Robert Harris

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

Hello Bob Harris,

Pleased to make your acquaitance on EF, and thanks for the latest edition heads up. Keep up the good work. Your challenge needs to be echod by more.

I think we may have to ask ask this question to this Anti-Zapruder Film gang: When are you going to write a book called "Why I was Wrong About The Zapruder Film". It would be good to toss that out every time they toss out their non-scientific bunk.

You may also like to take a look at this little bit of info and see if it clicks for you, since you seem to be better than most in getting down to the nitty-gritty details on exposing the JFK crime:

http://forum.jfkmurdersolved.com/viewtopic.php?f=1&t=2218

The vision on the crime is a little better from an atomic bomb factory.

http://forum.jfkmurdersolved.com/viewtopic.php?f=1&t=2219

Jim Phelps, in the land of atomic bombs

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?

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 Sanders in the course of washing the body. I don't know and would love to find out more about the Milam interview with Henchcliff. Does that seem to you like a reasonable, healthy interest? Or am I still crazy? Respectfully, dAniel

This would only be significant if the nurses were searching for wounds. And there had to have been a great deal of emotional impact for them at the time. Its really not surprising that they didn't recall a lot of detail.

And if someone poked a hole in the back, he didn't do a very good job because he only made it a couple inches deep and the hole was almost twice as tall as it was wide, obviously because the bullet was tumbling, which also explains why it appeared to have entered at such a steep, downward angle. That also explains why admiral Osborne discovered the bullet which had to have been the one that fell out from the back wound.

That's just not the way someone would do it if he wanted to give the false appearance of a wound.

As I have argued for many years, the earliest shots were fired from a suppressed weapon that was out of alignment, which caused at least one and probably two shots to miss the limo entirely and a third to misfire, striking well below the head and enter, tumbling at a very low velocity.

That is also why only one of the early shots was noticed by most witnesses, and why we see no startle reactions by the limo passengers prior to the end of the attack.

And yes, any of us who are still studying this thing, have to be crazy. If we weren't when we started out, it was just a matter of time before we got that way.

As one might notice there is a rather large effort to Debunk the Zapruder Film and just about all the others as rigged, tampered, and remade. Good list is now there to review and comment, and look at their various technical flaws. I am perfectly happy they believe all that, as it means they have no evidence of anything as a result. Every bit has been Debunked in their world of analysis. I suppose they can't even claim there is an assassination, so much has been Debunked. One of the DeBunker Folks even links the NASA Moon Landing type information as being all faked, which I seriously question.

One of the first issues to note is they don't seem to consider the issue of the bulge tells that two shots hit JFK's head, one from the rear and a short second later a shot to the temple. This is what Mr. Harris's detail provides us. The first shot leaves a small hole on the back of the skull and pops off a flap at the right temple area. The second shot to the temple entrance area pops off the top of the skull and some scalp and this is when the material hits the people to the rear of the limo. They seem to be stuck on one shot to the head.

Lots of their "proofs" are based upon people's memories and the last time I looked at what people remember of situaltions is that you can take ten people and ask them to recount what they saw and get ten different recollections, some of them extremely different than the others. People's memories, observation abilities, are subjective and have many faults. But they exploit this effect. Not very good science. Even Police Officers have to be trained how to accurately observe and report with reasonable accuracy.

There are lots of issues with their reconstructions. There is a lot of claiming they are the experts and have all these credentials. But do the work yourself and look at the finer issues and things don't always work as claimed.

And with all that---is there one place they talk about the Bulge at the back of JFK head that Mr. Harris brings to light so well. That second head shot effect that hits his right temple and blows back the scalp and the skull at the cow-lick area? Look for yourselves.

That one little bulge impact issue is the essential essence in the Zapruder Film, the missing piece that only came along with better video edit and higher film resolutions.

Can anyone imagine an Assassintion Research area on "Facebook", what a joke. Facebook is a gossip thing for kids. It is like Tweeting, a little comment list for kids. No archives, stuff disappears. Limited space for a sentence or two. That appears Mr. Fetzers kind of hang out and what he calls reseach area.

I don't think anyone can put forth that Facebook is an Assassination Reseach area, without a giggle.

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 testimony that two shots were fired from the TSBD. That was the conclusion of two out of the three men on the 5th floor, as well as Euinns and Howard Brennon. I think one of those shots was the first headshot that killed JFK.

For those who argue that the Zapruder film was altered, I would repeat my challenge from a year ago. Make an 8mm film in DP or some similar area, and then using 1963 technology, alter the film to include the changes which you believe, occurred. Then simply show us the original and the finished product. Oh, and be sure to do the same for three films, since they had to alter the Muchmore and Nix films as well, to make them sychronize with each other, as even Dr. Mantik has admitted, they do. And don't worry, since the Muchmore film was broadcast on TV the following Monday, you've got a little over 48 hours to get the job done - should be a piece of cake

Anyway, getting back to reality, I hope that if you get the time, you will look at my much more detailed analysis of the attack which I made recently.

Since the purpose of wrapping the head was to keep blood and fluid from getting on the interior of the coffin, then a thorough cleaning of, at least, the upper body would have had to be done. And, anyone doing this would have seen the bullet hole in his back.

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 did not see the back wound, and said so in an interview long before Bowron spoke to Livingston, would that mean anything to you? Would it at least give pause for thought? Respectfully, crazy Daniel

Well... not really. The body was continually lying prone while it was at Parkland. And I'm pretty sure that they were more concerned with trying to save Kennedy than in counting the wounds. When all efforts failed, there was no need for them to continue to search for more wounds. This was not an autopsy and their work was over after they pronounced him dead.

Since the purpose of wrapping the head was to keep blood and fluid from getting on the interior of the coffin, then a thorough cleaning of, at least, the upper body would have had to be done. And, anyone doing this would have seen the bullet hole in his back.

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

. People make mistakes, particularly when they in a stressful situation like she was in.

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?

In the 1990’s conspiracy author Harrison Livingstone (High Treason, Killing the Truth) located, corresponded with, and interviewed Former Parkland Nurse Diana Bowron. I happen to have a cassette tape copy of a telephone interview Livingstone did with her. Livingstone published a transcript of that interview in his 1993 book, "Killing the Truth", and he also included a statement that Diana Bowron wrote for him.

In both the interview and the statement, Diana Bowron claims that she saw President Kennedy’s back wound at Parkland Hospital when she helped prepare the President’s body for the casket. If true, this would be very significant, as no one else is on record as having seen the back wound at Parkland Hospital.

The issue might rest right there. However, as with so many other things in this case, there’s a problem. While Diana Bowron told Livingstone these things in the early 1990's, nearly 30 years after the assassination, and certainly after having been exposed to the controversy, she told a very different story to the Warren Commission in 1964, while she was under oath.

Specifically, Diana told the Warren Commission outright that she saw no wounds other than the large wound in President Kennedy’s head:

Mr. SPECTER - You saw the condition of his what?

Miss BOWRON - The back of his head.

Mr. SPECTER - And what was that condition?

Miss BOWRON - Well, it was very bad---you know.

Mr. SPECTER - How many holes did you see?

Miss BOWRON - I just saw one large hole.

Mr. SPECTER - Did you see a small bullet hole beneath that one large hole?

Miss BOWRON - No, sir.

Mr. SPECTER - Did you notice any other wound on the President's body?

Miss BOWRON - No, sir.

Additionally, Diana Bowron, who was originally from England, was interviewed via telephone after the assassination by a British newspaper and told reporters her story. As a result, three articles were published in England detailing her story. In two of the articles Bowron does not identify or describe any wounds to the President. In the third article she mentions the head wound, but mentions no other wounds. In all three articles she mentions the tracheotomy, but remarkably says nothing about the existence of a throat wound. These three articles were published by the Warren Commission in Volume 14 pages 167-170 as Bowron Exhibits 1-4.

So, I believe that sometime between 1964 and the early 1990's Diana Bowron apparently decided to change her story - I have no idea why she would do such a thing, and I'm not obligated to explain her actions.

But she did change her story.

Perhaps the reason why Diana Bowron changed her story lies in the way in which Harry Livingstone handled his witness interviews. He often led his witnesses horribly during questioning. He did this during the Bowron telephone interview a number of times, and we know this was not the first time he spoke with her. He also tainted his witnesses’ memories by exposing them to the literature and controversies surrounding Kennedy's murder. In Bowron's case, Livingstone actually sent her the James K. Fox copies of the autopsy photographs before she wrote her statement for him and did the telephone interview.

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.

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.

What jump reaction artifact is evident at c. 226, the throat wound?

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 Clint Hill, Charles Brehm, Mary Moorman, Jean Hill, and many others.

It's a relief to know that Dallas was simply a Mafia hit done for Jimmy Hoffa's benefit. It's hard to believe, but truth is often stranger than fiction. And if Jimmy didn't appreciate it enough (apparently not even a thank-you note), he certainly got what he deserved. Anyway, now we can all pack up and go home.

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.

What jump reaction artifact is evident at c. 226, the throat wound?

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.

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.

Who’s telling the truth: Clint Hill or the Zapruder film?

Agent’s reports contradict JFK film, autopsy X-rays and other crucial photographs

Jim Fetzer

“In the midst of the mayhem the agents were calm, but ready to react in a

millisecond if anything got out of hand.”—Jerry Blaine, THE KENNEDY DETAIL

According to Jerry Blaine, the author of THE KENNEDY DETAIL (2010), his purpose in writing this book was “to set history straight, to leave a book for [his] grandchildren that they could read and know the truth beyond any measure of doubt.” What Blaine has actually done, however, moves us further toward the truth by revealing that the words of Clint Hill, the only agent to respond during the assassination, contradict his actions as shown in the Zapruder film, in which his efforts to protect Jackie Kennedy are among its most indelible features. They also impeach autopsy X-rays and other photographs. We therefore have in Clint Hill’s own words stunning new proof that the extant film has been faked. The book—and presentations to promote it—thus contributes to “setting history straight”, but not in the sense its author intended.

Clint Hill was not the only agent to attempt to respond after shots rang out. Secret Service agent John Ready, who was on the right running board whereas Clint was on the left, began to respond but was called back by Emory Roberts, Agent in Charge of the Presidential Protection Detail. This is stunning in itself, but is only one of more than fifteen indications that the Secret Service set up JFK for the hit, which include that two agents were left behind at Love Field, that the vehicles were in the wrong order, that the 112th Military Intelligence Unit was ordered to “stand down” rather than provide protection throughout the city, and that the motorcycle escort was reduced to four, who were instructed not to ride forward the rear wheels. Open windows were not covered and the crowd was allowed to spill out into the street.

When I discovered that Jerry and Clint had made presentations at book signings, I sent out a notice to several of my closest collaborators, all of whom contributed to the three JFK books I edited, ASSASSINATION SCIENCE (1998), MURDER IN DEALEY PLAZA (2000), and THE GREAT ZAPRUDER FILM HOAX (2003). I had reported there that we had found multiple indications the film had been reconstructed, where rather important events, such as the driver, William Greer, bringing the limo to a halt, had been removed and the film redone. An expert on special effects, Roderick Ryan, had told Noel Twyman, BLOODY TREASON (1997), that the “blob” of brains exploding to the right/front had been painted in, while, as Doug Horne, INSIDE THE ARRB (2009), has explained, a new group of Hollywood experts has found that a massive defect to the back of JFK’s head had been concealed by being (crudely) painted over in black.

The Costella Response

John Costella, Ph.D., the leading expert on the film in the world today, who earned his doctorate in physics with a specialization in electromagnetism, the properties of light and images of moving objects, responded almost immediately. “Forget about the book”, he wrote. “That YouTube video [of Blaine and Hill at a book signing, which can be found here:

] is worth its weight in gold!” A few years ago, after he did a compilation of eyewitness reports from Dealey Plaza [ http://assassinationresearch.com/v5n1/v5n1costella.pdf ] and created a stabilized version of the Zapruder film, in which the limousine does not move vertically within frames (below), John recognized that what Clint has described from the days after the assassination, to his testimony to the Warren Commission and right up to his last public interviews in the 1970s or 1980s, was consistent but contradicts the film. At the book signing,

24:30: "As I approached the vehicle there was a third shot. It hit the President in the head, upper right rear of the right ear, caused a gaping hole in his head, which caused brain matter, blood, and bone fragments to spew forth out over the car, over myself. At that point Mrs. Kennedy came up out of the back seat onto the trunk of the car. She was trying to retrieve something that had gone off to the right rear. She did not know I was there. At that point I grabbed Mrs. Kennedy, put her in the back seat. The President fell over into her lap, to his left.

His right side of his head was exposed. I could see his eyes were fixed. There was a hole in the upper right rear portion of his head about the size of my palm. Most of the gray matter in that area had been removed, and was scattered throughout the entire car, including on Mrs. Kennedy. I turned and gave the follow-up car crew the thumbs-down, indicating that we were in a very dire situation. The driver accelerated; he got up to the lead car which was driven by Chief Curry, the Dallas Chief of Police . . .”.

This is completely consistent with every account Clint has ever given. He insists that he reached Mrs. Kennedy, pushed her down into the back seat, and was lying over the President, close enough to view the exact wounds, before the driver accelerated away—and certainly before they got to the lead car. The problem is that the extant Zapruder film—together with the less familiar Nix and Muchmore films—has Clint never actually touching Mrs. Kennedy; indeed, the extant Zapruder shows that he never got further than the rear foothold until the time that the limo passed the lead car and went under the Triple Underpass. Instead, it shows him stuck there on the rear foothold (below).)

According to Clint Hill (shown here on the rear foothold of the limousine as the vehicle is about to enter the Triple Underpass), he had already reached Mrs. Kennedy and pushed her down in the back seat. JFK had fallen to the left into her lap, where the right side of his head was exposed to Clint, who was lying over them. This photo is supposed to have been taken by Ike Altgens and corresponds with late Zapruder frames. Clint’s testimony not only falsifies the Zapruder film, but also shows that this photograph was faked to agree with it.

Lest there be any doubt on this crucial point, in Clint Hill’s written statement dated 30 November 1963, which was published as Commission Exhibit CE 1024, he wrote: “As I lay over the top of the back seat I noticed a portion of the President’s head on the right rear side was missing and he was bleeding profusely. Part of his brain was gone. I saw a part of his skull with hair on it lying on the seat” [18H742]. And in his testimony to the commission on 9 March 1964, “The right rear portion of his head was missing. It was lying in the middle of the car. His brain was exposed.” [2H141]. Since he has told us he made these observations before the limousine had reached the pilot car drive by Chief Curry (shown above), this photo has to have been faked. Clint could not have made these observations from the rear foothold as it represents. (His descriptions of the wound to the right rear of JFK’s head are discussed below.)

The Limo Stop

Not the least fascinating aspect of Clint Hill’s latest remarks is his observation that he was covered with brains and gore as he ran forward from the left running board of the Secret Service Cadillac—called “The Queen Mary”—which, according to Emory Roberts (THE KENNEDY DETAIL, page 215), was 15 feet back. This is consistent with the report of Officer Bobby Hargis riding to the left/rear of the limousine, who was hit so hard by the brains and debris that he thought he himself might have been shot. Agents who saw JFK’s brains splattered across the trunk in Washington, D.C. would be nauseated by the sight, as I explained in HOAX, page 27. But it is not in the film. So John wrote to Clint—and he got it, because John has the signed Registered Mail receipt card—urging him to be certain to record his version of events for posterity. Now he is on the road, participating in book signings and talking publicly again, for the first time in decades. His story is still exactly the same and, most important, still does not agree with his actions as seen in the film.. Here is a clip featuring what is shown of his actions in the film:

The film itself thus demonstrates that the Zapruder version of Clint Hill’s actions up to the Triple Underpass is not consistent with Clint Hill’s words describing what he actually did.

John’s collation of eyewitness reports about the assassination includes dozens and dozens about the limo stop. Some reported seeing it slow dramatically and others that it came to a complete stop, which makes sense since, from different positions, different witnesses would have seen it slow dramatically as it came to a complete stop. Among them is Toni Foster, who was interviewed by Debra Conway in 2000. As Daniel Gallup has observed, Foster seems to have no idea that her recollections contradict the official record. Toni told Debra, "For some reason, the car stopped. It did stop for seconds. I don't even know why it stopped and all of a sudden it sped up and they went under the underpass. I could never figure out why the car stopped." “The way she delivers these lines,” Gallup observed, “I doubt Toni had ever seen the extant Z-film, and had no idea her recollections contradicted that film.” He said he was reminded of David Lifton's early (1971) interviews with the Newmans who also said the limo had stopped. “They had no way of knowing at the time that the Z-film showed no such stop. All of this is to say, the earliest recollections of individuals are likely to be the most significant,” he added, “especially if there is evidence of a lack of exposure to contrary viewpoints that might influence memory”. For a few more:

Billy Lovelady (on the steps of the Texas School Book Depository), 19 March 1964: “I recall that following the shooting I ran toward the spot where President Kennedy’s car had stopped.” [FBI statement: 22H662]

Roy Truly (on the north side of Elm Street in front of the building), 24 March 1964: “The car—I saw the President’s car swerve to the left and stop somewhere down in this area” [Later:] (Mr. Belin: “When you saw the President’s car seem to stop, how long did it appear to stop?) Mr. Truly: It would be hard to say, over a second or two, something like that. I didn’t see—I just saw it stop. I don’t know. I didn’t see it start up.” [Warren Commission testimony: 3H221]

Mrs. Earle Cabell (four cars behind the Presidential limousine, at the top of Elm Street at the time of the shots), 13 July 1964: “I was aware that the motorcade stopped dead still. There was no question about that.” [Later:] “As I told you, the motorcade was stopped.” [Later:] (Mr. Hubert: “That was when your car at least had come to a standstill?”) Mrs. Cabell: “Every car in the motorcade had come to a standstill.” [Later:] “… we were dead still for a matter of some seconds—“ [Warren Commission Testimony” 7H486-7]

These reports are significant from multiple points of view. Roy Truly was Oswald’s supervisor in the Book Depository and would reassure Officer Marrion Baker, when he confronted Oswald in the 2nd floor lunch room 90 seconds after the assassination, that he was an employee and belonged there. Billy Lovelady was another employee who looked enough like Oswald to be mistaken for him. And Earle Cabell, the Mayor of Dallas at the time, was the brother of Lt. Gen. Charles Cabell, USAF (ret.), whom JFK removed as a deputy director of the CIA after the disastrous Bay of Pigs fiasco.

The limo stop—during which JFK was hit twice in the head, once from behind and once from in front—was such an obvious indication of Secret Service complicity that it had to be taken out, which is undoubtedly the principal reason for fixing the film. But it had other ramifications. What Clint Hill has consistently described is not in the Zapruder film: he describes several actions in those seconds around the limo stop that were deleted from the extant film. In editing the timeline of the extant film, it was necessary to delete his pushing of Mrs. Kennedy back into the seat—there just wasn't enough time left in the film once the limo stop had been deleted. There is no possible way in which Clint could possibly have seen what he claims to have seen before the car accelerated away and passed the lead car when he was stuck on the back of the speeding limo as he is shown doing in the extant film. And from his initial reports right up to his latest “book signing” interview, he has insisted that that was when he saw those things, that he did reach Mrs. Kennedy and that he did push her down into the car, unlike what the film shows. Which means that the film is a fake.

PART II (below)

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 immediately prior to that. That was the shot at frame 285. The 130 decibel shock wave of that bullet, temporarily deafened the man and he never heard the 312-313 shot. The next one he heard was the final shot, a fraction of a second later. This from his original WC testimony,

"This is the first sound that I heard; yes, sir. I jumped from the car, realizing that something was wrong, ran to the Presidential limousine. Just about as I reached it, there was another sound, which was different than the first sound. I think I described it in my statement as though someone was shooting a revolver into a hard object"

That same shot was clearly described by Charles Brehm and more than a few other witnesses. There is absolutely nothing in Hill's original statements that contradict the Zapruder film, once one understands the shooting sequence.

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 over the years on human beings, and have confirmed that involuntary startle reactions will be provoked by sound levels of 90 db or more. And the HSCA has confirmed that Oswald's rifle generated sound levels which to the ears of the limo passengers, were sixteen times louder than that.

Those sounds included a 130 decibel shock wave as well as a muzzle blast which was almost as loud and of greater duration. And in fact, we see exactly those kinds of dramatic reactions beginning within a third of a second following frames 285 and 312.

And yet most witnesses heard only one noise prior to the very end of the attack. And that includes the passengers in the President's limousine who should have perceived the earliest shots as the loudest, since they were closer to the alleged sniper's nest then.

Any remaining doubts should be resolved by the fact that among law enforcement professionals that day, not even one of them said the early shots were closer together than the final ones. Among the Secret Service agents, no less than four who are visible in the Altgens #6 photo, described actions which took place after hearing one noise and before hearing two more. In each case, we can easily confirm in that photo, taken at the equivalent of Zapruder frame 255, that those actions had not yet taken place.

The obvious conclusion from all this is that the early shots were not very loud and that the witnesses were correct when they described the only one of them they heard, as unlike a rifle shot. Their total lack of startle reactions then corroborates their testimonies with absolute certainty, as do a multitude of other facts.

Robert Harris

Vince Palamara now says he may have made an error identifying the agent at love field who throws his hands up in the air as Rybka.

More likely it was agent Donald Lawton.

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 arrival” at Love Field, he was “assigned to the press area.”

As for claims that the agent in the film “looks” like Lawton, that is just part of the continuing cover-up. It is simply a matter of stating that another film of Rybka is actually Lawton and then comparing it to the Love Field film and saying that the agent in the Love Field film looks like Lawton, who is allegedly the agent in another film.

That’s pretty simple.

As for Vince Palamara being the source of information on identifying photos of Rybka and Lawton, I pegged Palamara for a plant as soon as he started to become a well-known Secret Service “expert.”

He claims to be an expert on the SS and seems to align himself with the CT community while Bugliosi continues to work on his book, and then when the time is right, Palamara says that Reclaiming History has shown him the light.

Then, after about two years, Palamara claims that Doug Horne “turned my world upside down.”

Why would Palamara want to become an “expert” on the SS in the first place?

Regardless of all else, that really was Lawton. This is from the SSSD video,

Now look at photos of the agents.

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 video on the subject,

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gl3F9mfC1bA

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???

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 video on the subject,

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gl3F9mfC1bA

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 as confirmed by Dr. Luis Alvarez.

This should be of special value to those who suggest that Kellerman leaned forward to have a conversation on the radio or that Jackie was studying her husband's neck. 



It was not possible for Oswald to have fired both the shot at frame 285 and the one that followed at 312. This proves that Oswald could not have acted alone, if at all. It also explains why Greer in his panic, slowed the limo. Watch him spin around at almost inhuman speed at the same instant that he was lifting his foot from the gas. And watch Kellerman's reactions which were simultaneous with Greer's and the others.

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

Duncan, your obsession with me is pathetic and beyond ridiculous.

Did I ask you to butt in?

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 the same phony accusation.

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.

This video has been viewed almost two million times with nearly unanimous approval ratings from viewers who for the most part, are more knowledgeable than you and a helluva lot more honest.

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 ashphalt which caused debris to ricochet on to JFK'S head, causing him to ball his hand in to a fist, stop smiling, regroom his hair, and then continue on his journey waving and pretending that nothing happened.

Yes Robert, they have far more common sense than me.

Your claim was "Outlined below is the real shape of Kennedy's head." Which is the same as the shape I outlined in the video and posted for you just now and as I posted before, after which, you did indeed, admit that you were wrong.

You are also repeating your phony insinuation that I am in the "driver did it" camp, when in reality I posted a video long ago which totally rebuts that theory. You are one real class act, Dunkin.

Please watch this video and let me know what you think....

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 the same phony accusation.

This video has been viewed almost two million times with nearly unanimous approval ratings from viewers who for the most part, are more knowledgeable than you and a helluva lot more honest.

I have demonstrated with multiple proofs that several M-C rifles were used in the framing of LHO.

Here is one additional proof of that. An anomaly appears on this rifle photo which I could find on

no others.

Jack

What exactly would be the point of switching the MC found in the depository for another MC?

Thanks Martin / Duncan.

We all need to be peer reviewed, to keep us honest.

As you would know martin, i have never had a problem admitting i have made a mistake in my analysis.

I just need to be presented with "clear evidence" so that i can make an informed judgement

My error was in trying to see the "Full picture" while only concentrating on one frame !

Robin.

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 important than Robin's admission that he was wrong, or Duncan's admission that he was wrong.

It is more important because first, it proves that major damage was inflicted in the rear of the head, well after the 313 explosion had completely subsided. To blow a large piece of skull to the rear, ripping out hair in the upper-superior part of the head, required a great deal of force - more force than can be explained by the momentum of JFK's head being thrown back at less than 13mph.

That was when other skull and tissue were blown to the rear as well, including the piece that Clint Hill saw fall off the rear of the trunk and the piece that landed near Charles Brehm. That is also when the brain tissue was blown to the rear that Jackie caught a glimpse of, provoking her to turn around and retrieve it.

Of slightly less importance, it also explains the discrepancy between what the Parkland doctors saw and what we see in the autopsy photos. That large piece of skull remained connected to the scalp and when it was folded back into place, most of the damage was covered over - exactly as Dr. Boswell explained in his ARRB testimony - and exactly as we see in some of the autopsy photos.

The simple fact is, that while you and your team are trying to mug me, you are actually obstructing my efforts to make this stuff known, which I suppose, was Duncan's main goal anyway.

If you are really concerned about "biased minds", you might want to ask yourself why there are so many facts related to this issue that you and your friends won't even discuss?

I understand it's very difficult to find the damaged shape of JFK's head in one frame no matter how

good the quality is with the available material but once you've watched a stable animated GIF from

this horribly sequence it becomes easier i think.

So, please don't feel offended here Robin and Duncan but Robert Harris second point is valid.

The Top of JFK's Skull was seriously damaged after he was shot in the head.

(Hell, til today i've trouble to work on that appaling Zapruder frames even i should be insensitive now somehow)

At first here a composition i made once ago.

And finally the stable sequence of Zapruder frames 327-337.

Parts of the top of the skull was gone when you following the sequence.

It's easier to distinguish between background and JFK's head.

Jackies black collar is of help here.

To Robert:

Is it possible to behave yourself?

You've been put under moderation for a week currently after a short time you are here.

Now your postings must be edited from wise moderators while you insulted Robin Unger who is propably the

most peaceful and well known researcher in the JFK Assassination research.

You saw down the branch you are sitting on with that kind of comments.

Martin

Thanks for the Zoomed GIF Martin.

That makes it much clearer that i was in error, thinking that the collar was visible.

the collar was actually hidden behind the top of kennedy's hair.

Thanks Martin / Duncan.

We all need to be peer reviewed, to keep us honest.

As you would know martin, i have never had a problem admitting i have made a mistake in my analysis.

I just need to be presented with "clear evidence" so that i can make an informed judgement

My error was in trying to see the "Full picture" while only concentrating on one frame !

Robin.

ROFLMAO!!

Yeah, great job "Martin/Duncan".

Gosh, wish I'd a thought of that