Jump to content
The Education Forum

Robert Harris

Members
  • Content Count

    618
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by Robert Harris

  1. Thanks for the corrections. I also got an email from Gary Mack, stating that the Wade interview I referenced was actually a Museum oral history done by Wes Wise in 1992. But he won't provide a link or any content from the interview. I suspect he's right but I'm not going to correct it until I can verify his claim.

  2. This is a detailed article about the bullet that fell from Governor Connally's gurney at Parkland hospital and was picked by a nurse. She showed the bullet to district attorney, Henry Wade and then gave it to officer Bobby Nolan. Obviously, THIS was the bullet that wounded Connally, and not the stretcher bullet found by Daryl Tomlinson. The evidence for this is overwhelming. http://jfkhistory.com/bell/bellarticle/BellArticle.html
  3. So JFK was killed to stop him from banning flouride, which is part of an insidious, secret plot to make the American people docile and stupid?
  4. Ok, but I was thinking of the body washing, not the time of life-saving measures. During that time, presumably, Henchcliff, Bowron, and Sanders (the orderly) wrapped the head and washed the body. Henchcliff told Wallace Milam she saw no back wound; there may be a reasonable explanation for this, as in, she didn't wash his back but Bowron did; or there may be something important in this, as in, she helped Bowron wash the back and saw no wound because it wasn't there at the time. I find it unreasonable to suppose that Bowron would see a back wound and not report its existence to Henchcliff and
  5. I really need to check in here more often. I'm glad you were able to use my presentation to make your point, although when I saw the title, I thought this would be a nasty shot at my weight I would add however, that my own opinion is that the 313 shot did not come from the Daltex, mainly because the shots from that location went almost entirely unnoticed, and provoked no visible startle reactions, as we see beginning at 290, and following the shot at 312-313. I feel quite certain that the early shots, pre-290 were fired from a suppressed weapon. I do however, see rather compelling witness
  6. Agreed, Terry, ASSUMING a back wound existed in the first place. Since no one here can produce CONTEMPORANEOUS evidence of a back wound at Parkland, even though there should be such evidence, as you point out, then I can only conclude that no back wound existed at parkland, as David Lifton asserts in BEST EVIDENCE. Agreed, Terry, ASSUMING a back wound existed in the first place. Sigh... I don't know which is worse, the craziest nutters in Duncan's forum or the craziest conspiracy people over here Ok, as one of the crazies here, may I ask this one question: If Nurse Henchcliff
  7. Agreed, Terry, ASSUMING a back wound existed in the first place. Since no one here can produce CONTEMPORANEOUS evidence of a back wound at Parkland, even though there should be such evidence, as you point out, then I can only conclude that no back wound existed at parkland, as David Lifton asserts in BEST EVIDENCE. Agreed, Terry, ASSUMING a back wound existed in the first place. Sigh... I don't know which is worse, the craziest nutters in Duncan's forum or the craziest conspiracy people over here
  8. So Bowron made a mistake, sez Harris, based on his own experience as a QUALIFIED EXPERT in NOTHING WHATSOEVER! Well, I am a decent guitar player But I really do think I'm missing something here. Are we trying to connect Bowron to some sinister plot, or just accusing her of being a xxxx? If the latter, then why didn't she just lie and claim that she did see the back wound? For that matter, why would she have lied at all? What she reported about the BOH was what most of the other Parkland people reported. Why would she have made up a false story?
  9. I think you are picking nits here, Todd. By this reasoning she was also lying because she didn't mention the tracheotomy to the WC. Her job was to wash the body, so undoubtedly, she did see the back wound and the throat wound but perhaps because the BOH damage was so much more massive, she just failed at that instant to think about the other wounds. People make mistakes, particularly when they in a stressful situation like she was in.
  10. I'm looking for a really good, digital copy of the Elm St. sequence in the Bronson film. If anyone has one or can point me to one, please let me know. I saw Robin's BTW, but it only includes a few of the frames.
  11. I don't believe that Zapruder was startled then. If he had been, we would be seeing the limo passengers being startled as well. There are more false positives in the film than actual startle reactions. Also, Alvarez described startle reactions as including more than just one blurred frame. He said there would be a sequence of blurred frames in increments of app. 6 frames. You will see that following 312 and following 285. Those seem to be the only shots that day that came from unsuppressed, high powered rifles. Most witnesses only heard one of the early shots. Some heard none, including C
  12. Carlos Marcello had other motives as well and actually confessed that he ordered the assassination. He also stated that David Ferrie helped him and introduced him to Oswald at a meeting at his brother's restaurant.
  13. I don't believe that Zapruder was startled then. If he had been, we would be seeing the limo passengers being startled as well. There are more false positives in the film than actual startle reactions. Also, Alvarez described startle reactions as including more than just one blurred frame. He said there would be a sequence of blurred frames in increments of app. 6 frames. You will see that following 312 and following 285. Those seem to be the only shots that day that came from unsuppressed, high powered rifles.
  14. This video presentation is an analysis of Hill's statements, testimony and actions during the assassination, which demonstrate that he heard one shot at frame 285 and another after the fatal explosion at frame 313.
  15. If you want to know what really happened on 11/22/63, you look at the earliest statements, NOT what the witness says half a century later, when he probably has to struggle to remember what he had for breakfast that morning. Hill NEVER claimed in 1963, or in 1964 that he saw the head explosion and in fact, he didn't actually claim that in the video. He only said it happened, which we all know. And he didn't recall "three" shots at the time. He only heard two of them. Hill leaped from the limo almost simultaneous with the 313 head explosion, in direct reaction to the gunshot he had heard imme
  16. Over the years LN advocates have cooked up several rationalizations to explain why most witnesses heard closely bunched shots at the end of attack. They claimed it was the result of "echoes", fragments bouncing off the windshield, or incompetent witnesses. But they have never tried to explain the other problem. How could there be such a large consensus who only heard one early "noise"? And why did most witnesses state that that one noise didn't sound at all like the other shots or like a rifle? Scientists and clinical psychologists have conducted countless tests on the effects of loud noises
  17. Rybka’s Secret Service report clearly states that “upon arrival at Love Field,” he “stationed” himself “at the right front fender” of the follow-up car to the “rear” of the President’s limousine, which is where the agent seen in the footage is located. Rybka also stated that when “the motorcade began to move,” he “moved along with it,” which is exactly what the agent on the film is doing before speaking to Roberts and shrugging his shoulders three times. Lawton’s report, on the other hand, says nothing about the follow-up car, the Presidential limousine, or the motorcade. It states that “upon
  18. We've been comparing photos in my forum and I have to admit that it LOOKS more like Lawton, though I cannot be absolutely certain. Isn't there ANYTHING in this case that is simple???
  19. Palamyra was wrong and so was the author of "The Kennedy Detail". Lawton was indeed, at the airport with Rybka. But it was Rybka who was briefly running alongside the cars. This is from his original SS report. "Upon arrival at Love Field, Dallas, Texas aboard Air Force One at 11:35 am, I proced (sp) to the followup-car 679-X and the rear of 100-X. There I stopped everyone from going in between the cars. Once the motor-cade began to move I moved along with it until the motor-cade picked up speed. From this point I returned to the immediate area of Air Force ONE." You can see his report in my
  20. Over the years I have posted animated GIFs in various JFK forums in order to show the reactions to the shot at frame 285 but no browser is capable of displaying GIFs at 18 fps and so they always appear slower than they should.

 This animation was calibrated in Quicktime at 18 fps. It will give you a good look at how those reactions actually appeared in real time on 11/22/63. Experts unanimously agree that startle reactions must begin within 1/3rd of a second following the stimulus. And each of those reactions began within the same 1/6th of a second of one another and of Zapruder's reaction a
  21. As for Dunkin's moronic claim that Jackie's hand created the false impression that there was a massive protrusion in the back of JFK's head, this video addresses that issue in spades. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=65inNE7dCUE
  22. Did I ask you to butt in? No stunt was pulled by me, nor did I admit I was wrong. You argued with me, that where I outlined Jackie's glove was not a glove at all. As I've told you before, Robert, I'm not interested in what your two million "Greer did it" Youtube groupies have to say. They are not relevant to any serious discussion of the JFK assassination. If they were serious they would be deabating here instead of agreeing with you, that a deranged google eyed scissors snipping Venetian blinds cutting window smashing assassin, fired a missed shot at the turn on to Elm, hitting the as
  23. It's a poor Bob Harris analysis. but that's not unusual. Outlined below is the real shape of Kennedy's head. Duncan, your obsession with me is pathetic and beyond ridiculous. You already pulled this stunt, claiming that I didn't realize the correct outline of the front of JFK's head, and as usual, you were proven wrong. The outline in the very video that you are attacking, proves that. Furthermore, I previously posted that frame for you and you even admitted that you were wrong. You seem to think that since I haven't been hanging out in this forum recently, that you can get away with t
  24. What exactly would be the point of switching the MC found in the depository for another MC?
  25. I thank you Robin for your honesty...as always. And yes, it's right to be peer reviewed to keep on track. Many just don't have the ability and the balls to admit anything. And yes, when you encounter their biased minds too often it's a strenght to put them on an "Ignore List". best to you my friend Martin Martin, your pretense that you are not part of a team going after "Robert Harris" is embarrassingly transparent. And your endless gushing praise of your partners is only useful if one is seeking a gag reflex. The fact which your fearless leader is attacking, is infinitely more imp
×
×
  • Create New...