Jump to content
The Education Forum

Robert Harris

Members
  • Posts

    618
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by Robert Harris

  1. 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??
  2. 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. Michael, there is absolutely nothing in that article which even claims to prove that the initials were authentic - that is ZERO, Zip. Nothing Michael. Why are you trying to convince people that there was? And why do you continue to evade my question about the Muchmore film? Is it because you don't want to admit that you just made up this claim about about JFK reacting as he did in the Towner film? Why do you have to make all these phony claims, Michael?
  3. 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.
  4. Look at the Muchmore. Do I have to hold your hand for everything? oh yea....and the Limo was blue.... I looked at the muchmore film and there were no reactions by JFK that were even close to what we see in the Towner film. You need to stop making things up Michael. Really? Are you sure, or are you on the edge of another heartbreak? ROFLMAO!! Oh, I don't think my heart is at much risk, Michael. wait till you see the next article lol. Your video is the star! I'm sure you have some great smear pieces and a lot of phony claims in store for me, Michael. But first, would you mind showing us where in in the Muchmore film, JFK reacted as he did in the Towner film?? Sure thing there chief as soon as you face the forgery of CE842 lol. Is proving you wrong...again.....a smear campaign? And what exactly did you "prove" michael? Please be specific. That your in denial? www.jfkballistics.com/CE842.html and the limo was blue....Robert....not black.... Micheal, stop trying to weasel out of the question. What exactly did you prove in that article that is relevant to whether the document was legitimate. And when do you intend to show us where in the Muchmore film that JFK reacted as he did in the Towner flick??? You need to stop evading questions, Michael.
  5. Look at the Muchmore. Do I have to hold your hand for everything? oh yea....and the Limo was blue.... I looked at the muchmore film and there were no reactions by JFK that were even close to what we see in the Towner film. You need to stop making things up Michael. Really? Are you sure, or are you on the edge of another heartbreak? ROFLMAO!! Oh, I don't think my heart is at much risk, Michael. wait till you see the next article lol. Your video is the star! I'm sure you have some great smear pieces and a lot of phony claims in store for me, Michael. But first, would you mind showing us where in in the Muchmore film, JFK reacted as he did in the Towner film?? Sure thing there chief as soon as you face the forgery of CE842 lol. Is proving you wrong...again.....a smear campaign? And what exactly did you "prove" michael? Please be specific.
  6. This shot was not fired from a rooftop Jerry. It was probably fired from the third floor where that partially broken window was located. I hope you will take the time to watch my video. It's the reactions and the fact that they began precisely as the limo pulled in front of that window, that gives it away. At the time JFK reacted, the limo was well within range of a .22 rifle, even a suppressed one. But as I also explain in the video, suppressors are notorious for causing wildly inaccurate shots, which is why the first two missed entirely, and the third was so far off the mark, in spite of hitting JFK in the back.
  7. Look at the Muchmore. Do I have to hold your hand for everything? oh yea....and the Limo was blue.... I looked at the muchmore film and there were no reactions by JFK that were even close to what we see in the Towner film. You need to stop making things up Michael. Really? Are you sure, or are you on the edge of another heartbreak? ROFLMAO!! Oh, I don't think my heart is at much risk, Michael. wait till you see the next article lol. Your video is the star! I'm sure you have some great smear pieces and a lot of phony claims in store for me, Michael. But first, would you mind showing us where in in the Muchmore film, JFK reacted as he did in the Towner film??
  8. Look at the Muchmore. Do I have to hold your hand for everything? oh yea....and the Limo was blue.... I looked at the muchmore film and there were no reactions by JFK that were even close to what we see in the Towner film. You need to stop making things up Michael. Really? Are you sure, or are you on the edge of another heartbreak? ROFLMAO!! Oh, I don't think my heart is at much risk, Michael.
  9. I believe I have always said the sound would be a min of 100 nowhere have I said otherwise. Now that is funny. Luckily you did not appear to notice the unsuppressed weapons firing in the background, which I assure you are much louder in person. How could you have missed that? Oh Robert, you are a prankster. I'm not the one who said a silenced weapon would not be heard, you were. In fact, I am the one who clued you in to the fact that a silenced weapon would be heard, which of course they would. Now your going to have to come better than this Robert, don't you ever get tired of being redfaced? www.jfkballistics.com/CE842.html Oh yea,.......and the limo was blue......not black LMAO. Michael, you need to take a course in critical thinking. It's nice that nutters matched the letters in two of the initials with their names. But that is light years from proving that they were legitimate. It is obvious beyond any possible doubt, that erased and partially erased characters were overwritten on that envelope. And yes, we can hear MUCH louder gunshots in the background of that video,which were obviously not suppressed. That's because the suppressors the guy was using were extremely effective. The bottom line is, that it is infinitely more likely that suppressed shots would go unnoticed, than unsuppressed shots. And that is exactly what happened.
  10. Look at the Muchmore. Do I have to hold your hand for everything? oh yea....and the Limo was blue.... I looked at the muchmore film and there were no reactions by JFK that were even close to what we see in the Towner film. You need to stop making things up Michael. Interested lurkers who just tuned it, might want to look at the reactions that are at issue here. They are very clearly displayed in the early part of this video,
  11. Look at the Muchmore. Do I have to hold your hand for everything? oh yea....and the Limo was blue.... I looked at the muchmore film and there were no reactions by JFK that were even close to what we see in the Towner film. You need to stop making things up Michael.
  12. Thanks David. I think if JFK's reaction had been to the limo striking the curb or braking, he might have been thrown forward, but not to his left, toward Jackie. And the others riding with him would have reacted similarly. Nor would he have balled his hand into a fist. Those reactions were unique. JFK never reacted like that during the motorcade previously or undoubtedly, any other time in his life. And the reactions began JUST as the limo pulled in front of the Daltex building and the window that was partially broken out on the third floor. In the past, people blew off the notion that there was a shot then, because most witnesses said they never heard shots until later. But we have ignored the possibility that a suppressed weapon was used, which not only explains why most people never heard that shot, but why shots were fired wildly, missing the entire limousine. Suppressors are notorious for causing problems like that. And the mafia had been using suppressors for decades prior to 1963. There is no reason at all that they wouldn't have used them in the attack on JFK - when the limo was relatively close. Harris you are a trip. Seems you never learn your lesson. We have already proven that there was no exterior damage to the Limo, indicating no fragments struck it, we have already determined that no other occupant was hit by your imaginary fragments, so somehow these managed to not hit the Limo or anyone but JFK? :unsure: Were these special "controlled fragmentation" rounds, much like Fetzer's "controlled demolition" charges? As you have also been told a silencer would still have emitted well over 100db, unless you are really going to contend someone was shooting sub sonic ammunition, which is idiotic at best. The shot would have been perfectly audible. JFK's movements are replicated in other parts of the motorcade, as Mark Henceroth pointed out to you. Not to mention that just scant seconds later the President is smiling widely and waving to the crowd. Would you do that if you had just been struck so severely by fragments that you ducked for cover? And you have yet to prove that JFK was making a fist at all. You seem like this is a forgone conclusion, but how could you tell this when you apparently can't determine the color of the 20 foot long several thousand pound limo the man was riding in? Um.....Robert....once again the limo was blue...... :ice Michael, you did not prove that the limo was never pelted by debris from a missed shot, by citing Frazier stating that a bullet didn't damage the limo. The most that would result from a piece of asphalt striking the vehicle would be a tiny scratch - if that. You seem to be desperate to refute what 99% of your fellow nutters already believe. And the only one who told me that all suppressors generated "well over 100db", was YOU. This video, which I showed you before, give us a good perspective on the levels generated by small, suppressed weapons - a pistol AND a rifle. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EfPO6cFstTk And even if you were right, 130db which is the level generated by Oswald's rifle is EIGHT TIMES louder than 100db. The difference is huge. How typical of you to not realize the difference in the sound of a video and the sound in real life. "Live tests by independent reviewers of numerous commercially available suppressors find that even low caliber unsuppressed .22 LR firearms produce gunshots over 160 decibels.[7] In testing, most of the suppressors reduced the volume to between 130 and 145 dB, with the quietest suppressors metering at 117 dB. The actual suppression of sound ranged from 14.3 to 43 dB, with most data points around the 30 dB mark." Does that video sound like 130 to 145 dB to you? hahahahahahahah! Robert your inability to comprehend the obvious never ceases to amaze me. Oh yea....and the Limo was blue..... Strange, that yesterday suppressors generate levels of 100db and today that's grown to 160:-) That cite is from tests conducted by Robert Silvers, who positioned a microphone ONE METER from the barrel. Did you even bother to read his testing procedures? http://silencertalk.com/2209-method.htm And the video I referenced generated real sound levels, with no clipping or signs of the mike being overdriven. And we have the man's voice to compare the sound levels with. Michael, the overwhelming consensus of the witnesses in DP that day, was that they heard only ONE early shot prior to the end of the attack. Even he WC admitted that. Therefore, at least one of those shots went unheard. The only possible explanation for that is, that a suppressed weapon was used. The alternative, which YOU want us to buy is, that those people couldn't hear an unsuppressed weapon, which is utter nonsense.
  13. Thanks David. I think if JFK's reaction had been to the limo striking the curb or braking, he might have been thrown forward, but not to his left, toward Jackie. And the others riding with him would have reacted similarly. Nor would he have balled his hand into a fist. Those reactions were unique. JFK never reacted like that during the motorcade previously or undoubtedly, any other time in his life. And the reactions began JUST as the limo pulled in front of the Daltex building and the window that was partially broken out on the third floor. In the past, people blew off the notion that there was a shot then, because most witnesses said they never heard shots until later. But we have ignored the possibility that a suppressed weapon was used, which not only explains why most people never heard that shot, but why shots were fired wildly, missing the entire limousine. Suppressors are notorious for causing problems like that. And the mafia had been using suppressors for decades prior to 1963. There is no reason at all that they wouldn't have used them in the attack on JFK - when the limo was relatively close. Harris you are a trip. Seems you never learn your lesson. We have already proven that there was no exterior damage to the Limo, indicating no fragments struck it, we have already determined that no other occupant was hit by your imaginary fragments, so somehow these managed to not hit the Limo or anyone but JFK? :unsure: Were these special "controlled fragmentation" rounds, much like Fetzer's "controlled demolition" charges? As you have also been told a silencer would still have emitted well over 100db, unless you are really going to contend someone was shooting sub sonic ammunition, which is idiotic at best. The shot would have been perfectly audible. JFK's movements are replicated in other parts of the motorcade, as Mark Henceroth pointed out to you. Not to mention that just scant seconds later the President is smiling widely and waving to the crowd. Would you do that if you had just been struck so severely by fragments that you ducked for cover? And you have yet to prove that JFK was making a fist at all. You seem like this is a forgone conclusion, but how could you tell this when you apparently can't determine the color of the 20 foot long several thousand pound limo the man was riding in? Um.....Robert....once again the limo was blue...... :ice Michael, you did not prove that the limo was never pelted by debris from a missed shot, by citing Frazier stating that a bullet didn't damage the limo. The most that would result from a piece of asphalt striking the vehicle would be a tiny scratch - if that. You seem to be desperate to refute what 99% of your fellow nutters already believe. And the only one who told me that all suppressors generated "well over 100db", was YOU. This video, which I showed you before, give us a good perspective on the levels generated by small, suppressed weapons - a pistol AND a rifle. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EfPO6cFstTk And even if you were right, 130db which is the level generated by Oswald's rifle is EIGHT TIMES louder than 100db. The difference is huge. How typical of you to not realize the difference in the sound of a video and the sound in real life. "Live tests by independent reviewers of numerous commercially available suppressors find that even low caliber unsuppressed .22 LR firearms produce gunshots over 160 decibels.[7] In testing, most of the suppressors reduced the volume to between 130 and 145 dB, with the quietest suppressors metering at 117 dB. The actual suppression of sound ranged from 14.3 to 43 dB, with most data points around the 30 dB mark." Does that video sound like 130 to 145 dB to you? hahahahahahahah! Robert your inability to comprehend the obvious never ceases to amaze me. Oh yea....and the Limo was blue..... Strange, that yesterday suppressors generate levels of 100db and today that's grown to 160:-) That cite is from tests conducted by Robert Silvers, who positioned a microphone ONE METER from the barrel. Did you even bother to read his testing procedures? http://silencertalk.com/2209-method.htm And the video I referenced generated real sound levels, with no clipping or signs of the mike being overdriven. And we have the man's voice to compare the sound levels with. Michael, the overwhelming consensus of the witnesses in DP that day, was that they heard only ONE early shot prior to the end of the attack. Event he WC admitted that. Therefore, at least one of those shots went unheard. The only possible explanation for that is, that a suppressed weapon was used. The alternative, which YOU want us to buy is, that those people couldn't hear an unsuppressed weapon, which is utter nonsense.
  14. "JFK's movements are replicated in other parts of the motorcade, as Mark Henceroth pointed out to you." Absolute BS. But don't be bashful Michael. Show us the video in which you saw JFK react as he did during the Towner film.
  15. Thanks David. I think if JFK's reaction had been to the limo striking the curb or braking, he might have been thrown forward, but not to his left, toward Jackie. And the others riding with him would have reacted similarly. Nor would he have balled his hand into a fist. Those reactions were unique. JFK never reacted like that during the motorcade previously or undoubtedly, any other time in his life. And the reactions began JUST as the limo pulled in front of the Daltex building and the window that was partially broken out on the third floor. In the past, people blew off the notion that there was a shot then, because most witnesses said they never heard shots until later. But we have ignored the possibility that a suppressed weapon was used, which not only explains why most people never heard that shot, but why shots were fired wildly, missing the entire limousine. Suppressors are notorious for causing problems like that. And the mafia had been using suppressors for decades prior to 1963. There is no reason at all that they wouldn't have used them in the attack on JFK - when the limo was relatively close. Harris you are a trip. Seems you never learn your lesson. We have already proven that there was no exterior damage to the Limo, indicating no fragments struck it, we have already determined that no other occupant was hit by your imaginary fragments, so somehow these managed to not hit the Limo or anyone but JFK? :unsure: Were these special "controlled fragmentation" rounds, much like Fetzer's "controlled demolition" charges? As you have also been told a silencer would still have emitted well over 100db, unless you are really going to contend someone was shooting sub sonic ammunition, which is idiotic at best. The shot would have been perfectly audible. JFK's movements are replicated in other parts of the motorcade, as Mark Henceroth pointed out to you. Not to mention that just scant seconds later the President is smiling widely and waving to the crowd. Would you do that if you had just been struck so severely by fragments that you ducked for cover? And you have yet to prove that JFK was making a fist at all. You seem like this is a forgone conclusion, but how could you tell this when you apparently can't determine the color of the 20 foot long several thousand pound limo the man was riding in? Um.....Robert....once again the limo was blue...... :ice Michael, you did not prove that the limo was never pelted by debris from a missed shot, by citing Frazier stating that a bullet didn't damage the limo. The most that would result from a piece of asphalt striking the vehicle would be a tiny scratch - if that. You seem to be desperate to refute what 99% of your fellow nutters already believe. And the only one who told me that all suppressors generated "well over 100db", was YOU. This video, which I showed you before, give us a good perspective on the levels generated by small, suppressed weapons - a pistol AND a rifle. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EfPO6cFstTk And even if you were right, 130db which is the level generated by Oswald's rifle is EIGHT TIMES louder than 100db. The difference is huge.
  16. Of course it was forged. There are at least half a dozen erased or segmented characters over which other initials were written. That would not be acceptable in any court of law. It would have made that evidence inadmissable.
  17. Michael, your selection of an image that has been enhanced in a way that hides many of the erased and partially erased characters, demonstrates your integrity about as well as anything I could ever say about you. It also demonstrates a total absence of critical thinking skills. Did you actually believe that by finding such an image that the problem goes away? This is the image which proves that CE842 was altered and that information was erased. Von Pein countered with a very dark, low resolution copy of it. You countered with this thing. All the two of you prove by doing this is that you have no interest at all in getting to the truth and that you have absolutely zero integrity. This is the image that I enhanced to bring out the erased characters and partially erased characters. Robert, The image I selected is right from the Hunt article you cited. I did not in any way enhance anything, I simply took the scanned image that Mr. Hunt made at the archives, when he found the envelope, and posted it. Hunts article here. Since you cited this very article, I can only wonder why you did not use this very good scan in your assessment, rather than the poor copy you choose? I would say that zero integrity may involve not using the very best possible evidence. Zero integrity may involve using a degraded photo that has shadows, and trying to build a case around it when you know very well a more clear copy exists, but no matter. I see you clearly do not critique the scan, but only my integrity, which of course just goes to show how little recourse you have left. Do you really contend that there has been an erasure on this envelope? Your kidding me right? You are an absolute imbecile.
  18. Michael, your selection of an image that has been enhanced in a way that hides many of the erased and partially erased characters, demonstrates your integrity about as well as anything I could ever say about you. It also demonstrates a total absence of critical thinking skills. Did you actually believe that by finding such an image that the problem goes away? This is the image which proves that CE842 was altered and that information was erased. Von Pein countered with a very dark, low resolution copy of it. You countered with this thing. All the two of you prove by doing this is that you have no interest at all in getting to the truth and that you have absolutely zero integrity. This is the image that I enhanced to bring out the erased characters and partially erased characters.
  19. I can't believe that even you would be stupid enough to make an argument like this.
  20. Thanks David. I think if JFK's reaction had been to the limo striking the curb or braking, he might have been thrown forward, but not to his left, toward Jackie. And the others riding with him would have reacted similarly. Nor would he have balled his hand into a fist. Those reactions were unique. JFK never reacted like that during the motorcade previously or undoubtedly, any other time in his life. And the reactions began JUST as the limo pulled in front of the Daltex building and the window that was partially broken out on the third floor. In the past, people blew off the notion that there was a shot then, because most witnesses said they never heard shots until later. But we have ignored the possibility that a suppressed weapon was used, which not only explains why most people never heard that shot, but why shots were fired wildly, missing the entire limousine. Suppressors are notorious for causing problems like that. And the mafia had been using suppressors for decades prior to 1963. There is no reason at all that they wouldn't have used them in the attack on JFK - when the limo was relatively close.
  21. 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. How did you determine that there was no damage or scratches on the limo Michael. Please be specific. And when do you intend to answer my questions. If JFK was reacting to the driver braking, why did that cause him to ball his hand into a fist and then fall toward Jackie? And why didn't any of the other limo passengers react as he did?? I don't see Jacking balling her hand into a fist. Why not??? As for proof that he balled his hand into a fist, of course I have absolute proof in the Towner film. You can watch it here. http://www.youtube.com/user/bobharris77#p/u/8/gkAc76n8q44 As for the fact that you are a xxxxx, the quality of your arguments and logic, proves that. You don't even defend your arguments from one thread to the next, because you have no position. You only look for excuses to attack and insult me and endlessly spew out excrement that you don't believe for a millisecond. Demanding that I "prove" JFK balled his hand into a fist and then fell to his left, is a classic example. And so is your claim that the reactions were caused by the limousine braking. Any idiot knows those are bogus arguments. It was like demanding that I prove the limo was black.
  22. Like many others, including Brehm, Moorman and J Hill, Clint Hill did not hear any of the early shots. Look at him in the Altgens photo, taken at Z255. He is the ONLY agent on the running boards who is not looking back or reacting. He leaped from the running board almost simultaneous with the shot at 312-313, in reaction to a shot that was immediately prior to that. And he thought (mistakenly of course), that JFK first reacted, almost simultaneous with him jumping, Representative FORD. Did you see the President put his hands to his throat and chest while you were still on the followup car, or after you had left it? Mr. HILL. As I was leaving.. Hill jumped from the running board in reaction to the shot at 285, thinking that was the first shot and that JFK had just started to react. Nothing else makes sense. This is really silly, Robert. If Hill saw Kennedy put his hands to his throat, he saw him BEFORE Z-285, and the shot he heard BEFORE he saw Kennedy reach for his throat was therefore seconds BEFORE Z-285. Your trying to spin him as a witness for a shot at Z-285 just doesn't work. Hill, like HARGIS and a number of others, heard two shots--an early one to which Kennedy reacted, and a second one they associated with the large head wound. Many more thought there were two shots, bang-bang, around the time Kennedy was struck in the head. If you're gonna argue for a shot at Z-285, your best bet is to argue that it was the first of the two shots people heard as bang-bang, and Hill (and others) heard as one sound. But that's also problematic. Most of the closest witnesses--Brehm, Moorman, Hill, Hudson, Summers--heard a shot after the headshot, which suggests the headshot was the first of the two shots heard as bang-bang by so many, and not the second. Your belief that Hill saw JFK with his hands raised prior to 285, is in direct contradiction to what he said. To put it another way, if you want to know what shot Hill heard, then listen to him. Hill believed that JFK first raised his hands, as he was jumping off the running board, which he did at or a hair prior to 312. Read the citation I posted from his WC testimony. And he said that he was scanning a small group in a grassy area who were watching the limo pass them. On the left hand side was a grass area with a few people scattered along it observing the motorcade passing, and I was visually scanning these people when I heard a noise similar to a firecracker. This is important, Pat. Look at him at frame 223. He is looking slightly to the right and could not possibly be scanning people on the lefthand side of the road. In fact, he NEVER looks to his left while he was visible in the Zfilm. And while you're looking at him in the wide film, look at his orientation at 247-249, as we lose sight of him. Then look at his orientation a third of a second later in the Altgens photo. He is turning at a fairly rapid pace, to his left, and toward Brehm and the people around him. At that pace, he was scanning those people about a second prior to the shot. High powered rifle shots are very loud and very startling. Clint Hill did not and could not have heard such a thing and then just stood around for five seconds, picking his nose. We would expect him to react immediately, and when he heard what he believed was a real gunshot, he did. I agree with you that there was another shot after 312-313, but it was probably fired from a handgun which was subsonic and much weaker than the rifleshot that preceded it by a small fraction of a second. A majority of people never heard it, or wrote it off as an echo. Robert, Is this another "smiling and waving" fiasco? There is no possible way you can tell where Hills eyes are looking.....Hes wearing friggin sunglasses! Do you ever make any assertions based on facts? Or is conjecture your only strong suit? I have no idea what "smiling and waving" fiasco you are talking about Michael. Sounds like it's long past Miller time for you, eh:-) And your argument that we cannot tell which direction Hill was facing, because he was wearing sunglasses, it just goofy. Even if he wasn't wearing them, we could not see his eyes from that distance. But it is obvious, that his head was turned to the right then, and that he was not scanning people on the south side of the road. Oh Robert you are a wonder. You have no idea what I am talking about in regard to the smiling and waving fiasco? Really? I would think this through if I were you. So you make my point and agree that it is impossible to determine where Hill is looking? You readily admit you can not see his eyes, so you are making an assumption based on a slight angle of the head, even though the eyes are capable of seeing nearly 180 degrees with no head movement? You may have a future in comedy. No, I have no idea what you are talking about. But if I made such a fool out of myself, then why are you so bashful about explaining it to everyone in detail??? Tell us about my "fiasco" Michael. Why are you being so bashful? I stated that Hill could not have been "scanning" people on the South side of Elm, as any idiot can easily see. I can't believe that even you would dispute that fact. You're not making any sense at all tonight, Michael.
  23. 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.
  24. Like many others, including Brehm, Moorman and J Hill, Clint Hill did not hear any of the early shots. Look at him in the Altgens photo, taken at Z255. He is the ONLY agent on the running boards who is not looking back or reacting. He leaped from the running board almost simultaneous with the shot at 312-313, in reaction to a shot that was immediately prior to that. And he thought (mistakenly of course), that JFK first reacted, almost simultaneous with him jumping, Representative FORD. Did you see the President put his hands to his throat and chest while you were still on the followup car, or after you had left it? Mr. HILL. As I was leaving.. Hill jumped from the running board in reaction to the shot at 285, thinking that was the first shot and that JFK had just started to react. Nothing else makes sense. This is really silly, Robert. If Hill saw Kennedy put his hands to his throat, he saw him BEFORE Z-285, and the shot he heard BEFORE he saw Kennedy reach for his throat was therefore seconds BEFORE Z-285. Your trying to spin him as a witness for a shot at Z-285 just doesn't work. Hill, like HARGIS and a number of others, heard two shots--an early one to which Kennedy reacted, and a second one they associated with the large head wound. Many more thought there were two shots, bang-bang, around the time Kennedy was struck in the head. If you're gonna argue for a shot at Z-285, your best bet is to argue that it was the first of the two shots people heard as bang-bang, and Hill (and others) heard as one sound. But that's also problematic. Most of the closest witnesses--Brehm, Moorman, Hill, Hudson, Summers--heard a shot after the headshot, which suggests the headshot was the first of the two shots heard as bang-bang by so many, and not the second. Your belief that Hill saw JFK with his hands raised prior to 285, is in direct contradiction to what he said. To put it another way, if you want to know what shot Hill heard, then listen to him. Hill believed that JFK first raised his hands, as he was jumping off the running board, which he did at or a hair prior to 312. Read the citation I posted from his WC testimony. And he said that he was scanning a small group in a grassy area who were watching the limo pass them. On the left hand side was a grass area with a few people scattered along it observing the motorcade passing, and I was visually scanning these people when I heard a noise similar to a firecracker. This is important, Pat. Look at him at frame 223. He is looking slightly to the right and could not possibly be scanning people on the lefthand side of the road. In fact, he NEVER looks to his left while he was visible in the Zfilm. And while you're looking at him in the wide film, look at his orientation at 247-249, as we lose sight of him. Then look at his orientation a third of a second later in the Altgens photo. He is turning at a fairly rapid pace, to his left, and toward Brehm and the people around him. At that pace, he was scanning those people about a second prior to the shot. High powered rifle shots are very loud and very startling. Clint Hill did not and could not have heard such a thing and then just stood around for five seconds, picking his nose. We would expect him to react immediately, and when he heard what he believed was a real gunshot, he did. I agree with you that there was another shot after 312-313, but it was probably fired from a handgun which was subsonic and much weaker than the rifleshot that preceded it by a small fraction of a second. A majority of people never heard it, or wrote it off as an echo. Robert, Is this another "smiling and waving" fiasco? There is no possible way you can tell where Hills eyes are looking.....Hes wearing friggin sunglasses! Do you ever make any assertions based on facts? Or is conjecture your only strong suit? I have no idea what "smiling and waving" fiasco you are talking about Michael. Sounds like it's long past Miller time for you, eh:-) And your argument that we cannot tell which direction Hill was facing, because he was wearing sunglasses, it just goofy. Even if he wasn't wearing them, we could not see his eyes from that distance. But it is obvious, that his head was turned to the right then, and that he was not scanning people on the south side of the road.
  25. 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?
×
×
  • Create New...