Robert Harris

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.

Even if one includes Bennett as a firm witness for a first shot miss, however, and arbitrarily dismisses the statements of those hearing only two shots under the assumption they failed to hear the first shot, and the statements of those claiming the first shot was the head shot under the assumption their recollections are just not credible, the score remains 23-1 in favor of statements indicating that three shots were fired and the first one hit, vs. statements indicating that three shots were fired and the first one missed. Unless someone can come up with a reason why all these witnesses were wrong while Bennett, who was not even asked to testify to clarify his statements, was right, the evidence is overwhelming that the first shot hit. Pat, you are wrong. First, do a tally of the witnesses who were watching Jackie durng the early Zfilm. Everyone I am aware of, said she was looking to her left when the first shot was fired - including her. And she began to react by 170, turning toward her husband, never looking to the left side of the road again. There was a shot fired circa 160 which was heard by some witnesses - perhaps because it made a noise when it shattered on the pavement. We see both Jackie and JFK react to it simultaneously. But no-one heard the shot at 223, including John Connally. That's because the early shots were fired from a suppressed weapon. Nor did they hear the shot that was fired during the Towner film. Now, before anyone laughs at that suggestion, PLEASE watch this video or at least, the first part of it. If JFK was not reacting to a gunshot then, then what was he reacting to?? http://www.jfkhistory.com/ALL/ALL.mov If is also available on Youtube, http://www.youtube.com/user/bobharris77#p/u/8/gkAc76n8q44

Robin, both Hickey and Hill--and apparently the rest of those in the SS car- had heard only one shot at the time of the Altgens photo. This supports what is clear from the bulk of their testimony--that the last two shots were bunched together around the time of the head shot. This, of course, is problematic for the LN theory, in that not only does such a bunching undermine that Oswald fired the shots with a bolt-action rifle, but that a close study of the Z-film shows Kennedy and Connally react to shots at two different times BEFORE the Altgens photo was taken. This led me to explore the possibility that at least one of these shots was fired from a silenced or sub-sonic weapon. You are correct that Hickey and most of the other agents heard a "noise" prior to the Altgens photo, but Clint Hill had not. He told the WC (mistakenly) that JFK first reacted at the same time he leaped from the running board (see the cite in my previous post), which was almost simultaneous with the 312 shot. He could only have been reacting to the shot at 285. Consider this, from his original report, 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. The ONLY group which matches that description is Brehm, his son, BL, Jean H and Moorman. In the wide version of the Zfilm we can see that throughout the film, he was never scanning people on the left side of the road, up to the point where we lose sight of him, just before 250. But in the Altgens photo, we can see that he has turned a considerable distance to his left, since our last sighting of him the film. Ergo, at that instant he was in the act of turning toward the south side of Elm. That put him right on schedule to be "scanning" Brehm & co at 285. And at 285, the President passes within a tad less than 20 feet of Brehm, who stated that day, that JFK was "15-20 feet" from him when he heard the first of several shots. Standing to his left Jean Hill said the limo was "almost abreast" of her position when she heard the shot. Mary Moorman stated, As I snapped the picture of President Kennedy, I heard a shot ring out. President Kennedy kind of slumped over. Then I heard another shot ring out and Mrs. Kennedy jumped up in the car and said, "My God he had been shot." When I heard these shots ring out, I fell to the ground to keep from being hit myself. I heard three or four shots in all. Greer said the final shots were almost simultaneous; Kellerman said they were like a "flurry" and likened them to a pair of sonic booms from a jet plane. Even the WC admitted that MOST witnesses reported a single early shot and then closely bunched shots at the end. Why do people have such a hard time grasping that there were shots at 285 and 312?

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.

Bill, I think we have to ask a much simpler and less speculative question. How many of those things CAN be proven - by him or anyone else?

I like to learn. Can you post, or provide a link to the proof? Duncan, I would urge you to watch the video I made on this subject. After you see it, perhaps you can provide some answers that other LN advocates have not. http://www.youtube.com/user/bobharris77#p/u/10/HKwqhf0MYio and part two, http://www.youtube.com/user/bobharris77#p/u/9/SQDp8tBJhC4

Martin, did you ever consider that whoever took that movie, never attempted to cash in on the hundreds of thousands and probably millions of dollars that it would have fetched? I am hard pressed to think of a good reason for that, other than the obvious.

The summary is not too inspiring, IMO. It sounds like Mr. Martin just decided to write a book presenting his (apparently untested) theories. Still, hopefully the book will make some points and present some fresh arguments... I couldn't agree more. Anyone claiming that he has a technique to trace the source of bullet trajectories in the Zapruder film, using anything more than basic geometry is pitching pure voodoo science. This is reminiscent of the guy (forgot his name) who claimed he could see "bullet trails" in the film.

This is from the HSCA reports, Mr. CORNWELL. ...it has been reported to us by our research staff that in the L.B.J. Library in Austin there is a memo prepared by, or reflecting a conversation between, Mr. Hoover and the White House, Walter Jenkins. The conversation reflects that Hoover made the following statement: "The thing I am most concerned about, and Mr. Katzenbach, is having something issued so that they can convince the public that Oswald is the real assassin," It is enlightening that just a few days after that, in a phone conversation between LBJ and Hoover, Hoover suggested that the reason Connally was wounded was that he came between JFK and a sniper. Of course, that is not what happened but Hoover, who was very tight with the mob always knew that the crime was not the result of a single shooter.

So lets see. In Harris theory the initials of Bell, turn out to be that of Fritz when turned over! Hilariously stupid error in my book. SO Bill, Perhaps you would like to prove another part of the theory for Robert, since he so obviously cant. Can you prove there was anything erased and written over? Can you prove any of his other ridiculous assumptions? Step on up. Everyone gets a swing at the ball! Mike Hi Mike, That was all Jimmy D speaking, not me. I just posted it for him. But he seems to make sense. Although we don't have to think in terms of the fake trail they had in London or a hypothetical trial of Oswald, we can still take this to court while going after the real killers. Sorry, I can't follow this chain or hardly any of the chain of custody of any of the evidence. All the chains seem to break at the first few rungs and I don't think its because of the incompentency of the Dallas cops. I think they did it on purpose. Now looking at this just briefly, you mean to tell me that there even is/was an envelop that contained a bullet and two to four fragments taken from Connally, and all the people who handled this envelop signed their initials to it just like they do on CSI Miami? But nobody knows who the nurse was who started the chain? I get the part where the cop delivers it to Fritz's office, but he doesn't know who he gave it to there? And then we have Fritz's signature initials on it, upside down. And Von Pain quotes a Warren Commission doctor who actually had the fragments in hand who, when asked if they weighed more than what was missing from CE399 actually responds with the size, and says they weighted as much as a postage stamp? How much does a postage stamp weight, and how much is missing from CE399? BK The average stamp weights about a gram, or 15 grains. We know that 399 has much less loss. However a grain is 1/7000th of a pound. I hardly think we can determine anything conclusively by what anyone guessed, considering the minute weight involved. I think the most 399 could weigh is 162. Loss from firing .4-.6 grains. So that leaves us with 161.5 potentially (using the average of .4 to.6) Found it weighed 158.6 so it would have a loss of no more than 2.9 grains. As you know Bill I am hardly one to support the SBT, at least not yet. So I really have no dog in this race. I still can not help but bust a gut when I see the Robert "upside down" Harris make such gross assumptions, just to have it blow up in his face. Since I have no communication with Jim DiEugenio Please pass on to him, that if he wished to include me in a conversation, to please have to stones to step up to the plate here himself and speak directly to me. I have little respect for a man who feels the need to go through another to make a simple post. If he cant stand his own ground, then he should refrain. What do you mean what the average stamp weighs? Can't they weight bullet fragments? Is that how you determine ballistics, compare the weight of bullet fragments to average postage stamps and then weight the stamp to see how much the bullet fragment weighs? What kind of investigation is that? And if you have such little respect for a man who feels the need to go through another to make a simple post, who can't stand on his own ground, then why did you bring a donkey like Barron Von Pain to a dog race? BK Bill, I was not the one who compared the fragments to the stamp, a doctor did. I in fact proposed that this was not an accurate method, in that the weights are very minute. This should clearly tell you that I would not investigate that way at all. I only addressed it at all because you asked the question: Now as for DVP. It was not I who tried to claim that DVP agreed to the erasing on the envelope, Harris did. I simply corrected his error, yet again, in showing that DVP was not in fact in agreement. What is the issue here? I was not speaking for DVP, nor posting for him. I was simply relating, yet again, another piece of fabrication by Bob Harris. I would hope that if someone misrepresented me, you would do the same. I know that if someone horribly misrepresented you, of totally fabricated a statement, and tried to pass it off as your words, I would certainly stand up for you even if I did not agree with you. I never in my life stated that Von Pein "agreed to the erasing on the envelope". I said at that point in time, that he never disputed it. PLEASE stop misrepresenting me. And anyone who denies that the CE842 envelope was erased and altered, just doesn't have all four wheels on the ground. Look closely at this envelope which I posted for both you and David a long time ago in the other forum, http://jfkhistory.com/ce842x.jpg This could not have been the same envelope that Bell filled out and initialed. And it could not have been originally labeled as containing multiple fragments. Not only did the DPD list it in their inventory as containing a single frag but Frazier testified to the WC that it only contained one as well, which was probably a somewhat mutilated bullet. And it is obvious, that the person who wrote in "fragments" was not the same person who filled out the other information on the envelope - despite the fact that Bell said she filled it out by herself. And I don't think any rational person can avoid doubts about the initials that are on that envelope. The alterations and erasures made it worthless in a court of law and Fritz would never have signed off on such a thing. Initials are easy to copy. Give me 10 minutes and I will give you a good duplicate of any of them. Von Pein's argument is that two secret service agents just forgot to initial CE-399 and then nurse Bell just forgot to initial the CE842 evidence envelope. And I'm still waiting for his excuse for why Todd's initials disappeared from CE399. What you guys don't get is that when Hoover said "the public must be convinced" that Oswald acted alone, he meant it.

This kind of article is typical of David Von Pein and his partner, Mike Williams. He seems to believe he has a scored some kind of victory by stating that the garbled initials which have been written over erased and partially erased characters on that envelope, look more like Will Fritz's than nurse Audrey Bell's. But the simple fact is, that whoever those initials belonged to, they could not be authentic. Look at the image in the posting above, paying particular attention to the character segments and partially erased characters that are mixed in with the garbled initials. Fritz should have been the last man to sign off on that envelope before it went to the FBI and would NEVER have signed off on a garbled mess like that, which would have gotten the evidence in the envelope thrown out of court. The erasures and alterations could ONLY have been done AFTER the envelope was passed on to the FBI. More importantly, nurse Bell's initials are nowhere to be seen on the envelope, in spite of the fact that she was required to sign off on it, and that she obviously expected to spot them when she was shown the envelope during her ARRB interrogation. Almost everything Bell stated, contradicted what Nolan said. Bell said two men in suits who were from the FBI or Secret Service, came into her office, where she turned over the envelope that contained particles from Connally's wrists. She was adamant that they were not in uniform, as Officer Nolan was. Nolan said a young nurse came out into the hallway and asked who she should give the envelope to and Connallly's aide, Bill Stinson told her to give it to Nolan. She told him at the time that it contained a "bullet" from Gov. Connally's leg. The next day, Nolan took it to the DPD, where it was logged in as a single fragment. But how could they have done that if it was labeled as containing multiple "fragments" from Connally's wrist, as the final version of that envelope was? Perhaps the fact that the handwriting which described them as plural, was distinctly different from the handwriting above that line, just might have had something to do with it. This was important evidence folks, in a rather important case. There is no way the police would have labeled it as singular if the envelope was labeled then, as plural - unless of course, that description was written in later. This was undoubtedly, the same nurse who Gov. Connally described, retrieving the bullet that fell from his thigh as he was being transferred into his hospital bed, and the same nurse who showed the bullet to Dallas DA Henry Wade. It was certainly NOT nurse Bell, who as an experienced supervisor would never have walked out into the hall, asking what she should do with an evidence envelope. Of course David and his minion is aware of all this but chooses to evade the facts which prove this envelope was an obvious forgery. Even he does not dispute the fact that initials have been erased and overwritten. But rather than discuss those facts, he instead looks for "gotchas" which he hopes to use to embarrass his adversaries. The simple fact is, that every relevant piece of evidence supports the fact that the ce842 envelope was altered and contained forged characters. Look at it yourself. In particular, look at the handwriting in the lines in the top section, all of which Bell stated that she filled out herself. The line containing the description of the contents is clearly different from those above it. David knows he is wrong about this and continues to evade the facts and evidence. It's not surprising that he didn't even have the courage to post this sewage here himself. Robert Harris

"I always reserve the right to further euthanize more stupidity." Would you mind clarifying what you mean by that, Michael? I certainly hope you aren't considering suicide. By "stupidity", did you mean misrepresenting your own source and then trying to blame him for it?? Or were you referring to someone so stupid that he would misrepresent what was in the same email that he forwarded to his adversary?? And in your final fallback position, you ignore documented, corroborated tests by the FBI and the HSCA and base your entire case on some anonymous Youtuber who claims he hit a target four times larger than the one Oswald was allegedly shooting at. How in holy hell could you ever think that was an equivalent situation?? Answer the questions Michael. And stop running. I've been wrong before too, Michael. The BIG difference is, that I admit it. What we both agree on, is that something happened at frame 285 that startled those people. And they all told us exactly what it was. It is idiotic to think that Oswald got off two shots in 1.5 seconds, especially since the second one was the best shot of the day. If you are really a shooter Michael, then you know as well as I do, that whoever fired that shot, took a deep breath and sighted in his target perfectly, at a distance almost the length of a football field or perhaps even greater. That shot was not rushed Michael and with the limo traveling 8 mph at the time, there was no need to rush it. There was ONE professional criminal apprehended in Dealey Plaza that day. And he was found on the third floor of the Daltex building. Braden was also at the Cabana hotel with Jack Ruby the night before and he had connections to David Ferrie and Carlos Marcello, who confessed to an FBI informant that he ordered the murder. If Braden didn't fire that particular shot then it may have been fired by someone in the depository - either Oswald himself or another shooter whose presence was confirmed by a number of witnesses. The only thing we can really be certain of is, that somebody fired those shots. One of them might have been from Oswald, but not both.

John, Quite right. Beating a dead horse just wastes my time. I showed what needed to be shown, and so the folly of this one has to go in the can and waste no more time on it. Mike That's fine Michael, although I know from numerous past experiences that you claim you won't talk about this in order to evade questions. And you will in fact, be attacking me again at the first opportunity. You have given the impression that mag30th lied about the dimensions of his target, in order to make his performance appear much better than it really was. Do you intend to leave it like that, or do you wish to man up and tell us who REALLY misrepresented those dimensions? And you made the statement that you confirmed that I got him booted out of a JFK forum. Would you like to correct that statement Michael? If not, then why do you refuse to give us the name of the forum? And finally, why don't you explain why you think that anyone shooting at a target four times larger than Kennedy's head, was duplicating Oswald's scenario? Robert Harris I always reserve the right to further euthanize more stupidity. Stop running Michael. BTW, you also denied that mag30th accused me of getting him kicked out of Duncan's forum. But in the email that you forwarded to me, he said, "And then I invited him to the forum and got this. Quote On: I cant post on the forum, Bob told the people that run the site that I was threatening to kill him and his family" Why are you protecting this lunatic, Michael? Is he going to be your new partner?? And here is the other stuff you are evading, reposted once again, You have given the impression that mag30th lied about the dimensions of his target, in order to make his performance appear much better than it really was. Do you intend to leave it like that, or do you wish to man up and tell us who REALLY misrepresented those dimensions? And you made the statement that you confirmed that I got him booted out of a JFK forum. Would you like to correct that statement Michael? If not, then why do you refuse to give us the name of the forum? And finally, why don't you explain why you think that anyone shooting at a target four times larger than Kennedy's head, was duplicating Oswald's scenario?

John, Quite right. Beating a dead horse just wastes my time. I showed what needed to be shown, and so the folly of this one has to go in the can and waste no more time on it. Mike That's fine Michael, although I know from numerous past experiences that you claim you won't talk about this in order to evade questions. And you will in fact, be attacking me again at the first opportunity. You have given the impression that mag30th lied about the dimensions of his target, in order to make his performance appear much better than it really was. Do you intend to leave it like that, or do you wish to man up and tell us who REALLY misrepresented those dimensions? And you made the statement that you confirmed that I got him booted out of a JFK forum. Would you like to correct that statement Michael? If not, then why do you refuse to give us the name of the forum? And finally, why don't you explain why you think that anyone shooting at a target four times larger than Kennedy's head, was duplicating Oswald's scenario? Robert Harris

Dean, I appreciate your suggestion that we all play nice together. But for that to be possible, we have to first, be truthful. I simply cannot respect anyone who is otherwise. Robert Harris

Robert, I am absolutely amazed at your lack of comprehension. I have already given you the exact dimensions the Mag told me. What exactly is it you are wanting when you ask me to cite him verbatim? He told me the target was a 10" circle on a 3 foot tall stand. What is so difficult for you to understand in that? Your only attacking my credibility here out of frustration. Its all hot air and that's pretty apparent. I also never forwarded an email to you, nice try. I resent the implications about my credibility. Further he absolutely duplicated the timing needed to shoot at 285 and 312, which was not needed as there is no shot at 285. Thats very obvious. Michael, he did not "duplicate" anything, firing at a target that was over four times larger than Kennedy's head. And yes, I am indeed, questioning your credibility. I know for a fact that I never complained about mag30th to any administrator in any forum. So, your claim that you discovered otherwise, is obviously false. And you confirm that by refusing to name the forum. And I don't believe that mag30th lied about the dimensions of his target, not because he isn't capable of such a thing but because the dimensions were plainly displayed in his video, so there was no need for you to even ask him and there is no way he would have told a lie that was so easily busted. Only one person I know, is that stupid.

"Of course I did Robert. However I would think this is a matter between you and him. Now would you care to get back to the issues or are you just bent on distracting away from the obvious errors in your theory?" What forum did you "discover" that I reported mag30th? I'm sorry Michael, but given your track record, I just cannot take your word on it. What forum did I do this in, and who did I make the request to??? And for the fourth time, please cite him verbatim, describing the dimensions of his target?? There were no such dimensions in the email you forwarded to me. And if he was indeed, the one who lied about the dimensions of his target, then why did you say "no-one" lied?? Obviously, the dimensions he described in his video were much larger than you claim that he told you. If he misrepresented his own video, then his credibility on any of this goes down the commode. Please give us a straight answer, Michael. And finally, since we now know that the target he claims to have hit, was more than four times larger than JFK's head, are you at least willing to admit that he did not duplicate Oswald firing the shots at 285 and 312?? And of course, neither has any other human on this planet, right Michael??

I did as I told you I wrote him and was told the target was a 10" target, on a 3 foot tall stand. You can contact him yourself on youtube, or at Duncan's Forum. I will not post his name without his permission. Further he is hardly unknown to you, as you have had many run ins with him in the past haven't you? As far as responsible research Robert....when have you EVER been concerned with that? Cite him verbatim Michael. It is not my job to look up your anonymous Youtubers for you. And it is beyond pathetic that you actually misrepresent your own source. Robert, This is funny. I already told you what the man said. I told you exactly what he said. I have misrepresented nothing. Also I highly doubt the man is anonymous to you considering you wrote me concerning this man. Do you wish me to share that to prove that he is someone known to you and someone that you have had "issues" with in the past? And you claim he is just some unknown youtuber? Robert.....he is well known to you LOL. Would you like me to prove that? Why do you need to "prove" what I told you several days ago, in email? But the fact that your new friend has to operate anonymously, tells us a great deal about him, as does your claim that he was the one who lied about the dimensions of his target. Now, I realize that you see that as a big plus for the guy, but not all of us have the same values that you do, Michael. And speaking of integrity (or lack of) did you check out his claim that I got him banned from Duncan's forum? What did you find out, Michael? Robert, No one claimed anyone lied. I simply wrote the man for clarification. Do you have trouble understanding even the most simple things? And yes I did check that out. There was a forum you got him banned from, but it was not Duncans, now was it Robert? For the record, the man said he did not know if he could post there because you had gotten him banned FROM a forum. He did not say Duncans specifically. I also note how this mysterious Youtuber you earlier claimed has now come to surface as someone well known to you. Talk about misrepresenting something! What forum did I get him banned from, Michael? Robert, I have spent a significant time showing you things you were not astute enough to gather on your own. I am not going to address something you already know the answer to. Obviously you have a history with this man, and its not a good one now is it? What forum did I get him banned from Michael? You said you confirmed that yourself. But the truth is, that I never complained to the admins of ANY JFK forum, about mag30th. Knowing what I know about him, I am not surprised that he was banned from various forums - but not because I made such a request. And therefore, you never made any such discovery, did you Michael??

Whats pathetic is someone trying to spam in order to bury other posts in the thread. These issues have been addressed. I am not reposting what has already been said. If you were not sharp enough to understand it the first time, you probably never will. Michael, you need to realize that anyone and everyone can simply read your previous messages to confirm that you evaded that entire post. And what do you suppose people will think, when you pretend that you already replied?

I did as I told you I wrote him and was told the target was a 10" target, on a 3 foot tall stand. You can contact him yourself on youtube, or at Duncan's Forum. I will not post his name without his permission. Further he is hardly unknown to you, as you have had many run ins with him in the past haven't you? As far as responsible research Robert....when have you EVER been concerned with that? Cite him verbatim Michael. It is not my job to look up your anonymous Youtubers for you. And it is beyond pathetic that you actually misrepresent your own source. Robert, This is funny. I already told you what the man said. I told you exactly what he said. I have misrepresented nothing. Also I highly doubt the man is anonymous to you considering you wrote me concerning this man. Do you wish me to share that to prove that he is someone known to you and someone that you have had "issues" with in the past? And you claim he is just some unknown youtuber? Robert.....he is well known to you LOL. Would you like me to prove that? Why do you need to "prove" what I told you several days ago, in email? But the fact that your new friend has to operate anonymously, tells us a great deal about him, as does your claim that he was the one who lied about the dimensions of his target. Now, I realize that you see that as a big plus for the guy, but not all of us have the same values that you do, Michael. And speaking of integrity (or lack of) did you check out his claim that I got him banned from Duncan's forum? What did you find out, Michael? Robert, No one claimed anyone lied. I simply wrote the man for clarification. Do you have trouble understanding even the most simple things? And yes I did check that out. There was a forum you got him banned from, but it was not Duncans, now was it Robert? For the record, the man said he did not know if he could post there because you had gotten him banned FROM a forum. He did not say Duncans specifically. I also note how this mysterious Youtuber you earlier claimed has now come to surface as someone well known to you. Talk about misrepresenting something! What forum did I get him banned from, Michael?

"Robert, Please see the post I made in reply to this one already. You can deny all you want, you can ask that I repeat the beating all you want, it does not change the fact that these little theories of yours hold no water." Michael, this was your entire, zero content response to my arguments, "You are wrong about the silencers, you are wrong about the impact angle and you are wrong about just about every other aspect in your videos. You make mountains out of mo hills and when you are shown that you are wrong you start calling people dishonest and any manner of other childish things." Now, address the issues, or admit that you can't. If you really hope to "refute" me, you are going to have to stop running from the issues. Here it is again, Michael, you are impervious to reason. You force me to spend all my time untwisting your convoluted babblage. Saying that suppressors are not notorious for causing inaccuracies because the problem is the way they are made and installed, is so far beyond fallacious that I don't know where to begin. Yes indeed, the way they are made and installed is precisely the problem - especially the way they are made. And suppressors used by the mafia, are frequently homemade. You are agreeing with me, while trying to make it appear that you are somehow, refuting me.. The bottom line is, whatever the reason for their problems, they are indeed common. White for example, pointed out in his article, that anyone who assembles a rifle and suppressor at the shooting site, faces a likelihood of having problems. And it makes very little sense that a sniper would come into Dealey Plaza with a fully assembled kit and enter the Daltex building. And your unsupported assertion that if someone just "knows what he is doing" they will function perfectly is just that - something you made up without a shred of reason or documentation. White's article was for the law enforcement community, so he was addressing people who certainly knew what they were doing, in spades. And yet, he warned even them, that they should never try to mount a suppressor at the shooting scene. And your other unsupported claim, that if the bullet was tumbling, it would never hit it's target, is moronic. BOTH the JFK wound and the Connally wound were majorly elongated. The bullet HAD to have been tumbling to enter that way. The one that hit JFK was way off, striking far below his head, but it certainly hit him. And your statement, "The 7mmx4mm entry just indicates that the shooter was in an elevated position." is blatantly dishonest, because you posted the formula yourself, for calculating the angle of a stable bullet trajectory, based on the height and width of the wound. You first concluded that the angle was 34 degrees, and I corrected you, pointing out that based on the correct formula, it was actually, about 55 degrees and you eventually agreed. That was about three times steeper than the angle should have been, if the shot came from the alleged snipers nest, and about five times steeper than from the third floor, Daltex. So, had the bullet been stable, as you claim, the height and width of the wound should have been almost equal, with the height only slightly greater than the width, and yielding a result between 13 and 18 degrees - NOT 55 degrees. The bullet was tumbling, Michael. There is no doubt whatsoever about that. and it doesn't help you to childishly mirror my own statements back to me. You topped that off, when you claimed I said the shot at 285 came from the same weapon that the early shots did. And your repliy that I "mentioned" high powered rifles is outrageously disingenuous because you failed to mention that I talked about high powered rifles being used to fire the shots at 285 and 312, which were ear shatteringly loud, and provoked clear startle reactions by the limo passengers and Abraham Zapruder. And I told you a long time ago, in the other forum, that if the shot at 285 came from the Daltex, it had to have been fired from a different rifle, by either the same, or a different shooter. Why are you now presenting this argument again, as though you just discovered it yesterday and it is some kind of fatal blow?? You also know, that in my most recent presentation, I discussed the possibility of that shot come from either the Daltex or the TSBD. But you address NONE of my replies and try to make it appear that I am evading all these brilliant questions. Why can't you be man enough to admit that I answered every one of those questions, and that you have no counterarguments? Michael, every word you have uttered in this "debate" has been dishonest and deceptive. Your worst and most outrageously dishonest argument is that Oswald could have fired the shots at 285 and 312. Every bonafied test by top government weapons experts, conducted by both the FBI and HSCA, not to mention the CBS tests and many others, has failed to produce a single instance of a shooter matching shots at 285 and an accurate strike at 312. To date, there is not a person on the planet who has even claimed to do that. You tried to refute those facts, using a totally uncorroborated claim by some character on Youtube, for god's sake. That is just pathetic, Michael. No responsible person would ever make such

I did as I told you I wrote him and was told the target was a 10" target, on a 3 foot tall stand. You can contact him yourself on youtube, or at Duncan's Forum. I will not post his name without his permission. Further he is hardly unknown to you, as you have had many run ins with him in the past haven't you? As far as responsible research Robert....when have you EVER been concerned with that? Cite him verbatim Michael. It is not my job to look up your anonymous Youtubers for you. And it is beyond pathetic that you actually misrepresent your own source. Robert, This is funny. I already told you what the man said. I told you exactly what he said. I have misrepresented nothing. Also I highly doubt the man is anonymous to you considering you wrote me concerning this man. Do you wish me to share that to prove that he is someone known to you and someone that you have had "issues" with in the past? And you claim he is just some unknown youtuber? Robert.....he is well known to you LOL. Would you like me to prove that? Why do you need to "prove" what I told you several days ago, in email? But the fact that your new friend has to operate anonymously, tells us a great deal about him, as does your claim that he was the one who lied about the dimensions of his target. Now, I realize that you see that as a big plus for the guy, but not all of us have the same values that you do, Michael. And speaking of integrity (or lack of) did you check out his claim that I got him banned from Duncan's forum? What did you find out, Michael?

I did as I told you I wrote him and was told the target was a 10" target, on a 3 foot tall stand. You can contact him yourself on youtube, or at Duncan's Forum. I will not post his name without his permission. Further he is hardly unknown to you, as you have had many run ins with him in the past haven't you? As far as responsible research Robert....when have you EVER been concerned with that? Michael, I'm sorry that you have to resort to personal insults, just because you got caught with your pants down. And yes, as I already told you "mag30th" is certainly not unknown to me. He and cdddraftsman are partners and went after me, a year or so ago. After he posted physical threats to me at Youtube, I reported him to appropriate law enforcement. I think you've found your soulmates, Michael.

I did as I told you I wrote him and was told the target was a 10" target, on a 3 foot tall stand. You can contact him yourself on youtube, or at Duncan's Forum. I will not post his name without his permission. Further he is hardly unknown to you, as you have had many run ins with him in the past haven't you? As far as responsible research Robert....when have you EVER been concerned with that? Cite him verbatim Michael. It is not my job to look up your anonymous Youtubers for you. And it is beyond pathetic that you actually misrepresent your own source.

Michael said, "Remember this as you watch and see how often Robert "corrects" these witnesses that he says were "not confused". as if that were some kind of rebuttal, but then he turned around and fully agreed, "OF course some of them were confused, I think it is completely understandable given the circumstances." But notice that he is not interested in specifics. There's a reason for that. The "confusion" lies in the fact that Mrs. Kennedy did not realize that her husband was hit at 223, and thought that he was wounded by the shot that she heard later, AFTER she looked back and saw JFK in distress, and AFTER she heard her husband shouting, "Oh, no, no, no". And throughout her entire life, she was adamant that she never looked to the rear again after she heard that "second" shots. But Mrs. Connally turned to the rear TWICE after frame 223, the last time being at about frame 282. And in fact, in the other forum, Michael has admitted that Mrs. Connally and the other limo passengers were startled by a loud noise at frame 285 and began to react at 290-292. Nellie's reaction began at precisely, frame 291, and then pulled her husband back to her, exactly as she testified. It is ridiculously obvious, that she was reacting to the gunshot then, that she thought, hit her husband.