Jump to content
The Education Forum

Robert Harris

Members
  • Content Count

    618
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by Robert Harris

  1. My conclusion from all this is that it is not certain T1 Transverse Process was damaged. The whole situation is full of ambiguity. James. Yes, well there seems to be a unwritten law that nothing related to this case can be simple :-) But it appears that there was something there, which at the very least, might have been the result of a bullet strike nearby. And as near as I can tell, T1 is a perfect match with the lower of the two alleged wounds that I measured at the top of this thread. Now, it's important to understand that JFK's anatomy was somewhat different than a lot of other people's
  2. I'm not saying it didn't, Robert. I'm saying that Seaton's image, which you insist on posting over and over again, is nonsense designed to support McAdams's disingenuous support of Artwohl's pet theory the bullet entered at T-1, AND that T-1 was significantly above the throat wound. Yes, of course it's above the throat wound. I've been telling you that for years. T1 was fractured and there are NO vertebrae below C7 that could have affected anything that was connected to the elbows. JFK's neurological reaction could only have been to a bullet passing very close to C7. JFK's anatomy was differ
  3. Seaton's image is LN nonsense, Robert. It was designed to sell the ridiculous lie that a bullet entering at T-1 and exiting from the lower throat would be heading sharply downward in the body. This was in direct contradiction to the conclusions of the HSCA Pathology Panel, and Anatomy 101. Dr. David Davis came to the following conclusion: Evaluation of the pre-autopsy film shows that there is some subcutaneous or interstitial air overlying the right C7 and T1 transverse processes. There is disruption of the integrity of the transverse process of T1, which, in comparison with its mate on
  4. This argument about the coat bunching is a waste of time. The coat undoubtedly did bunch up a bit in the back. In fact, the hole in the jacket is probably an inch or two lower than the back wound in the photo that I described at the top of this thread. But we get a perfect match with vertebrae T1, which the HSCA confirmed, had been fractured. Just extend the T1 line to the back. Our personal opinions about "tailored" jackets don't mean much. What matters is the empirical, verifiable evidence.
  5. Still can't deal HONESTLY with the fact your method of measurement is FATALLY FLAWED. Oh so typical. I believe I did Craig. I explained to you that ALL 2 dimensional photos contain angular distortion. But the amount is negligible and not nearly enough to alter the fact that the lower of the two wounds matches both the dimensions and the position that Humes described. If you think otherwise, then show us the math and give us some reason to believe that there is enough distortion to affect my conclusions.
  6. Robert is wrong in claiming no one has used the ruler to measure before. I did it 6 pr 7 years ago, and have posted my slide on this on this forum several times. I was unaware of that. Would you mind posting a link to one or more of them? I'm curious about your measurements. Assume the smaller wound is 7mm wide, and then extrapolate from that the size of the body Pat, I don't mind you attacking my article but don't you think it would be a good idea to read it first? I was very clear that the lower alleged wound was 4mm wide and 7mm tall - exactly what Humes said it was. It's position is als
  7. You total ignorance of the process and basic photographic principal is duly noted. And your work is still useless. Hi Craig! You are correct that I am not a photographic expert. You were also correct in pointing out that there is angular distortion in that photo. As I'm sure a bright guy like you realizes, ALL two dimensional photos contain angular distortion - no exceptions. What matters however, is the degree of distortion and whether it is substantial enough to alter our conclusions. Is it your belief that my measurements, adjusted for distortion, would prove that the upper of the
  8. My first problem, that I appear not to have articulated well, is that on BE 5 you state that the larger object was 15 pixels and that measured 7mm. In Keynote the ruler is 661 pixels long and since we know it to have been 12 inches or 305 mms, we know that 1 mm = 2.167 pixels. Therefore, 7 mms = 15.169 pixels and 4 mms = 8.668 pixels. Of course, I cannot display fractions of pixels, so I did have to round the numbers off to 15 and 9 pixels respectively. I simply drew lines of those lengths and positioned them next to to the two candidates. I invite you or anyone else to verify my results usin
  9. James, I'm not sure I understand your arguments here. There is very little angular distortion in that photo, certainly not enough to invalidate the conclusions. And your argument that Keynote is presentation software is just not relevant, since all we are doing is counting pixels. If Keynote cannot do that, I'm going back PC's :-) There has been considerable discussion about this in my own forum, between a LN advocate named Kegeshook and myself. If you go to this link and reply #41, you will see a totally different perspective on how far down from the mastoid process, 14cms. really is. http:
  10. I realize that the head was tilted back a bit, but click on that second image to blow it up and look at how low on the BOH the mastoid process is . The 14 cm line I overlayed, comes to a point well above that. Also, the dimensions of that lower defect match perfectly with Hume's 7x4 measurement. I have always believed that the lower of the two alleged wounds was the correct one because the ruler is obviously, turned to measure it and not the higher one. And there seems to be an abrasion collar surrounding it. I have argued for years, that the SBT shot could not have come from the 6th floor of
  11. I honestly don't know what it was. But I'm quite sure what it was not :-)
  12. After half a century of quarreling about the location of the back wound on President Kennedy, I think I have stumbled upon a way to resolve this issue once and for all. As is often the case, it is ridiculously simple. The famous autopsy photo below, has been controversial, because govt. doctors have stated that the upper of two alleged wounds was the actual entry point. Skeptics (including moi) have argued that the ruler is turned in such a way as to be measuring the lower of the two and that there appears to be an abrasion collar around it. The answer to this controversy is simple. In his t
  13. The following is a posting I recently made in alt.assassination.jfk, a usenet forum populated by some of the most radical lone nut advocates on the Internet. As you look at the images here, consider that McAdams replied by continuing to deny that there was any protrusion in the back of JFK's head. That massive protrusion Over the years, John McAdams has desperately tried to deny its existence, claiming that the massive protrusion in the back of the President's head did not exist. He argued that frame 337 was some kind of photographic anomaly, depicting damage that does not exist in any of t
  14. You're using a dark, low resolution copy of the picture. You can't even see Killion and Frazier's initials on the side where you think you see these phantom initials, which just happens to be right over the top of where Frazier's initials are.
  15. This would be funny if it wasn't so pathetic and desperate. First of all, you don't use one of Todd's own reports to prove that he was telling the truth. That's like say OJ was innocent because he wrote a report saying he didn't kill anybody. And secondly, it wouldn't matter whether he etched his initials into the stretcher bullet or not, because those initials are not on CE399, which was obviously, not the same bullet. Come on David. Take a course in critical thinking:-)
  16. There is what might first appear as a small detail, which pretty much nails the question of whether at least Oswald was there. This was a great catch by Ray and Mary La Fontaine - from their book "Oswald Talked". Posner cites this Summers interview with Palmer as a prelude to switching into search and destroy mode. The Warren pitbull wants to show that whatever Palmer may have said to Summers in 1978, he said something devastatingly different eleven years earlier "in his 1967 statement to Garrison's office. "Among the things Palmer said then", says Posner, was that "Oswald produced a `
  17. Mr. Ragano, I think you're hallucinating if you believe that you can see another set of initials.
  18. Well then, tell us what he really meant. He said, These remarkable similarities suggest that whoever was shaping the Clinton scenario simply appropriated the entire 'profile' of Estus Morgan, who really did appear at the registrar's office in 1963, and attributed it to Lee Harvey Oswald. If David did not mean that this appropriation was an honest misidentification then what was it? Did all of these men conspire to lie about who they saw and talked to? Were all the details about Oswald's age, his military ID, and the men who were with him, complete, deliberate fabrications? These men include
  19. First of all, CE399 was not the bullet that Tomlinson found. And Bell did not deliver her envelope to the DPD. She gave it to two plain clothed agents, probably from the FBI, in her office. She then had one of them sign a receipt and sent the receipt to administration at the hospital. But rather than re-explain all of this, I would prefer to direct you to the article which contains all the documented facts related to this issue. They are MUCH different than what you seem to believe. Please read it all. The most important parts are toward the end. http://jfkhistory.com/bell/bellarticle/BellAr
  20. Refresh my memory David. What was your explanation for why Bell told those men that this was a single bullet that was from Connally's gurney, rather than four tiny fragments recovered from his wrist during surgery? Maybe you could just cut 'n paste your previous explanation. Take your time David. Honest young man that you are, I'm sure didn't lie about addressing those questions. Just cite your response - verbatim, please.
  21. Already done it, Bob. Many times. You just don't like the answers. Refresh my memory David. What was your explanation for why Bell told those men that this was a single bullet that was from Connally's gurney, rather than four tiny fragments recovered from his wrist during surgery? Maybe you could just cut 'n paste your previous explanation. The only bullet associated with JBC's wounds is CE399. That's a FACT that was accepted as a FACT by both the WC & HSCA, and no amount of foot-stomping done by Robert Harris (or anyone else) is going to change that fact. David, you remind me of radic
  22. Like virtually all conspiracy theorists, Robert Harris has no ability whatsoever when it comes to properly (and reasonably) evaluating evidence in the JFK case. I love how you resort to ad hominem attacks when the evidence proves you are wrong David. When do you intend to talk about those key witnesses? The best way to know that Harris is full of cow dung is the fact that there is no second bullet in evidence today that in any way was associated with the wounding of Gov. John B. Connally. That has got to be the worst example of circular reasoning I have heard this year. The FBI couldn't hav
  23. David, that is the biggest pile of crap I have heard in a long time, and coming from you, that's saying a lot. Let's review what those people actually said: John Connally: "..the most curious discovery of all took place when they rolled me off the stretcher, and onto the examining table. 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." DA Henry Wade: I also went out to see (Gov. John)
  24. David, you know very well that Hunt's scan was done in high contrast for the obvious purpose of making the initials stand out clearly. Why are you pretending that I said that Hunt "forged" it? But even it contains obvious character fragments which prove that information on the envelope was altered. You seem desperate to change the subject David. Are you now ready to discuss the statements of Connally, Wade, Nolan and Bell? I think Stinson's statement on the subject is also significant. And I think the key word here is "gurney". The natural presumption would be that a nurse coming out of surg
  25. David, we have no idea what was or was not forged on that envelope. What we do know is that significant portions of it were erased, partially erased, and written over. You responded to that by posting a high contrast scan of the original photo in which much of the detail was not visible and then proclaimed the issue debunked. That was not only wrong, but flatly dishonest. But why are you trying to change the subject? I asked why you refused to talk about the statements by Wade, Nolan and Connally. And for that matter, why won't you talk about Bell's denial of the FBI's claim that her envelope
×
×
  • Create New...