Robert Harris

"I am quoting my own source. Not misrepresenting him. Write him and ask."

No sir, you did NOT cite him verbatim. Here is YOUR statement,

"All one has to do is watch that video to realize that the shooter is shooting at a 10" plate at 120 yards. This plate is on a 3 foot stand."

but the video stated that the target was

"a 10 inch by 3 foot metal plate.."

Or almost FOUR times larger than you told us it was.

Now, cite him verbatim please, and get his name. It's bad enough that you totally rely on some Youtube character's uncorroborated claim, but at the very least, he needs to have a name.

I can't believe you base your entire argument on your own deliberate misrepresentation by some anonymous character on Youtube.

Is this what you consider, responsible research, Michael??

"Wait a second here. In your videos you have the shots at the turn in Towner, a shot in the 160's, a shot at 223, and this shot at 285 all coming from your third floor DalTex shooter. Now you ARE telling us he had a high power rifle? Which is it? Did he or did he not?"

Michael, you asked about this long ago - on April 7th in fact, in the other forum, and I replied

"The first three shots might very well have all come from the same weapon. Of course, that could not have been the same as the weapons which fired the much louder shots at 285 and 312."

I also pointed out to to you, that if the 285 shot came from the Daltex, the shooter would have to have used a different weapon for that shot, or there was a another sniper with him, using a high powered rifle.

There is nothing at all unreasonable about that and you didn't even try to challenge me on it. Why do you now pretend that this is some kind of revelation you just came up with?

I also pointed out, and also explained in my video presentation, the 285 shot might very well have been fired from the Depository.

Michael, you are fabricating issues that have already been resolved and to which you had no counter argument. What is the point of this, other than harassment??

I brought this up so the readers of THIS forum would be aware of the ridiculousness of what your "theory" contains. Its not harassment Robert, not at all. Why do you have an issue with me bringing it up? Is there some part of our exchange you do not want the readers here to have read? I bet there is. I bet you wish they had not read any of it. Challenge you on it, hell all I could do was laugh about it.

I wonder if all these shooters with all these weapons marched in platoon formation into the Dal Tex. :ice

As far as issues resolved, you have not resolved one of the errors in your videos to date. All you did was come to another forum garnering support for these same ideas. Judging by the amount of responses you are getting I think your "theory" has epically failed here as well. These readers are not stupid. They see the exact position you are in.

It must be difficult.

Keep changing the theory Robert, its your only hope of getting it right. In fact, scratch that. Just go back to the drawing board.

Michael, why exactly do you call it "ridiculousness" that there might have been two snipers in the Daltex, or a sniper with two weapons?

Can you be specific for a change?

"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 video"

Gotta love the xxxxx chat. Zero content and Zero specificity.

Michael, why don't you tell us specifically, how I am wrong about all these things?

Robert,

I have already gone over all of this with you. 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 are you going to refute anything I have said with facts, or are you just going to keep whining that I am wrong?

I do have one question.

If it was not a high powered rifle and it was not a pistol then what else do we have that uses bullets and suppressors? Some type of Aborigine Blowgun?

Look how hard you tried to plead your case in your last post. Using the words bullets and silencers. What was this non-rifle non-pistol weapon that uses bullets and silencers?

Robert your really coming off rather poorly.

So now do you care to address the issues, or are you going to go on another whining binge?

You stated,

"If it was not a high powered rifle and it was not a pistol then what else do we have that uses bullets and suppressors? Some type of Aborigine Blowgun?"

was a ridiculous misrepresentation of what I said. I said that we do not know what kind of a weapon it was. Why can't you deal with any of this honestly, Michael.

And you totally evaded every fact and argument I made. Let's give you another shot at addressing what I REALLY DID SAY:

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 a claim.

Michael, you stated,

"All one has to do is watch that video to realize that the shooter is shooting at a 10" plate at 120 yards. This plate is on a 3 foot stand."

I realize Michael, that you want to convince readers that the target was close to the size of a human head. But at 0:39 in the video, the onscreen statement is:

"three accurate shots in 2.3 seconds on a 10 inch by 3 foot metal plate.."

The target was NOT 10 inches by 10 inches. It was 10 inches by 3 feet.

Why did you misrepresent your own source, Michael?

Were you hoping no-one would notice?

I am quoting my own source. Not misrepresenting him. Write him and ask.

I just have two questions Michael.

First, would you cite him verbatim, describing the dimensions?

And second, if he gave you dimensions that contradicted his own video, doesn't that make you wonder just a bit, about how reliable he is?

Oh, and one last thing. What's the guy's actual name?

"Wait a second here. In your videos you have the shots at the turn in Towner, a shot in the 160's, a shot at 223, and this shot at 285 all coming from your third floor DalTex shooter. Now you ARE telling us he had a high power rifle? Which is it? Did he or did he not?"

Michael, you asked about this long ago - on April 7th in fact, in the other forum, and I replied

"The first three shots might very well have all come from the same weapon. Of course, that could not have been the same as the weapons which fired the much louder shots at 285 and 312."

I also pointed out to to you, that if the 285 shot came from the Daltex, the shooter would have to have used a different weapon for that shot, or there was a another sniper with him, using a high powered rifle.

There is nothing at all unreasonable about that and you didn't even try to challenge me on it. Why do you now pretend that this is some kind of revelation you just came up with?

I also pointed out, and also explained in my video presentation, the 285 shot might very well have been fired from the Depository.

Michael, you are fabricating issues that have already been resolved and to which you had no counter argument. What is the point of this, other than harassment??

Michael, after I told you that, I never stated the early shots came from a high powered rifle and I never stated they came from a pistol. I don't know what the weapon was, which is why I never claimed it was either - you replied.

"Then why do you use the term rifle so many times in your video?"

Because the shots at 285 and 312, which provoked visible startle reactions, obviously came from high powered rifles.

Michael, you stated,

"All one has to do is watch that video to realize that the shooter is shooting at a 10" plate at 120 yards. This plate is on a 3 foot stand."

I realize Michael, that you want to convince readers that the target was close to the size of a human head. But at 0:39 in the video, the onscreen statement is:

"three accurate shots in 2.3 seconds on a 10 inch by 3 foot metal plate.."

The target was NOT 10 inches by 10 inches. It was 10 inches by 3 feet.

Why did you misrepresent your own source, Michael?

Were you hoping no-one would notice?

Hi all,

Have not been on here in awhile, I was scanning through Merry Ferrell site and found this taped conversation between Carlos Marcello and Clarence Greco interesting.

Here is the link - http://www.maryferrell.org/mffweb/archive/...mp;relPageId=85

Pages 84-86.

There is a reference to SHONTO on page 85.

It was interesting to hear Greco call Garrison "an advocate of yours". IMO, it never made sense that Garrison would want to indict Ferrie without going after Marcello too. And in fact, in his prison confession, Marcello stated that Ferrie introduced him to Oswald. But Marcello owned a lot of the cops and officials in N.O. I guess Garrison was just one of them.

And I can't help but suspect that the coroner who ruled that Ferrie's death was by "natural causes", was too.

Robert,

Just in case you missed it, do you care to address any of the other issues I raised which show the obvious errors in your videos?

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 a claim.

I would also like to add for those following. This would be possibly the 4th shot from Roberts alleged Dal Tex Shooter.

Originally Robert Postulates these are suppressed rifle shots. This has been well proven in this thread.

http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.ph...t=0&start=0

Of course he has changed his position, as we see in that thread, to one of using something other than a rifle and subsonic ammo, even though he never at any point says that in his video.

If this is his new position then one has to wonder why the people would react to a shot at all. If this were a suppressed weapon "something other than a rifle" as Robert Postulates in his new position, and if this shooter is now firing subsonic ammo, as he now have changed his "story" to then they certainly would not have seen the bullet, they certainly would not have felt a "shock wave" and they certainly would not have heard it. SO why then would they be reacting to it?

The whole story just makes no ballistic sense what so ever.

I guess I am now a xxxxx because I do not agree with him, and shown his theory is a ballistic mess.

Well all i can say is that I believe this case is important, and as such deserves correct information to those who study it.

Mike

Michael, you are a xxxxx because almost everything you claimed, <removed by moderator>.

I never stated the early shots came from a high powered rifle and I never stated they came from a pistol. I don't know what the weapon was, which is why I never claimed it was either.

The shots at 285 and 312 did indeed, come from a high powered rifle because they were loud enough to startle the people in the limo.

You need to stop and think, that most of the people <removed by moderator>, have seen the video and know exactly what I said and what I didn't say.

Fortunately for me, you're not just <removed by moderator> a xxxxx, you're also not very good at it.

Michael,

Allow me to add an alternative explanation to JFK's apparent reaction when the car is close to the Dal-Tex building. I have posted in the past the results of Tom Wilson's photo analysis using Photonics. In short, Wilson sees a person in the second floor open window of Dal-Tex looking into the eyepiece of a box like "device". As I have found in a US Patent search, there is a device (with that identical design) that fires an "ice bullet" that could have been of a compound that would causes paralysis in seconds. The devise can use a powder charge to fire the bullet but it would be of subsonic velocity. Is it possible that the reaction we see is that slug entering JFK's back? It makes sense that it would used close in to the Dal-Tex and would ensure that JFK would stay upright for the shooting teams. Also, Wilson finds three back wounds in JFK, one of exit and two of entrance. Your thoughts?

Steve, the problem I have with any theories that posit an attempt to immobilize JFK, is that if someone is in a position to do that, why not just go ahead and shoot him, instead? And JFK did move around, and briefly wave to the crowd after that point, so he doesn't really seem to be totally immobile.

My theory explains two important things. First, it explains why most of the early shots went totally unheard and why the one that was heard, never startled anyone and didn't sound like a real gunshot to most witnesses. What many students of the case fail to realize is, that the vast majority of witnesses recalled only one early shot and then closely bunched shots at the end.

Unless there really was just one early shot, then it's pretty obvious that some of them were not heard at all by those witnesses.

And second, the fact that suppressors are notorious for causing wild inaccuracies, explains why at least one and probably two early shots missed the entire limousine. It also explains why the shot that hit JFK in the back, hit far below the head, which would have been the preferred target, and why the bullet was tumblling, and creating an entry wound which was almost twice as tall as it was wide.

So let me see if I have this now...

1. An unidentified nurse found a bullet that had fallen from Connally's leg and gave it to Nolan, who gave it to Fritz, who gave it to the FBI.

2. Nurse Bell was given fragments from Connally's wrist and gave them to an FBI or SS agent.

3. When the FBI realized this bullet could not have been fired from Oswald's gun, they made it disappear, by claiming Nolan had only been given fragments, and that he'd received these from Bell.

I have problems with this.

By switching envelopes, they'd taken a huge risk that 1) Bell would have a clear recollection of the man to whom she gave the fragments and swear on a stack of Bibles it wasn't Nolan; 2) Nolan would open or feel the envelope and feel sure he'd received an intact bullet; 3) Nolan would swear on a stack of Bibles the nurse who gave them this bullet wasn't Bell; and 4) the nurse who actually found the bullet would talk.

Question: wouldn't they have been better off simply switching this bullet for one fired from Oswald's gun, as they apparently did with the stretcher bullet?

But then they would have had two Connally bullets and none that could be connected to JFK. One thing there is no doubt at all about, is that the hallway stretcher could not have been JFK's. And without making a lot of incriminating phone calls there is no way that anyone at FBI central could have known how certain it was that the stretcher was or was not Connally's.

That would only leave one bullet for JFK.

But one bullet was not enough for him, was it? He was obviously hit early and hit again at the very end. Even a single viewing of the Zapruder film made that obvious. So, one of those Connally bullets HAD to disappear if they were going to stick with a three shot scenario.

As for Bell and Nolan, who was going to ask them about any of this, or even tell them about it? There was going to be no trial and for all they knew, no investigation other than their own. And they had the power to hide those documents, practically forever. If the WC had not come along, we probably would never have seen ce842.

Did you look at the image I posted? Nolan's initials are certainly there. But where are Bell's initials? She said they weren't present on the envelope, but they had to have been there for her to have passed the envelope on to anyone. That fact alone, is a deal breaker, Pat.

And look closely at the crude effort to create "AMB" at the bottom. Were or were not, those characters altered?? And why were other characters on the envelope erased? My sense is that someone experimented to see if he could forge the initials but gave up on it. But whatever happened, there is just NO plausible, innocent explanation.

Tampering with evidence envelopes is a huge taboo in law enforcement. It makes for an automatic get-out-of-jail free card for criminal defendants. It is not something anyone in the FBI would do for any other reason, than the obvious.

For the same reason, erasing and altering an evidence envelope by a hospital employee is also taboo and a surefire way to be tossed in jail with an obstruction charge.

If there is another explanation for all this, I would love to hear it. But I just cannot think of one.

Pat, if you still have doubts about this, please look at Hunt's followup article to the one I cited earlier.

http://www.jfklancer.com/hunt/mystery.html

Look in particular, at the Shanklin memo which clearly describes TWO bullets coming in from Parkland,

"Mr. BELMONT [FBI Assistant Director, Allan H. Belmont] from SOG [seat Of Government, i.e., FBI HQ in D.C.] advised that they have made arrangements with Secret Service to secure the bullet that apparently killed President KENNEDY and that Secret Service in Washington was calling SORRELLS here and instructing him to turn the gun over to us and that I should after receipt of the gun, also secure the bullet that shot Governor CONNALLY and have an Agent get on the plane and take the gun and the other bullet to Washington."

Please also examine the corroborating evidence that Hunt found, which includes a memo from Alan Belmont reporting a call at 9:18 pm to Shanklin and telling him that a bullet, supposedly, from JFK was going to be flown in, along with other evidence. But the stretcher bullet had already arrived at 7:30 PM.

So, if we can believe the FBI's own documentation, there were originally, two bullets flown in from Dallas to DC. But by the time the WC rolled around, the "JFK" bullet had evaporated and was never mentioned again.

Of course if the bullet had really come from JFK, then it would have been prime evidence, which in those pre-SBT days, should not have created any problems at all for the FBI. They should have been flaunting it instead of burying it.

But I don't think it was connected to JFK at all. That had to have been the bullet that fell from Connally's leg.

So let me see if I have this now...

1. An unidentified nurse found a bullet that had fallen from Connally's leg and gave it to Nolan, who gave it to Fritz, who gave it to the FBI.

2. Nurse Bell was given fragments from Connally's wrist and gave them to an FBI or SS agent.

3. When the FBI realized this bullet could not have been fired from Oswald's gun, they made it disappear, by claiming Nolan had only been given fragments, and that he'd received these from Bell.

I have problems with this.

By switching envelopes, they'd taken a huge risk that 1) Bell would have a clear recollection of the man to whom she gave the fragments and swear on a stack of Bibles it wasn't Nolan; 2) Nolan would open or feel the envelope and feel sure he'd received an intact bullet; 3) Nolan would swear on a stack of Bibles the nurse who gave them this bullet wasn't Bell; and 4) the nurse who actually found the bullet would talk.

Question: wouldn't they have been better off simply switching this bullet for one fired from Oswald's gun, as they apparently did with the stretcher bullet?

But then they would have had two Connally bullets and none that could be connected to JFK. One thing there is no doubt at all about, is that the hallway stretcher could not have been JFK's. And without making a lot of incriminating phone calls there is no way that anyone at FBI central could have known how certain it was that the stretcher was or was not Connally's.

That would only leave one bullet for JFK.

But one bullet was not enough for him, was it? He was obviously hit early and hit again at the very end. Even a single viewing of the Zapruder film made that obvious. So, one of those Connally bullets HAD to disappear if they were going to stick with a three shot scenario.

As for Bell and Nolan, who was going to ask them about any of this, or even tell them about it? There was going to be no trial and for all they knew, no investigation other than their own. And they had the power to hide those documents, practically forever. If the WC had not come along, we probably would never have seen ce842.

Did you look at the image I posted? Nolan's initials are certainly there. But where are Bell's initials? She said they weren't present on the envelope, but they had to have been there for her to have passed the envelope on to anyone. That fact alone, is a deal breaker, Pat.

And look closely at the crude effort to create "AMB" at the bottom. Were or were not, those characters altered?? And why were other characters on the envelope erased? My sense is that someone experimented to see if he could forge the initials but gave up on it. But whatever happened, there is just NO plausible, innocent explanation.

Tampering with evidence envelopes is a huge taboo in law enforcement. It makes for an automatic get-out-of-jail free card for criminal defendants. It is not something anyone in the FBI would do for any other reason, than the obvious.

For the same reason, erasing and altering an evidence envelope by a hospital employee is also taboo and a surefire way to be tossed in jail with an obstruction charge.

If there is another explanation for all this, I would love to hear it. But I just cannot think of one.

The Warren Commission concluded that "most" witnesses reported a single gunshot, a delay and then closely bunched shots at the end of the attack.

"..a substantial majority of the witnesses stated that the shots were not evenly spaced. Most witnesses recalled that the second and third shots were bunched together."

Of course for decades, lone nut advocates have been telling us that the witnesses were just confused. But there was a very good reason why the witnesses heard closely spaced shots at the end and it had nothing to do with confusion. Two shots which were 1.5 seconds apart, were fired then, at frames 285 and 312.

The 285 shot was actually discovered by Dr. Luis Alvarez, though as a staunch Warren Commission supporter, he speculated that it was a siren, since as he stated in his paper, Oswald could not have fired both of those shots. Alvarez concluded that Zapruder and Bill Greer were both startled by the loud noise at frame 285, but probably because he was only looking at printed, still frames, he didn't notice that every other nonvictim in the limo, was also reacting in almost perfect unison with them. And every one of the people we see reacting, told us exactly what it was that they heard then.

And it was NOT a siren.

This is the Quicktime version of my presentation on this subject.

http://www.jfkhistory.com/Nellie2/Nellie2.mov

And this is the Youtube version.

The 285 shot was actually discovered by Dr. Luis Alvarez, though as a staunch Warren Commission supporter, he speculated that it was a siren

That is some funny stuff. How could Alvarez have "discovered" a shot, and then "speculate it was a siren"

Alvarez never said there was a shot at 285, and this theory has been seriously debunked over at Duncan's place.

Of course for decades, lone nut advocates have been telling us that the witnesses were just confused

Remember this as you watch and see how often Robert "corrects" these witnesses that he says were "not confused".

OF course some of them were confused, I think it is completely understandable given the circumstances.

I would also ask you to consider that the limo occupants would be affected by 55 lbs of force as the limo slows from 12mph to 8 mph in .5 seconds. Of course this is never taken into consideration by Robert in his "theory"

While 55lbs is not a great and massive force it would surely be a noticeable reaction.

Bear in mind as you watch this also that Nellie always says she heard a shot and JFK raised his hands, then she heard a shot and it hit John, and then she heard a shot and the brain matter rained down on them. Never at any time does anyone ever say there was a shot between when JBC was hit and the head shot.

The whole premise here is Roberts attempt to prove conspiracy by saying an MC rifle can not fire 2 shots in 1.5 seconds which it certainly can.

These shots were fired at 120 yards into a 10" plate. 3 shots 2.3 seconds. Since we have no proof of Oswald practicing, and in the same token we can not rule out that he did. Therefore its a moot point and we must at least look at the rifles ability.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rGOQ2oebB2M

Michael, who finally came out of the closet, as a rather fanatical lone nutter, has taken on the role of my own personal xxxxx. He follows me around from forum to forum and thread to thread and has posted countless dozens of personal attacks and smears at jfkassassinationforum.com and he continues his campaign here.

His argument that the limo passengers were stricken with a "55 pound force" is both ludicrous and totally disingenuous because what Michael doesn't tell you is, that he claimed the limo passengers were thrown forward by the force of Alvarez slowing the limo AFTER THE LIMO PASSENGERS HAD ALREADY BEEN STARTLED BY THE NOISE AT 285.

To this day, I cannot comprehend what his point is, since he has already admitted that those people were were startled by a sharp noise, which is no more than a confirmation of what I have been saying all along. And FWIW, anyone can look at the reactions, and see that John Connally and JFK were not "thrown" forward at all, which tells us that the reactions had nothing to do with inertia.

And that makes sense, because the expert at the Physics forum where they did Michaels math for him, also told him that the impact of that slowdown might be "noticed" but that it was "no big deal" - something he never bothered to mention in either of the two forums. Needless to say, being "noticed" is much different from being thrown forward as Michael tries so hard to convince us of.

Michael's latest fallback position is that Oswald could have fired both the shot at 285 and the one at 312, 1.5 seconds later. To support that claim, he makes a series of outrageously dishonest and disingenuous statements.

First, he makes the misleading statement that someone on Youtube claimed that he fired 3 shots in 2.3 seconds. As Michael knows all too well, the first shot is not taken into consideration because the shooter has already loaded the chamber and sighted his target when the stopwatch begins. So, the uncorroborated claim was, that his reload time was 1.15 seconds. Michael also tells <removed by moderator> that I claimed such a thing was impossible.

Of course, a person can fire that fast. The problem is, that he cannot hit anything much smaller than the planet. And even Michael's Youtube shooter was firing at a target roughly four times larger than JFK's head.

The significant documented and corroborated facts are these:

1. Every FBI expert who originally tested Oswald's rifle required 3 or more seconds, reload and aim time.

2. Months later, SA Frazier went back to the firing range and brought his time down to 2.3 seconds. He later testified that his time was about as fast as was humanly possible.

3. Years later, the HSCA recruited eight sharpshooters from the Washington DC police dept. Along with two staffers they each repeatedly tried to match the HSCA's theory that Oswald fired shots 1.66 seconds apart. They tried using the scope in place and they tried, after removing the scope and firing through the iron sights on the barrel.

And every one of them failed, every single time.

No exceptions - not even one.

The simple fact is, that there is NO documented example of someone firing that model rifle fast enough to match the speed and accuracy that would be the equivalent of shots at 285 and 312. And as far as anyone knows, there is no undocumented example either.

The shot at 312 was by far, the best and most accurate of the day. It was not fired by someone trying to set a world speedshooting record, and there was certainly no need to, since the limo had just slowed to about 8 mph.

I have seen some crazy theories over the years, regarding the JFK case. But none more ludicrous or pathetically desperate than Michael's claim that Oswald could have fired the shots at 285 and 312.

I can't wait to see what his next fallback position will be

Robert Harris

The Warren Commission concluded that "most" witnesses reported a single gunshot, a delay and then closely bunched shots at the end of the attack.

"..a substantial majority of the witnesses stated that the shots were not evenly spaced. Most witnesses recalled that the second and third shots were bunched together."

Of course for decades, lone nut advocates have been telling us that the witnesses were just confused. But there was a very good reason why the witnesses heard closely spaced shots at the end and it had nothing to do with confusion. Two shots which were 1.5 seconds apart, were fired then, at frames 285 and 312.

The 285 shot was actually discovered by Dr. Luis Alvarez, though as a staunch Warren Commission supporter, he speculated that it was a siren, since as he stated in his paper, Oswald could not have fired both of those shots. Alvarez concluded that Zapruder and Bill Greer were both startled by the loud noise at frame 285, but probably because he was only looking at printed, still frames, he didn't notice that every other nonvictim in the limo, was also reacting in almost perfect unison with them. And every one of the people we see reacting, told us exactly what it was that they heard then.

And it was NOT a siren.

This is the Quicktime version of my presentation on this subject.

http://www.jfkhistory.com/Nellie2/Nellie2.mov

And this is the Youtube version.

Michael, you're pulling the same crap here that you do in the other forum. I NEVER said or even implied that the early shots were fired from a high powered rifle. I said the shots were subsonic and there is no certainty that they came from any kind of rifle.

Why do I have to spend more time untangling your deliberate misrepresentations than I do discussing the issues, when I debate with you??

Robert,

All one has to do is watch your video to know this is not true. You specifically go into great detail about assembling a rifle before hand and all the issues (as you perceive them) with using a silencer. You even specifically quote an article in which the author talks about some of the inherent issues with rifle suppressors. Not one single time is there ever the mention of the word pistol in your video, and also at no time is there the mention of the word subsonic. This is in both parts 1 and 2.

So what words did you use?

Lets have a look.

Sniper 6 times

Shot 25+ times

GUN shot 10 times

Rifle 6+ times

You use the phrase "No assassin would would enter the plaza with a fully assembled rifle"

And last but not least the article which you reference is titled:

Yep you guessed it.

"The use of sound suppressors on HIGH POWERED RIFLES"

You tell us now that you never said the shots came from a high powered rifle, and yet the very article you reference is "The use of suppressors on HIGH POWERED RIFLES"

You tell us now that you never imply they come from any kind of rifle, and yet the word rifle is used many times in your videos.

I might add again that the word SUBSONIC is NEVER USED nor is the word PISTOL.

To top it all off, you then accuse me of misrepresenting you.

I am doing no such thing, I am simply showing you the magnitude of the errors in your research, which are epic.

One would think that as a researcher you would find value in that, rather than accusing me of misrepresenting you when all I have done is simply taken the evidence you have offered, and shown you that it is incorrect.

I would very much appreciate an apology from you about this. It was very unfair of you to accuse me of misrepresenting you when I did no such thing and it is obvious for everyone to see.

Mike

Michael, that was a terribly disingenuous posting.

White's article was about problems that are inherent with suppressors due to misalignment and other types of problems, which I believe were the cause of the missed shots, and the tumbling of the bullet that hit JFK in the back. You seem to want to make it appear that I claimed that the early shots were fired from a high powered rifle, because white mentioned them in his magazine article.

You know very well, that I never said those shots were from a high powered rifle. And I corrected you about that a couple weeks ago in jfkassassinationforum.com, telling you even then, that they could have come from a handgun.

So, your latest repetition of this misrepresentation could only have been done deliberately, and with the full knowledge that you were wrong.

At the other forum, you and your partners have done that over and over and over again.

It's impossible to have a coherent discussion with you Michael, when I have to spend 90% of the time untwisting your misrepresentations. Why don't you deal with this stuff, without all the crap?

For years, WC critics have doubted the legitimacy of CE-399. Not only does its relatively undamaged condition suggest that it wounded no-one, but when it was analyzed microscopically, there was not a trace of human blood or tissue.

This video follows up on the excellent work by Dr. Gary Aguilar and Josiah Thompson, who confirmed that the FBI lied to the WC, trying to convince them that some of the men who originally handled the stretcher bullet, confirmed that it was similar to CE-399.

John Hunt then discovered that the initials written on the stretcher bullet by FBI agent Elmer Todd, were nowhere to be seen on CE-399.

In this video, I address the question of what actually happened to the real bullet that was embedded in Governor Connally's thigh. As it turned out, the Parkland staff did not leave such enormously important evidence laying around on a stretcher as the FBI claimed. When it fell from the Governor's thigh, it was immediately retrieved by a nurse who passed it on to an officer of the Texas Rangers, who then delivered it to the Dallas police dept.

Corroboration for this bullet comes from Governor Connally himself, Dallas District Attorney Wade, Connally aide Bill Stinson, and officer Bobby Nolan whom I interview in the video. It also comes from the FBI, who altered the evidence envelope that held the bullet, and forged the name of nurse Audrey Bell, to make it appear that the envelope held the fragments from Connally's wrist, instead of the bullet from his leg.

This is the Quicktime version, from my website:

http://jfkhistory.com/ce399f/ce399f.mov

And these are at Youtube, broken into two parts:

Be sure to also read Aguilar and Thompson's article here:

http://www.history-matters.com/essays/fram...MoreMagical.htm

And John Hunt's article here:

http://www.jfklancer.com/hunt/phantom.htm

Robert, I find aspects of this video confusing. While it is easy for me to conceive CE399 being switched at some point, the switching of a second bullet for the fragments makes less sense to me. Are you trying to claim there were no fragments? Or that they were not transported in an envelope? Are you trying to claim Bell added her initials over someone else's? Or that her initials were forged? And if they were forged OR placed over someone else"s

P.S. a close look at the statements of Connally and Wade late in life indicates they were far from knowledgeable on the over-all picture and were almost certainly winging it when they discussed the provenance of CE 399. As a result, I don't believe we can put much stock in their "slip-ups."

Pat,

I believe the envelope which originally held the bullet that was given to Officer Nolan made its way to the FBI and was quickly determined to have come from a weapon that was not Oswald's. And in fact, if you read the second article by Hunt, you will see FBI documentation regarding TWO bullets that were sent in from Parkland. I think one of them was the stretcher bullet and the other, the one that was recovered by the nurse.

But neither of them matched CE-399. The stretcher bullet probably had nothing to do with the assassination (no, it was NOT planted) and it was replaced by CE-399, which was probably fired into cotton wading. Obviously, that's why none of the witnesses could corroborate it and why Todd's initials were not on it.

Are you still with me:-)

The actual bullet from Connally's leg was probably disposed of, but there was a problem. The envelope which bore Nolan's initials, represented a SECOND, very inconvenient bullet. So, they decided to claim that the envelope instead, contained the wrist fragments. To do that, they made a rather crude attempt to forge Nurse Bell's initials. And in fact, when the ARRB showed her a photo of that envelope, she denied seeing her own initials anywhere on it (the recording is in the ce399 section of my long video).

Consider that she HAD to initial that envelope before ANY cop or agent would accept it.

Now, granted, the forgery was so terrible that one might wonder how they could have hoped to ever get away with it. But by then, Oswald was dead and there was no expectation of another investigation. They had every reason to believe that it would never go beyond the FBI's files.

And looking at the envelope, it is very clear that portions of it have been erased and that it was filled out by people with two distinctly different handwritings.

http://jfkhistory.com/ce842.jpg

The nurse who Nolan heard come out and say "What do I do with this?", was obviously not very knowledgeable. Bell, who had been a supervisor for years, certainly wouldn't have walked out into the hallway, asking what she should do with an evidence envelope. And in fact, it never should have been turned over to a Hwy Patrolman. It should have first gone to an office in the hospital which processes potential, criminal evidence before passing it along to the proper authorities.

This nurse was obviously inexperienced and with Connally's life on the line, the doctors and other nurses probably never even noticed her picking the bullet up from the floor. But she apparently knew enough to put it in an envelope and fill it out. Giving it to the nearest cop probably made perfectly good sense to her.

As for Wade, Connally and Stinson, all of whom confirmed that this bullet was recovered by a nurse, I don't doubt that their memories were imperfect. But their stories and particularly Wade's could only be explained as either a deliberate lie or a serious delusion. This was not a minor issue and he told his story in considerable detail.

BTW, if you have a photoshop kind of program, bring up the brightness and contrast a bit in the ce842 photo. Look at how much was erased near the bottom.

(edit)

And just to clarify a bit. This was not really about switching bullets for fragments. It's about switching envelopes. The wrist fragments undoubtedly, were sent to the FBI in the correct envelope, properly initialed by Bell. But someone with the FBI decided to try to make it appear that the envelope carrying the leg bullet, actually contained the wrist fragments, effectively eliminating the evidence for the real bullet that wounded Connally.

Sometimes its not easy to make this stuff clear:-)

Michael, we have been through all this before. Even the Warren Commission admitted that most witnesses only heard one early shot and then closely bunched shots at the end.

Actually it was one early shot and then two close shots at the end.

EX. Miss WILLIS. Yes; I heard one. Then there was a little bit of time, and then there were two real fast bullets together.

Therefore, unless you believe that was all there were, then at least one of those early shots went totally unheard. And the one that was heard, wasn't even recognized by most witnesses as a real gunshot. And that makes perfect sense, since we can see that no-one was startled by any of the shots prior to frame 290-291.

I have to tell you. In all the different accounts I have read about the Z film. I have NEVER in my life, heard anyone say that they could not see anyone startled by shots before 290-291. I think I am going to have to hang onto this as another epic quote. I guess you just missed the whole 223 -224 episode?

Anyhow more to the point of your question.

Of course thats all I believe there was. 3 Shots. There is no other ballistic evidence to support any other shots, or shooters.

As for most witnesses not recognizing the first shot. Why would this surprise anyone? It is not like they were going to a trick shooting event. They never expected to hear gunfire. So when one says the first shot did not sound like gunfire, I can easily understand why. This does not take a huge leap into the world of silencers and other subversiveness.

The individuals in the limousine further corroborated that fact. Mrs. Connally for example, was very specific that she only heard one shot, until after she looked back and saw JFK in distress and after he had begun to shout, which is the same thing that Mrs. Kennedy said.

Greer said he heard one "noise" and then no other shots prior to near simultaneous shots at the end.

Kellerman heard one shot and then nothing until a "flurry" at the end of the attack.

Therefore, Michael, if there was more than one early shot, which we both acknowledge, then at least one of them went unheard.

I do not recall acknowledging "more than one early shot", but nice try. Of course the witnesses only heard one shot by this time, that's all that had been fired. Definitely not rocket science.

And finally, as we discussed before, there is no proof that the early shots came from a high powered rifle, or any kind of rifle for that matter. The quiet shots were only fired when the limo was relatively close to the Daltex. This video shows a guy using both a suppressed pistol and a suppressed rifle. And it sounds like the recording level is set normally.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EfPO6cFstTk

So now you are changing your position from a rifle to a pistol. No worries there. The video you posted is of a .22 caliber rifle, and a .22 caliber pistol, neither of which even comes close to representing a High powered rifle that your videos and past comments portray. I suggest before you get to carried away that you check the ballistic properties for the .22 using suppressor equipment, and also consult someone with experience on the insanity of engaging a target in a moving vehicle from an elevated position with a pistol. That prospect is humerus. No assassin in their right mind is going to engage a target at over 100' with a .22 caliber pistol. By the way, I have no recollection of us discussing anything involving a pistol in the past, as you claim. If we had I assure you you would have met with the same reply.

I also find it entertaining to see your theory evolve. But you should be commended for this, as correction is the only way you will ever get the truth.

I have no problem believing that witnesses could have overlooked shots from either of those weapons, especially with the crowd noise and motorcycles.

Again, it is pure ballistic idiocy to think that someone would engage a target with the types of weapons in your video. Especially from an elevated position over 100' away from the target in a moving vehicle.

What IS outrageous, is to imagine that they overlooked the report and shock wave of an unsuppressed, high powered rifle, which would have been many times louder.

Ah the winds of change. Its good to see that some of what I have been teaching you is sinking in. This is a complete reverse from your video in which you adamantly say that the reason no one heard the shots is that the rifle was suppressed. You then go on to tell us in great detail how it would be a disadvantage for someone to Assemble a rifle at the target area. So we know you were talking about a high powered rifle, as you go to great lengths to discuss this.

Had Oswald fired the early shots, Michael, they would have been the loudest of all. The limo passengers would have been severely startled, the Secret Service would have jumped into action immediately, and people would have been screaming and diving to the ground all over Dealey Plaza.

First let me say that in respect to BK I will not use the term Oswald in referencing the shooter. Bill makes a valid point that there is no 100% proof that Oswald was the shooter. I believe the evidence strongly points to Oswald, and Bill knows this. But out of respect for his work I will defer.

I will say that there is strong evidence that an unsuppressed weapon fired ALL the shots.

The reason these shots that you alleged were not heard, is simply because they did not happen.

But alas you are confusing the issue here. First you say that JFK reacted to a shot in Towner. The in the 160 area Jackie is reacting in turning towards JFK. Then you say JFK is reacting to a shot in the late 180's early 190's by grimacing and shielding his face, which he is clearly not doing per the Z film and the Witness testimony. Now you are saying that no one reacted to these shots.

Which is it?

Those early shots could not have been fired by Oswald.

Quite correct, they were not fired by anyone.

For clarification to those that might not understand my position. I believe there are two possibilities. I believe that the first shot fired was in the mid 190's. Hill, Willis, Betzner, and a host of others seems to confirm this. I believe that JBC is hit in the early 230's, and of course the head shot at 313.

I believe this is one scenario.

The next one is very difficult for me to admit. But it is the SBT. I never in my life have thought I would be the one saying that, but in light of recent research, I think it is a viable possibility far more than I ever had before.

For now I am sticking with 3 shots 3 hits, but I am giving the SBT a considerable thought.

Please lets not let this get off into an SBT discussion, there is always another thread for that, I just simply wanted those who do not know to understand my position.

Mike

"Actually it was one early shot and then two close shots at the end."

No Michael, if that's what they had said, then that's what I would have told you. They said the shots were "bunched". Why do you have to distort every honest statement?? Here is the actual wording from the report.

"a substantial majority of the witnesses stated that the shots were not evenly spaced. Most witnesses recalled that the second and third shots were bunched together."

And why are you telling people in this forum that you don't know who was firing the shots from the depository, while you are telling people in jfkassassinationforum.com that it was Oswald??

You seem to have one story for the nutter forums and one for the proconspiracy forums. There's only one set of facts, Michael. They don't change when your audience does.

And I find it unbelievable that you fabricated a totally new "theory" that no-one on EITHER side of this debate believes, just so that you could reduce the difference in the spacing of the shots. You have NO-ONE getting shot at 223. And that makes no sense at all. At the very least, JFK was hit then. His hands and arms began to rise at precisely frame 226. And there is not a neurologist on the planet who will not tell you that such a reaction will not begin within milliseconds of the shock to the vertebrae.

Mike, I did notice a mistake in your last critique of Robert's scenario. It is a point on which Robert is absolutely correct.

People did not hear a shot at frame 223/224. People watching Kennedy at the time of the first shot. e.g Woodward, Powers, said he was waving and then jerked to the left as a response to the shot. This happens BEFORE Kennedy goes behind the sign in the Z-film.

As a response to this fact, the HSCA theorized the single-bullet shot hit Kennedy circa frame 190.

It was only through the shenanigans of Lattimer and Posner that the SBT got moved back to 224. In his book Bugliosi plays the WC 210-224 card, and never acknowledges that he presented a photography expert to the jury in his 1986 mock trial, to prove to them Kennedy was hit around 190.

If you're as independent-minded as I suspect you are, you'll break away from the current LNT group-think, and realize that the currently proposed dogma--a first shot miss at 160, SBT at 224, and a head shot at 313, is Malarkey with a capital M.

Who knows? Maybe you'll be the first LNT to come up with a scenario that makes sense?

Pat, I don't know if you've had a chance to view the video or not, but please let let me clarify what I am saying.

When Oswald's rifle was tested by acoustics experts they discovered that it generated a 130 decibel shock wave within a ten foot radius of the bullet and a muzzle blast that to the ears of the limo passengers, would have generated a level ranging from 115-130db, depending on the distance from the rifle. Other high powered rifles are are known to be twice that loud.

That was many times louder than the level that is known to generate visible startle reactions, which is exactly what we see, following the known shot at 312 and the shot at 285, which I have been talking about for many years. But there were no startle reactions at all, prior to 285. People looked around with a "what was that" kind of reaction, but that was much different than the dramatic reactions following those other two shots.

The lack of startle reactions, combined with the large consensus who only heard one early report (which most did not recognize then, as a gunshot) strongly suggests, that the early shots were suppressed. They simply could not have come from Oswald's or any other high powered rifle.

I firmly believe that JFK and Connally were either hit by one bullet at 223, or they were hit almost simultaneously, by a semi-automatic weapon. But whichever it was, nobody heard the shot(s), including John Connally.

JFK had to have been hit at or very close to 223, Pat. His rising arms had nothing to do with reaching up to his neck wound. It was entirely a neurological reaction, which means it had to be VERY fast. His right hand and arm began to rise at 226, which is a perfect match with a shot at 223. That has to trump the subjective recollections of witnesses trying to remember where the limo was when they heard the first shot. I suspect that each of those people actually heard the shot at 160 and it just took a small amount of time to sink in.

Again, even suppressed high power rifle shots are over 100db, using sub sonic ammo. Regular ammo would be much louder.

These shots would have been fully audible in the plaza and heard by many, especially those closest to the shooter. I would also suggest that the dictabelt would certainly have picked these up.

The firearms factoid of suppressed shots is the easiest of myths to disprove.

Mike, I've done a bit of reading on this topic as well, and I think you are incorrect. The sound of a suppressed shot would be lost in the sounds of the cheering crowd and motorcycles. Surprisingly, I found support for this in a most unexpected place...

From chapter 20 at patspeer.com:

"After my study of the eyewitness statements and Zapruder film suggested that at least one burst of shots--the one (or two) shots hitting Kennedy and Connally around frame 224--was not heard by the crowd, I decided to read up on the use of silencers and subsonic ammunition. While some "experts", including the FBI's Robert Frazier in the trial of Clay Shaw, have been dismissive about the use of a silencer on 11-22-63, claiming the shots would still have been heard, they ignore that the use of a silencer still had its advantages. Vincent Bugliosi, in his book Reclaiming History, admits as much. In arguing that Oswald could not have been a hit man, because a hit man would have used a silencer, he unwittingly undercut many of his supporters, who'd been insisting for years that the use of a silencer was impractical and unlikely. On page 1452, Bugliosi quotes an unnamed LAPD firearms expert and asserts that by 1963 silencers were sophisticated enough to reduce the sound of a rifle to nothing louder than "the hitting of a pile of wood with a hammer." Bugliosi's expert said, furthermore, that state-of-the-art silencers at the time "probably wouldn't have even been heard above the background noise of the motorcade and crowd."

Pat,

We do not even with today's technology have silencers that would make a high powered rifle shot sound like hitting a wood pile with a hammer.

There are silencers that can do this, but not with high power rifles. Sub9 configurations, sure, .22 low velocity ammo, sure. High powered rifle ammunition no.

The very best technology we have today can barely make subsonic ammo dampen to 100dB.

This certainly would have been heard.

http://www.sandv.com/downloads/0908rasm.pdf

well, there's the problem, Mike. You're thinking inside the box. Who says the bullet or bullets striking JFK and Connally circa 223 were fired from a high-powered rifle? The CIA's manual on assassinations says a .22 firing subsonic ammunition oughta work just fine.

Pat,

I address the high power rifle because that is what Robert speculates on in his video.

I would suggest a close look at the ballistics involved in a .22 firing subsonic ammo at a target over 100 feet away. I think you will find humor in that idea, and if you think that is comical wait until you read about subsonic .22 pistol shooting.

The idea of engaging a target over 100 feet away with this type of weapon is ridiculous. It would be ridiculous to consider with even something as substantial as an MP5 suppressed and shooting sub 9mm rounds.

Standard subsonic .22 ammo is 38 grains and about 1050 Fps@ 93 ft lbs This is UNSUPPRESSED.

Why not just shoot with a pellet gun? Walther makes many in the .22 cal range that fire at 1000 fps.

Specifications:

Model: Falcon Hunter

Caliber: .22

Velocity: 1000FPS

Ammo Type: Pellets

Body Components: Polymer Stock with Metal Barrel and Receiver

Overall Length: 49.00 in

Barrel Length: 19.75 in

Barrel Style: Rifled

Fire Mode: Single Shot

Cocking Effort: 45 lbs

Trigger Effort: 5.2 lbs

Trigger Adjust: Single Stage

Action: Break Barrel

Power plant: Spring-piston

Gun Weight: 8.25 lbs

Front Sight: Fiber Optic

I just can not for the life of me picture an assassin with something akin to a pellet gun.

Michael, you're pulling the same crap here that you do in the other forum. I NEVER said or even implied that the early shots were fired from a high powered rifle. I said the shots were subsonic and there is no certainty that they came from any kind of rifle.

Why do I have to spend more time untangling your deliberate misrepresentations than I do discussing the issues, when I debate with you??

Mike, I did notice a mistake in your last critique of Robert's scenario. It is a point on which Robert is absolutely correct.

People did not hear a shot at frame 223/224. People watching Kennedy at the time of the first shot. e.g Woodward, Powers, said he was waving and then jerked to the left as a response to the shot. This happens BEFORE Kennedy goes behind the sign in the Z-film.

As a response to this fact, the HSCA theorized the single-bullet shot hit Kennedy circa frame 190.

It was only through the shenanigans of Lattimer and Posner that the SBT got moved back to 224. In his book Bugliosi plays the WC 210-224 card, and never acknowledges that he presented a photography expert to the jury in his 1986 mock trial, to prove to them Kennedy was hit around 190.

If you're as independent-minded as I suspect you are, you'll break away from the current LNT group-think, and realize that the currently proposed dogma--a first shot miss at 160, SBT at 224, and a head shot at 313, is Malarkey with a capital M.

Who knows? Maybe you'll be the first LNT to come up with a scenario that makes sense?

Pat, I don't know if you've had a chance to view the video or not, but please let let me clarify what I am saying.

When Oswald's rifle was tested by acoustics experts they discovered that it generated a 130 decibel shock wave within a ten foot radius of the bullet and a muzzle blast that to the ears of the limo passengers, would have generated a level ranging from 115-130db, depending on the distance from the rifle. Other high powered rifles are are known to be twice that loud.

That was many times louder than the level that is known to generate visible startle reactions, which is exactly what we see, following the known shot at 312 and the shot at 285, which I have been talking about for many years. But there were no startle reactions at all, prior to 285. People looked around with a "what was that" kind of reaction, but that was much different than the dramatic reactions following those other two shots.

The lack of startle reactions, combined with the large consensus who only heard one early report (which most did not recognize then, as a gunshot) strongly suggests, that the early shots were suppressed. They simply could not have come from Oswald's or any other high powered rifle.

I firmly believe that JFK and Connally were either hit by one bullet at 223, or they were hit almost simultaneously, by a semi-automatic weapon. But whichever it was, nobody heard the shot(s), including John Connally.

JFK had to have been hit at or very close to 223, Pat. His rising arms had nothing to do with reaching up to his neck wound. It was entirely a neurological reaction, which means it had to be VERY fast. His right hand and arm began to rise at 226, which is a perfect match with a shot at 223. That has to trump the subjective recollections of witnesses trying to remember where the limo was when they heard the first shot. I suspect that each of those people actually heard the shot at 160 and it just took a small amount of time to sink in.

Again, even suppressed high power rifle shots are over 100db, using sub sonic ammo. Regular ammo would be much louder.

These shots would have been fully audible in the plaza and heard by many, especially those closest to the shooter. I would also suggest that the dictabelt would certainly have picked these up.

The firearms factoid of suppressed shots is the easiest of myths to disprove.

Michael, we have been through all this before. Even the Warren Commission admitted that most witnesses only heard one early shot and then closely bunched shots at the end.

Therefore, unless you believe that was all there were, then at least one of those early shots went totally unheard. And the one that was heard, wasn't even recognized by most witnesses as a real gunshot. And that makes perfect sense, since we can see that no-one was startled by any of the shots prior to frame 290-291.

The individuals in the limousine further corroborated that fact. Mrs. Connally for example, was very specific that she only heard one shot, until after she looked back and saw JFK in distress and after he had begun to shout, which is the same thing that Mrs. Kennedy said.

Greer said he heard one "noise" and then no other shots prior to near simultaneous shots at the end.

Kellerman heard one shot and then nothing until a "flurry" at the end of the attack.

Therefore, Michael, if there was more than one early shot, which we both acknowledge, then at least one of them went unheard.

And finally, as we discussed before, there is no proof that the early shots came from a high powered rifle, or any kind of rifle for that matter. The quiet shots were only fired when the limo was relatively close to the Daltex. This video shows a guy using both a suppressed pistol and a suppressed rifle. And it sounds like the recording level is set normally.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EfPO6cFstTk

I have no problem believing that witnesses could have overlooked shots from either of those weapons, especially with the crowd noise and motorcycles.

What IS outrageous, is to imagine that they overlooked the report and shock wave of an unsuppressed, high powered rifle, which would have been many times louder.

Had Oswald fired the early shots, Michael, they would have been the loudest of all. The limo passengers would have been severely startled, the Secret Service would have jumped into action immediately, and people would have been screaming and diving to the ground all over Dealey Plaza.

Those early shots could not have been fired by Oswald.

Mike, I did notice a mistake in your last critique of Robert's scenario. It is a point on which Robert is absolutely correct.

People did not hear a shot at frame 223/224. People watching Kennedy at the time of the first shot. e.g Woodward, Powers, said he was waving and then jerked to the left as a response to the shot. This happens BEFORE Kennedy goes behind the sign in the Z-film.

As a response to this fact, the HSCA theorized the single-bullet shot hit Kennedy circa frame 190.

It was only through the shenanigans of Lattimer and Posner that the SBT got moved back to 224. In his book Bugliosi plays the WC 210-224 card, and never acknowledges that he presented a photography expert to the jury in his 1986 mock trial, to prove to them Kennedy was hit around 190.

If you're as independent-minded as I suspect you are, you'll break away from the current LNT group-think, and realize that the currently proposed dogma--a first shot miss at 160, SBT at 224, and a head shot at 313, is Malarkey with a capital M.

Who knows? Maybe you'll be the first LNT to come up with a scenario that makes sense?

Pat, I don't know if you've had a chance to view the video or not, but please let let me clarify what I am saying.

When Oswald's rifle was tested by acoustics experts they discovered that it generated a 130 decibel shock wave within a ten foot radius of the bullet and a muzzle blast that to the ears of the limo passengers, would have generated a level ranging from 115-130db, depending on the distance from the rifle. Other high powered rifles are are known to be twice that loud.

That was many times louder than the level that is known to generate visible startle reactions, which is exactly what we see, following the known shot at 312 and the shot at 285, which I have been talking about for many years. But there were no startle reactions at all, prior to 285. People looked around with a "what was that" kind of reaction, but that was much different than the dramatic reactions following those other two shots.

The lack of startle reactions, combined with the large consensus who only heard one early report (which most did not recognize then, as a gunshot) strongly suggests, that the early shots were suppressed. They simply could not have come from Oswald's or any other high powered rifle.

I firmly believe that JFK and Connally were either hit by one bullet at 223, or they were hit almost simultaneously, by a semi-automatic weapon. But whichever it was, nobody heard the shot(s), including John Connally.

JFK had to have been hit at or very close to 223, Pat. His rising arms had nothing to do with reaching up to his neck wound. It was entirely a neurological reaction, which means it had to be VERY fast. His right hand and arm began to rise at 226, which is a perfect match with a shot at 223. That has to trump the subjective recollections of witnesses trying to remember where the limo was when they heard the first shot. I suspect that each of those people actually heard the shot at 160 and it just took a small amount of time to sink in.

Mike, I did notice a mistake in your last critique of Robert's scenario. It is a point on which Robert is absolutely correct.

People did not hear a shot at frame 223/224. People watching Kennedy at the time of the first shot. e.g Woodward, Powers, said he was waving and then jerked to the left as a response to the shot. This happens BEFORE Kennedy goes behind the sign in the Z-film.

As a response to this fact, the HSCA theorized the single-bullet shot hit Kennedy circa frame 190.

It was only through the shenanigans of Lattimer and Posner that the SBT got moved back to 224. In his book Bugliosi plays the WC 210-224 card, and never acknowledges that he presented a photography expert to the jury in his 1986 mock trial, to prove to them Kennedy was hit around 190.

If you're as independent-minded as I suspect you are, you'll break away from the current LNT group-think, and realize that the currently proposed dogma--a first shot miss at 160, SBT at 224, and a head shot at 313, is Malarkey with a capital M.

Who knows? Maybe you'll be the first LNT to come up with a scenario that makes sense?

Pat,

Perhaps I should have stated that differently. People did hear the shot that contributed to the movements at 223-224. In any case they would have heard a silenced shot as well. I would have no issue with the SBT hitting JFK at 190. In fact I have posted this as the first shot on several occasions. See the first shot first hit thread I wrote a few years ago. It makes an excellent point in showing how that first shot related to the Wilis photo at 202, and also shows the shot timing in relation to Betzner.

Robert is incorrect at any time when he says a suppressed shot would not be heard. See the information provided on suppressors in my original post.

So if we are now to say that this shot happened at say 195, then Roberts shooter had even less time to remove his silencer and reacquire the target.

So tell me, Michael. Since the large majority of witnesses only heard one shot prior to the very end of the attack, do you think it is more likely that they would overlook a suppressed shot or an unsuppressed shot?

For years, WC critics have doubted the legitimacy of CE-399. Not only does its relatively undamaged condition suggest that it wounded no-one, but when it was analyzed microscopically, there was not a trace of human blood or tissue.

This video follows up on the excellent work by Dr. Gary Aguilar and Josiah Thompson, who confirmed that the FBI lied to the WC, trying to convince them that some of the men who originally handled the stretcher bullet, confirmed that it was similar to CE-399.

John Hunt then discovered that the initials written on the stretcher bullet by FBI agent Elmer Todd, were nowhere to be seen on CE-399.

In this video, I address the question of what actually happened to the real bullet that was embedded in Governor Connally's thigh. As it turned out, the Parkland staff did not leave such enormously important evidence laying around on a stretcher as the FBI claimed. When it fell from the Governor's thigh, it was immediately retrieved by a nurse who passed it on to an officer of the Texas Rangers, who then delivered it to the Dallas police dept.

Corroboration for this bullet comes from Governor Connally himself, Dallas District Attorney Wade, Connally aide Bill Stinson, and officer Bobby Nolan whom I interview in the video. It also comes from the FBI, who altered the evidence envelope that held the bullet, and forged the name of nurse Audrey Bell, to make it appear that the envelope held the fragments from Connally's wrist, instead of the bullet from his leg.

This is the Quicktime version, from my website:

http://jfkhistory.com/ce399f/ce399f.mov

And these are at Youtube, broken into two parts:

Be sure to also read Aguilar and Thompson's article here:

http://www.history-matters.com/essays/fram...MoreMagical.htm

And John Hunt's article here:

http://www.jfklancer.com/hunt/phantom.htm

Mike Williams is a fanatical, lone nutter who pretended to be a conspiracy supporter for years, until he was forced to come out of the closet and admit his agenda.

At the jfkassassinationforum.com he follows me around from thread to thread, attacking anything and everything I say and apparently intends to do the same thing in this forum. I invite interested lurkers to weight his "analysis" against mine and make their own call.

Bob