Jump to content
The Education Forum

Robert Harris

  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by Robert Harris

  1. The fallacy in David's reasoning is that Connally certainly knew that he had lost a cuff link. If he was just guessing, that's undoubtedly what he would have assumed it was. But he saw the bullet and saw the nurse pick it up and put it in her pocket. He was not a stupid man and would never have said it was a bullet if he hadn't seen it. "A metal object fell to the floor, with a click no louder than a wedding band. The nurse picked it up and slipped it into her pocket. It was the bullet from my body, the one that passed though my back, chest and wrist and worked itself loose from my thigh.
  2. The overwhelming consensus of the witnesses that day, who commented on the spacing of the shots, was that they heard a single shot or noise, followed by a delay and then closely bunched shots at the end of the attack. This is how the Warren Commission described them: “ ..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.” At one point during the hearings, Warren Commissioner Allen Dulles noted the overwhelming consistency of these witnesses, when he described the ratio of those c
  3. It seems pretty obvious, that the nutters reject the notion that a gunshot was fired at Zapruder frame 285 - just 1.5 seconds prior to the shot at 313. If they are correct, then there must be another explanation for why 6 people all began to react during the same three frames, or 1/6th of a second. http://jfkhistory.com/simultaneous.gif Three of them simultaneously dropped their heads downward and forward. http://jfkhistory.com/angles285.jpg These are the reactions which began within a third of a second following the shot at 285. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7GH5pGQy6yI# The reactions
  4. If you count the original statements from 1963 and 1964, you will find that a large majority of witnesses who mentioned this, said the limo slowed or almost came to a stop, which is exactly what it did. Greer lifted his foot from the gas for exactly the reason that Dr. Luis Alvarez said he did. He was startled by a loud noise at frame 285. Of course that was not a siren. That was a gunshot which also startled every other nonvictim who was in the limo.
  5. As anyone who has studied the films and photos knows, there are four films in which the limo slows down but moves continuously. One might think that that would settle the issue. But some of the more extreme alterationists have argued that the perps must have altered all of the films so that they all matched. Absurd as that might seem, it is still true that the Zapruder, Muchmore and Nix films were all at one time or another, in the hands of the feds. But there is an exception. Like the others, the Bronson film also shows the limo in continuous motion, but unlike them, it was never in the han
  6. I used to believe that the Daltex sniper was behind that fire escape too, but I think there is a much more likely location:
  7. First, you have to realize that the followup car was almost bumper-to-bumper with the limo. The distance was about 2-3 feet, so Hill didn't have to run far. I made up this collage from the Muchmore film awhile back, which gives us a pretty good idea of his route to the limo. I placed the equivalent Zapruder frame numbers in the frames (the forum software shrunk the image - click on it to expand it).
  8. It's pointless making this claim, unless you post the evidence to support it This is all about the angles and the kinds of lenses being used at the time. In the Nix frame that Steven posted, Jackie seems closer to Hill, but the limo also looks MUCH shorter than it does in the Zapruder film - I would estimate, about 30-40% shorter. Compare the sizes of the window next to Nellie. Lens distortion can do some very strange things to photographs, especially on these old movie cameras.
  9. Setting other issues aside, and since this thread is about Kellerman, can we agree that his earliest recollection on 11/22/63 was that he went for the microphone AFTER the shooting had ended and he had yelled at Greer to hurry up and get out of there? Therefore, what he recalled was perfectly consistent with the Zapruder film. I can't help but suspect that he and a couple other SA's fudged their stories a bit to accelerate their actions, due to accusations that they were "sluggish" that day. They really weren't sluggish at all however. They just never heard anything that to most witnesses, so
  10. Bernice, would you mind linking us to the video which that was taken from? I do not see that in my Nix film, although I will admit that it is not the greatest copy. What I do see however, are a lot of little white dots like that, scattered throughout the frames, appearing and then disappearing in the next frame. And because your GIF has been darkened, I can't tell whether those dots were actually moving or are fixed in the background. That should be much easier to see in the original video. One thing I do see in my copy of the film, is that the head was driven slightly forward when the bulle
  11. The majority of witnesses originally said it slowed down? Presumably from 14 to 8 mph? That is news to me. If what you say is true, why does Sherry Feister (Sp) go to such absurd lengths to disavow the large number of limo stop witnesses in her latest book? As far as I can understand, she does not argue that the majority said the limo slowed, but that the majority suffered shock and mistook the slowing for a stopping. As for the ejecta not seen, sorry, I am not buying anything you say for a moment. The bones in the back of the head (and not the front) were sprung open and a large amount of tis
  12. Kellerman was simply wrong, in his WC testimony. This is from his report on 11/22/1963. He clearly, grabbed the microphone after the shooting had ended and after he yelled at Greer. We were still traveling at the normal rate of speed of from 12 to 15 miles per hour when I heard a noise, similar to a firecracker, exploding in the area to the rear of the car, about 12:30 p.m. Immediately I heard what I firmly believe was the President's voice, "My God, I'm hit!" I turned around to find out what happened when two additional shots rang out, and the President slumped into Mrs. Kennedy's lap and Go
  13. Kellerman was simply wrong, in his WC testimony. This is from his report on 11/22/1963. He clearly, grabbed the microphone after the shooting had ended and after he yelled at Greer. We were still traveling at the normal rate of speed of from 12 to 15 miles per hour when I heard a noise, similar to a firecracker, exploding in the area to the rear of the car, about 12:30 p.m. Immediately I heard what I firmly believe was the President's voice, "My God, I'm hit!" I turned around to find out what happened when two additional shots rang out, and the President slumped into Mrs. Kennedy's lap and Go
  14. THUD! NAA analysis? There's still someone out there who thinks that's serious stuff? Jimbo thinks that neutron activation analysis is junk science. He's wrong of course, but he never admits that he's wrong. I say David, you have a Ph.D in Junk Science. Why don't you educate Jimbo? Guinn's techniques, are not nearly as impressive to current scientists as they were in 1963. http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2007/05/070517142528.htm
  15. I can't believe people are still arguing about this. Robert Groden went out to Lovelady's house and interviewed him and he confirmed that he was the guy in question. He had saved that shirt and took it out and put it on for Groden. This is from TKOAP. Am I missing something here, or is he claiming that Lovelady was the guy wearing a white shirt? That's ridiculous.
  16. Hi Ray: I don't have any documentation in front of me at the moment but I am curious as to the source that the "envelope" Bell gave to "plain clothes agents" was of the see through variety. Can you enlighten me? Thanks, Gary Murr Gary, my mistake. The fragments were in a see thru plastic container not a see thru envelope. My bad. You were correct that the fragments were placed into a transparent container, but the container was placed into a small envelope. This is a photo of both the envelope and the container. Look closely at those tiny fragments. Does anyone actually believe
  17. Paul, none of this is about how people respond to my article. It is about the verifiable evidence. Rather than go the ad hominem route, why not simply examine the evidence as objectively as you can, and form your conclusions based on the actual facts of the issue? This is the article. I recommend reading it all. Some of the most important facts come toward the end. http://jfkhistory.com/bell/bellarticle/BellArticle.html
  18. Why would I do that? Just because it's UNSIGNED means I automatically should assume it's "fake"? Nonsense. Bob, do you REALLY believe that this note pictured below is a FAKE note, with somebody OTHER than Richard E. Johnsen of the Secret Service typing that note and then pretending that it was written by Johnsen? Also: What do you think the above note just MIGHT have been stapled to, Bob? (Hint -- There are staple holes in the CE399 envelope too.) Are those holes PROOF that Johnsen's note was stapled to that envelope? No. Of course not. But when we READ the contents of the note (in conju
  19. As I’m sure most of you know, Secret Service agents, Richard Johnsen and James Rowley, who examined the bullet that was found on a stretcher in the basement of Parkland hospital, refused to verify that it was the same bullet that came back from the FBI labs. Lone nut advocates like David Von Pein have argued that the reason for their refusal must have been that they did not mark the bullet as was standard procedure in law enforcement, and so could not be certain that it was the same one. Of course, the totally unsupported presumption that these agents failed to mark the bullet, breaking the
  20. The apparent discrepancy is the result of cosmetic working having been done prior to some of the photos being taken. This was done by mortician, Thomas Robinson. http://jfkmurdersolved.com/EMBALMER.htm As for the damage to the BOH, the best witnesses were not in Parkland. They are us. And please don't tell me the perps created bogus frames showing massive damage to the upper rear of the head. Or if you do, please post your proof of that.
  21. Not true. The shot to the throat caused the hairline fracture of the the T1 transverse process and left an air-pocket overlaying the right C7 and T1 transverse processes -- in a perfect trajectory from the entrance between the 3rd and 4th trach rings. From James Gordon: THAT IS NOT JFK!! This is what I've been trying to get across to you guys. People are different. And the location of the base of JFK's neck in relation to the vertebrae was different that in most men. Measure HIM, not a model.
  22. The fact is, Jim, that the wound's being at T-1 destroys the argument for the SBT. A wound in that location necessitates that Kennedy needed to be leaning sharply forward when hit, and he wasn't. Then there's the other fact--that the argument the wound was at T-3 (and that the autopsy photo is therefore a fake) will never be taken seriously by serious-thinkers. I mean, think about it, seriously, some evil "THEY" faked autopsy photos that show a wound in a different location than purported by the Warren Commission...AND disproves the SBT? And this same "THEY" faked a film that shows Kennedy
  23. Not only did the HSCA claim that T1 was fractured, but on JFK (not on everyone) T1 was at the same height as the lower of those two alleged wounds on the back. I believe one bullet did go through both men but it certainly didn't come from the alleged sniper's nest and as I believe I proved in my article at http://jfkhistory.com/bell/bellarticle/BellArticle.html CE399 was not the bullet that wounded Connally. That bullet came from the third floor of the Daltex building. Consider the actual angle from an entry wound at the height of T1, to the throat wound. Notice that I edited Seaton's illustr
  24. Jim, I accept that you are correct that JFK had custom made clothes. However Craig is correct to point that his jacket was indeed bunched. Croft makes that clear for all to see. How much it was bunched and what affect that would have on the position of the wound I do not know. Maybe not a great deal, maybe a lot. I am not sure if it makes a great deal of difference to your position that either way the wound was too low for the SBT to be valid. I agree with you on that point. I do not understand why you suggest that if photos such as Croft do show the jacket bunched that has to mean the phot
  • Create New...