discerning imaginations). "Debating" Mack were Oliver, her own sponsor Gary Shaw, and for good measure, the grand dame of assassination research, Mary Ferrell. Without going into a blow-by-blow that I barely remember beyond impressions (it largely consisted of opening commentary by Gary Mack on why he thought Beverly was not TBL, interrupted by the sign-carrying crowd and followed by a heartfelt collaborative sob by Shaw and Oliver carrying the dual themes of "we're great researchers, we can't be fooled" and "why would this nice lady lie?"), I remember clearly the "denouement" brought forth by Mary. Mary related how she had gotten a call from Shaw to tell her of his exciting discovery of TBL and his desire to validate that discovery with her. The call was followed by a visit from Shaw with Beverly in tow to tell her story to her. Then she got to the nub of what she'd been called upon to say. I thought it was interesting the way she'd put it. Mary related how she hadn't believed Beverly was the Babushka Lady at first because, she said, TBL had thick ankles, which Beverly did (in '92) and does not. "Women's ankles don't change," Mary said, pointing out something that I, for one, had never noticed before, the shape of a woman's ankles. Yet, she said, after Shaw and Oliver's visit, she'd "been convinced" - which differs in meaning grammatically from "was convinced" - that Beverly was "telling the truth." This seemingly clinched the deal, and the "picketers" seemed quite happy. If Mack said anything in rebuttal, I don't recall it and seem to remember his acquiescence to Mary's pronouncement. To my knowledge, he's never said anything about it since then, publicly or privately in my hearing. Yet it's always stuck in my mind how Mary Ferrell had both endorsed and refuted Beverly's claim in one fell swoop, saying from one side of her mouth that she'd "been convinced by" Shaw, while from the other telling those with ears to hear that the physical characteristics of TBL - her ankles - did not match Beverly's, and that the particular characteristic does not change with age, at least not from thick to thin (perhaps the other way around? I don't know). Since that time almost 20 years ago, I've noticed women's ankles - particularly the thicker ones - and have even tried to decide for myself whether TBL has thick or thin ankles. I'm undecided on this point, but lean toward them being thick. Beverly's are unquestionably not thick, and if Mary's point was accurate, they never could have been. I've been told that Larry Ronco did, in fact, "work for" Kodak, selling film to tourists at the state fair (or was it Six Flags, or both?). In such a position - a seasonal, part-time, retail sales clerk - his being given or otherwise having access to an "experimental" camera before its public release seems far-fetched at best. That's like Liz Taylor giving a bottle of her maybe-never-to-be-released new fragrance to the girl at the Macy's counter: who here really thinks that's very likely?Did Beverly date Larry? Certainly possible, if not probable or certain. Did Larry work for Kodak? Probably so, either directly or indirectly. Did Kodak give him a top-secret camera, he in turn lend it to his girlfriend (whom he could be absolutely certain would never show or tell anyone about it ... unless they were in Dealey Plaza), what would have happened if the camera had been confiscated as others supposedly - and conveniently - were, did Kodak ever find out, and did Larry keep his job afterward? These are imponderables we'll probably never know the real answer to. They do all, however, seem unlikely. The problem with accepting the various statements of all "witnesses" is that we tend to follow a "lead" that they give us when that lead is nothing but hogwash, a pipe dream, less than a wisp of smoke: not just gone but never there. An example of this is Richard Carr's belated "Rambler station wagon" on Houston Street, chasing a phantom that couldn't have been seen to even know if it existed. It's unfortunate for us - and a boon to whoever else may have shot Kennedy and Tippit - that some people will believe anything simply because it differs from what someone or something they don't want to believe has said was the case, to wit: Here we get the impression that it was the Warren Report alone that said Jack had dinner with his sometimes partner Paul, when in fact Ralph Paul himself said that he had dinner with Ruby. Yet Beverly introduces another twist, suggesting that she had dinner with the typically asexual Ruby as some sort of "special guest" (really? why was she such an apple in his eye that he'd single her out to accompany him?) along with one Larry Meyers, thus "proving" that Ruby did not have dinner with Paul, but with Meyers and her, the big bad Report - and Ralph Paul - lying once again. If that was so, then Beverly can presumably tell us whether there where two or three other people also part of that party, and who they were, right?What proof is there of any of these assertions? Things aren't so just because one wants them to be. Since we weren't there, the witnesses who were are our eyes and ears as to what happened. They are important and should be treated special. Why does it have to be a "secret" camera? Why not just a camera that he got from work? And why is it a question we will never know the answer to? Larry Ronco should still be alive. Why can't we find him and ask him? And I don't believe that Ralph Paul said that he had dinner with Ruby on Thursday night. One of the Campisis brothers said it was Paul who was with Ruby but it was the Campisi who wasn't working that night so he wouldn't know. I'd like to read where Ralp Paul says he had dinner with Ruby that night at the Egyptian Lounge. I don't think he confirmed it. Every witness can be discredited. And everyone believes who they want and what they want. I believe Gary Shaw and I believe Beverly. And I think we can know the truth if you look a little harder. BK Bill, I have really not been following this issue closely over the years, but as I recall, the most damning issue against her used to be the claim that the experimental camera she said she used, did not exist at the time. Has that issue been resolved with any degree of certainty?

Just a small correction Pat. It is true that the back of the head was not blown out at 313, but it certainly was a fraction of a second later. I see hair on a badly damaged back of the skull, and a large defect at the top of the head above the ear...exactly what's shown in the autopsy photos and x-rays. Are you claiming you see a hole on the back of the head? And, if so, can you explain to us what happened to the blood that erupted from this hole? Pat, I thought I had explained this to you a long time ago. This brief article explains exactly what happened. The most important part is toward the end. http://jfkhistory.com/LastShot/BOHDamage.html

Just a small correction Pat. It is true that the back of the head was not blown out at 313, but it certainly was a fraction of a second later.

There may have been a shot fired at 160, but it most definitely was not the first of the three shots heard by most witnesses. The "we know when the shots struck because the occupants of the car turned argument" is a failed one. Mary Woodward said the occupants turned to look at her when she and her friends yelled out. Connally said he turned to his left and back real fast because he was stretching. In short, we don't know why they turned, and pretending we can discern shots by the reactions of but a few people, when dozens of witnesses, including those whose reactions we are judging, disagree with the conclusion the first shot was fired at frame 160, and that Kennedy calmly resumed waving to his right after the first shot, is silly. The first shot miss at frame 160 is an absolute myth. I discuss this throughout chapters 5 thru 9b. A quick summary was already posted on this thread. In chapter 9b I go through Bugliosi's witnesses for a first shot miss, and show how he lies about almost all of them. You may want to take a look. In trying to determine when shots were fired during a silent film, our most valuable resource is to study the visible reactions of the victims and the people around them. JFK's first reactions was during the Towner film. He started to wave and within a half of a second, snapped his hand back, balling it into a fist. Then, within a fraction of a second, he dropped to his left and then straightened back up. Have you looked at my presentation on this? What is your opinion about it? I think that Roy Truly was correct in that the limo braked and came hard left to avoid the curb. I see no reaction from anyone that could even remotely be considered in reaction to a shot. Then why was JFK the only one to react? And if the limo braked, why would that cause him to ball his hand into a fist and then fall toward Jackie?? Please be specific. As for your ridiculous claim that his reaction could not have been to a gunshot, I don't think you believe that at all. You simply jump on any opportunity to fabricate a subjective opinion that contradicts me, without the slightest regard for the truth. That's all part of your little campaign to follow me around from forum to forum and thread to thread, trolling and running resistance, even when you have to make a total fool out of yourself to do it. In fact, JFK reacted EXACTLY as we would expect anyone to react if they had been pelted by debris from a missed shot. And yet, there is not damage to the Limo from your imaginary shot, there is no evidence of anyone being hit by this debris, and there is not one piece of testimony that would concur that a shot had happened at this time. Do you eve have any proof that his hand balls into a fist? Do you have any evidence that he falls to his left? Yep this is another Harris hallucination. As for following you from forum to forum, I am a member here and at Duncan's place, is it not the purpose of a forum to debate and discuss ideas? I know that you would prefer I remain quiet, and not make you look so foolish, but that just is not going to happen. History deserves accuracy, not fool-hearty assumptions. smiling and waving?: http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=15782&view=findpost&p=190063 And BTW, that article has to be one of the stupidest and most illogical I have seen in a very long time. For example, you said, in regard to JFK's orientation at frame 180. "FK was smiling and waving just as we can plainly see,and just as the witnesses in close proximity testified. " Of course JFK was smiling and waving earlier. But would you please explain how you came to know that they were talking about him at frame 180, rather than an earlier frame? And how does that ridiculously washed out and discolored distortion of the third floor window, prove that it was not broken out? And I'm still waiting for you to tell us what that darkened area really was. And then you said this, which demonstrates that you didn't even listen to the video or were too thick to comprehend what I said, "The time frame from 160 to 223 is 63 frames, or 3.44 seconds. Are we to believe that our sniper up there has managed to remove his silencer and reacquire the target in 3.44 seconds? I would suggest this is a bit much to ask of any of us to believe." ALL three of the early shots were fired from a suppressed weapon. The one at 223 was heard by no-one, including Governor Connally who was hit by it. Now, I'm sure you will be eager to attack that too, but can't you at least try to comprehend what it is you are attacking?? Michael, I hope you realize that I do NOT call you an imbecile because I want to insult you. Robert, The very fact that you would call me an imbecile rolls off me for one simple reason, it is abundantly clear that you have no clue what you are talking about, so therefore, how could you understand what I am telling you? Michael, you are not just an imbecile. You are a stalker who has attacked almost every post I ever wrote in either of these forums for more than two months. To do that, you have had to fabricate arguments that were beyond ridiculous and often contradicted your own statements. For example, you once argued that the reactions following frame 285 were caused by Greer slowing the limousine. When that failed, you then argued that there were no reactions at all and that they were all a figment of my imagination. On another occassion, you tried to claim that a particular shot was impossible. When I asked if you used a CAD program to calculate the angles, you said you didn't use CAD at all and only needed a ruler. But a few days later, you forgot what you said, and claimed to have been a regular CAD user for years. In this forum you have continued to post idiotic arguments. Finding a photographic of the CE842 envelope in which we cannot see all the artifacts that we can see in the original, does not make them go away, Michael. That is just an incredibly stupid argument. And that is why you continue to evade nearly every question I ask you. YOU know as well as I do, that you have no answers. You know very well, that you just made up that phony claim about the Muchmore film, for example. And you know very well, that you haven't got a speck of evidence or witness support for you claim that JFK was happily smiling and waving at frame 280. In the other forum, you have stated on numerous occasions that you "refuted" the shot at 285. But when I asked you over and over and over again, more than a dozen times in total, to simply tell us how you did that, you went into your typical evasive maneuvers. You had no answer Michael, because you couldn't refute that issue to save your life. All you could do, was pretend that you did. I do NOT call you an imbecile in order to insult you Michael. I use that term because you are.

There may have been a shot fired at 160, but it most definitely was not the first of the three shots heard by most witnesses. The "we know when the shots struck because the occupants of the car turned argument" is a failed one. Mary Woodward said the occupants turned to look at her when she and her friends yelled out. Connally said he turned to his left and back real fast because he was stretching. In short, we don't know why they turned, and pretending we can discern shots by the reactions of but a few people, when dozens of witnesses, including those whose reactions we are judging, disagree with the conclusion the first shot was fired at frame 160, and that Kennedy calmly resumed waving to his right after the first shot, is silly. The first shot miss at frame 160 is an absolute myth. I discuss this throughout chapters 5 thru 9b. A quick summary was already posted on this thread. In chapter 9b I go through Bugliosi's witnesses for a first shot miss, and show how he lies about almost all of them. You may want to take a look. In trying to determine when shots were fired during a silent film, our most valuable resource is to study the visible reactions of the victims and the people around them. JFK's first reactions was during the Towner film. He started to wave and within a half of a second, snapped his hand back, balling it into a fist. Then, within a fraction of a second, he dropped to his left and then straightened back up. Have you looked at my presentation on this? What is your opinion about it? I think that Roy Truly was correct in that the limo braked and came hard left to avoid the curb. I see no reaction from anyone that could even remotely be considered in reaction to a shot. Then why was JFK the only one to react? And if the limo braked, why would that cause him to ball his hand into a fist and then fall toward Jackie?? Please be specific. As for your ridiculous claim that his reaction could not have been to a gunshot, I don't think you believe that at all. You simply jump on any opportunity to fabricate a subjective opinion that contradicts me, without the slightest regard for the truth. That's all part of your little campaign to follow me around from forum to forum and thread to thread, trolling and running resistance, even when you have to make a total fool out of yourself to do it. In fact, JFK reacted EXACTLY as we would expect anyone to react if they had been pelted by debris from a missed shot. And yet, there is not damage to the Limo from your imaginary shot, there is no evidence of anyone being hit by this debris, and there is not one piece of testimony that would concur that a shot had happened at this time. Do you eve have any proof that his hand balls into a fist? Do you have any evidence that he falls to his left? Yep this is another Harris hallucination. As for following you from forum to forum, I am a member here and at Duncan's place, is it not the purpose of a forum to debate and discuss ideas? I know that you would prefer I remain quiet, and not make you look so foolish, but that just is not going to happen. History deserves accuracy, not fool-hearty assumptions. smiling and waving?: http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=15782&view=findpost&p=190063 And BTW, that article has to be one of the stupidest and most illogical I have seen in a very long time. For example, you said, in regard to JFK's orientation at frame 180. "FK was smiling and waving just as we can plainly see,and just as the witnesses in close proximity testified. " Of course JFK was smiling and waving earlier. But would you please explain how you came to know that they were talking about him at frame 180, rather than an earlier frame? And how does that ridiculously washed out and discolored distortion of the third floor window, prove that it was not broken out? And I'm still waiting for you to tell us what that darkened area really was. And then you said this, which demonstrates that you didn't even listen to the video or were too thick to comprehend what I said, "The time frame from 160 to 223 is 63 frames, or 3.44 seconds. Are we to believe that our sniper up there has managed to remove his silencer and reacquire the target in 3.44 seconds? I would suggest this is a bit much to ask of any of us to believe." ALL three of the early shots were fired from a suppressed weapon. The one at 223 was heard by no-one, including Governor Connally who was hit by it. Now, I'm sure you will be eager to attack that too, but can't you at least try to comprehend what it is you are attacking?? Michael, I hope you realize that I do NOT call you an imbecile because I want to insult you.

Yes, you certainly are. And changing the color of your little picture doesn't change anything. This is the envelope at issue, You obviously posted your photo, not because it reveals information but because it hides it. And why are you dodging my questions, Michael? Are they too difficult for you? Are you actually claiming that because you found a photo which has washed out some of the partial erasures, that they never existed?? Are you suggesting that I, or other conspiracy people fabricated those characters, Michael? If not, then where did they come from?? And even in your your well scrubbed photo, there are clearly character segments under the initials that were supposed to be Fritz's. How do you explain those, Michael? And please answer my original question about how you proved this envelope was legitimate. So far you have only fed us a lot of unsupported claims that you can prove to save your life. And why do you continue to dodge your claim about the Muchmore film? Are you going to tell us why you made that crap up too? Robert, How exactly did I "change the color" on anything? And again, how is the envelope I posted, from Hunts excellent scan washed out? It is certainly a superior copy to the one you posed as claims of forgery. I wonder why you did not use the best evidence when you clearly knew it existed. If you are still contending that there was an erasure made, then how did they manage to do it without damageing the paper, as clearly seen in my sample envelope? I might also add that it does not take a rocket scientist to notice that "BK" is still readily visible long after the paper has been damaged. SO then If you still contend forgery, which would be dishonest at this point, how would you explain the lack of damage to the envelope in evidence? How exactly did I "change the color" on anything? You changed the color to blue. If you can't remember how you did it, then don't ask me. And will you please stop evading questions?? How do you explain the partially erased characters? Finding a photo that shows 80% of the those characters just doesn't cut it. Where did they come from Michael - even the ones on your photo. And how do you explain the obvious smudged and partially erased characters that were on the original photo as well as the ones on both?? And for the fifth time, PLEASE tell us where you see JFK reacting in the Muchmore film as he reacted in the Towner film. Are my questions too hard for you Michael?? If so, just let me know and I will repeat them with simpler words.

Yes, you certainly are. And changing the color of your little picture doesn't change anything. This is the envelope at issue, You obviously posted your photo, not because it reveals information but because it hides it. And why are you dodging my questions, Michael? Are they too difficult for you? Are you actually claiming that because you found a photo which has washed out some of the partial erasures, that they never existed?? Are you suggesting that I, or other conspiracy people fabricated those characters, Michael? If not, then where did they come from?? And even in your your well scrubbed photo, there are clearly character segments under the initials that were supposed to be Fritz's. How do you explain those, Michael? And please answer my original question about how you proved this envelope was legitimate. So far you have only fed us a lot of unsupported claims that you can prove to save your life. And why do you continue to dodge your claim about the Muchmore film? Are you going to tell us why you made that crap up too?

You have to know what it is before you can have a reason for anyone wanting to forge it. The real question isn't if the enevelop has been forged, but whose initials are on the envelop, who handled the exhibit before it was entered into evidence and what order did they handle it? I also thought that CE842 started out with three items, two fragments (lighter than a stamp) and a near complete bullet? What was in the envelope according to the first person who handled the evidence? And if there was reason for any hanky pankey, I would suggest that the culpret is one of those whose initials are on there. And if the weight of the two/three fragments is more than what is missing from CE399 they must have come from different bullets, and thus the single-bullet-theory is wrong. BK Bill, to understand why this envelope was erased and altered, you have to understand that CE399 was definitely not the bullet that was recovered from Connally's leg. He himself stated that the bullet was recovered from his leg while he was being transfered from a stretcher and that a nurse picked it up and put it in her pocket. Connally was corroborated by DA Wade, who stated that the nurse showed him the bullet and told him that it came from Connally's leg. Officer Nolan, whom I phoned, stated that the nurse also had a bullet from Connnally's leg which she gave to him to take to the DPD. This was obviously, NOT the stretcher bullet or CE399, which was rejected by every person who held it before it went to the FBI. And as John Hunt proved through the FBI's own documents, they did indeed, recover TWO bullets from Parkland and sent them in to the FBI's labs. But in those pre-SBT days, there could not be two Connally-connected bullets, since JFK was known to have been hit twice. Therefore, one of the two had to be made to evaporate. To do that, and to validate CE-399, the bullet the nurse recovered HAD to be the one to go. To do that, they tried to make it appear that the envelope officer Nolan took to the DPD actually contained CE842, which Nurse Audrey Bell gave to two plain clothed agents in her office. But the envelope Nolan received could not have been the same one, for a multitude of reasons. First, Nolan was in full Hwy Patrol uniform, but Bell was adamant that the men she gave ce842 two, not NOT in uniform. Second, Bell's initials were not on the envelope anywhere, although she was required to initial evidence envelopes that she passed on to the authorities. Nolan's nurse walked out into the hallway, asking what she should do with the envelope - something that Bell, who was a supervisor with many years of experience, would never have done. Connally aide Bill Stinson said, "Give it to him", meaning Nolan. That same nurse told Nolan that the envelope contained "a bullet" - exactly as she told Wade and exactly as Connally himself confirmed. How in hell, could that have been an envelope that contained tiny fragments from the wrist??? And in fact, DPD records confirmed that the envelope contained only ONE item. Obviously, the FBI had to alter the envelope to give the appearance that it held microscopic fragments rather than the inconvenient bullet from Connally's leg. That's why we see the erasures and write-overs, and why Bell's initials are nowhere to be found. If you haven't already, please watch my video on this subject. This is part one of two. and part 2 which includes my interview with Officer Nolan

Perhaps you didn't understand the question Michael. I did not ask you to blurt out another unsupported assertion. Just tell us how you proved that this document was not forged. That should be a simple enough request, even for you. And please tell us where in the Muchmore film, you saw JFK react as he did in the Towner film. The article speaks for itself Robert, you are ....yet again...made to look like a fool. And how do you explain the obvious erasures and alteration on that envelope?? Do you intend to keep looking for copies of the photo that are washed out enough that we can't see them?? Washed out? Funny stuff Robert....Your degraded photo is so much more clear! HAHAHAHAHAHAH! Damn!! You got me on that one, Michael. All those nasty erasures and alterations surely are gone!! I think it must have been God who removed them for you, eh Michael?? So, now that you admit that you have zero support to validate ce-842, will you please tell us why you made up that BS about the Muchmore film? Robert, This is going to get very funny, if you are contending that the photo you have and the one I have are of two different envelopes.....You are not really saying that are you? Where did I say anything about not having anything to validate CE842? Here is a clue there mensa man, there never were any erasures alterations, and you knew this, as you were the one who sent me to the Hunt article! How funny. Your lower than Fetzer lol. Michael, you cannot be this stupid. Of course, the photos are of the same envelope. But any idiot (except one) can see that the contrast was set differently in one than the other. Are you actually claiming that because you found a photo which has washed out some of the partial erasures, that they never existed?? Are you suggesting that I, or other conspiracy people fabricated those characters, Michael? If not, then where did they come from?? And even in your your well scrubbed photo, there are clearly character segments under the initials that were supposed to be Fritz's. How do you explain those, Michael? And please answer my original question about how you proved this envelope was legitimate. So far you have only fed us a lot of unsupported claims that you can prove to save your life. And why do you continue to dodge your claim about the Muchmore film? Are you going to tell us why you made that crap up too?

Perhaps you didn't understand the question Michael. I did not ask you to blurt out another unsupported assertion. Just tell us how you proved that this document was not forged. That should be a simple enough request, even for you. And please tell us where in the Muchmore film, you saw JFK react as he did in the Towner film. The article speaks for itself Robert, you are ....yet again...made to look like a fool. And how do you explain the obvious erasures and alteration on that envelope?? Do you intend to keep looking for copies of the photo that are washed out enough that we can't see them?? Washed out? Funny stuff Robert....Your degraded photo is so much more clear! HAHAHAHAHAHAH! Damn!! You got me on that one, Michael. All those nasty erasures and alterations surely are gone!! I think it must have been God who removed them for you, eh Michael?? So, now that you admit that you have zero support to validate ce-842, will you please tell us why you made up that BS about the Muchmore film?