Robert Harris

Bill, I would really like to see you do the right thing and properly acknowledge an important fact.

Mrs. CONNALLY. ..Then I don't know how soon, it seems to me it was very soon, that I heard a noise, and not being an expert rifleman, I was not aware that it was a rifle. It was just a frightening noise, and it came from the right. I turned over my right shoulder and looked back, and saw the President as he had both hands at his neck.

Mr. SPECTER. And you are indicating with your own hands, two hands crossing over gripping your own neck?

Mrs. CONNALLY. Yes; and it seemed to me there was--he made no utterance, no cry. I saw no blood, no anything. It was just sort of nothing, the expression on his face, and he just sort of slumped down.

Then very soon there was the second shot that hit John.

As any honest researcher would agree, we need to discover when that "second shot" was fired that Nellie thought, had wounded her husband.

Let's set aside your claim that she was studying JFK via peripheral vision or whatever and go straight to the heart of the issue. If that shot was fired by Oswald or anyone else using a high powered rifle in Dealey Plaza, it would have generated a combined shock wave and muzzle blast in the range of 130-140 decibels. We know that from tests conducted by the HSCA and in countless other tests of high powered rifles.

And we know that experts have determined that involuntary startle reactions will occur at sound levels of 90 decibels, which is more than twice as loud as a noisy vacuum cleaner. 130 decibels is SIXTEEN TIMES LOUDER than 90 decibels.

Therefore, we should be able to determine when that shot was fired quite easily, because people in the limo had to have reacted to it. They had no choice in the matter. That HAD to react.

Think about the driver Bill. What would he do if he was startled by such a huge noise? Do you think he might panic as he felt the "concussion" of that shot, and do exactly the opposite of what he should have done?

That was the FIRST noise that anyone heard that day, that sounded like a gunshot. That's why the Secret Service agents seemed so "sluggish". That's why Clint Hill didn't go into action until after he heard that shot.

And that's why we see no startle reactions prior to frame 290. That fact alone, proves that no high powered rifle shots were fired prior to frame 285.

Quote:

Sorry Robin but your pretense that you had to remove that high res version of the Altgens photo because it had been hulkized or whatever is just pathetic to the point of being hilarious.

I'm glad it gave you a good laugh Robert.

I removed it because it had changed from the "original" which was downloaded from Corbis.

The contrast was set too high, and the image sharpness had been altered.

But then i wouldn't expect you to understand Robert.

It seems everyone knows were the Corbis image originated exept from you.

To see the Corbis image in it's original format

" Download " the 8MB PNG Copy that Duncan posted in this thread.

So you have had it on your site for years hey.

I first loaded it to my old gallery Website on Geocities 5-Years ago

But i wouldn't expect you to know that either Robert, because you haven't been here long enough to know who is who.

As for Bill Miller and Duncan budying up against you, hell don't make me laugh.

You obviously was not a witness to the fiery debates between Bill and Duncan on Lancer.

One of them leading to Debra Conway banning Duncan from the forum.

You don't know the History of the posters on the Forums, because you haven't been around long enough.

Robin, I have no idea where I got that copy of the Altgens photo but it was certainly not overly contrasty and I seriously doubt that I got it from you.

As for Miller and McCrae, anyone can see what they are doing and they tag team in other threads as well. I am not the only one to point that out. I have no idea about their history and in all honesty I can't think of anything that is less interesting to me. All I know is that they attacked me simultaneously in an insulting and demeaning manner, just as McCrae has been doing for a very long time. If you condone his tactics as you do his ludicrous statements about graphics, then I feel very sorry for you.

Connally before the press cameras demonstrating his look over his shoulder upon hearing the first shot. This is what Connally looked for at the Life Magazine Interview and determined that it occurred while he was behind the road sign. (The clip has been slowed down)

I have no idea what your point is Bill. Connally told Life that he thought he turned to the rear while the limo was behind the sign and then was hit sometime after he turned to the front, at about 228. But we both know that he was hit at 223. Anyway, for the purposes of this discussion it doesn't matter when he thought he looked back. What matters is when Nellie thought he looked back. And she didn't turn toward him until the late 230's.

Since you seem so reliant on that article, why don't you take this part of it to heart?

"Of all the witnesses to the tragedy, the only unimpeachable one is the 8 mm movie camera of Abraham Zapruder, which recorded the assassination in sequence."

In the Zapruder film, we see the ONLY time that he reacted in a way that matched Mrs. Connally's description of his actions. And that took place between 234 and just after 285. That is the ONLY time he looked back far enough to even come close to seeing JFK. And we know for a fact, that Nellie was watching him then.

As she watched him, one of two things were happening. Either she realized he was wounded but then callously turned away from him to study JFK, OR she didn't know he was hurt and believed he was just turning to check out the President, like she was.

The answer is ridiculously obvious.

I love how every time you get busted on the 285 issue your friends come rushing in to change the subject

I'm not sure why anyone would be seeking a better Thompson version. This much higher resolution photo has been sitting at my website for years and is freely available to everyone.

Robert, what you are posting here again and again i most likely the Corbis purchase from Robin Unger.

It's by far so most used cause it it's really highres but it contains of lot of grain and noise.

The Thompson copy is in it's clarity a top of all. The pity is: We don't have a high resoultion version of fit.

Someone should contact Josiah. If nobody will do it the next days, i'll PM him.

So, when you post this Altgens6 image again, feel free to give Robin Credit for it.

best

Martin

OIC, so Robin is to blame for the,

"Photoshopped filtered overly sharpened mega grainy JPEG Incredible Hulkerized GREEN tinted image"

Shame on you Robin!

I mean you do believe Duncan's assessment don't you Martin? Neither you nor any of your friends disputed it, so it seems you have no quarrel with his claim as you do with so many of mine

As for "grain and noise" that is only because you can blow it up to a higher degree than the low res version you guys have been touting and see more detail, in spite of the noise. At equivalent dimensions, the higher res version displays much less distortion.

As I said over and over again it is the best version of that photo that is publicly available. You might consider simply acknowledging that I am correct and that your vendetta-driven friend is as usual, totally full of crap.

I didn't twist your arm to use it Robert.

Corbis Large Contrast modified so as to match closer to the Thompson print look

I have deleted the "Photoshopped filtered overly sharpened mega grainy JPEG Incredible Hulkerized GREEN tinted image" from my website.

New version

1.5MB Size

Click on thumbnail to view "FULL SIZE"

ROFLMAO!!!

I love how everyone on team Duncan has to believe or at least pretend to believe everything he says, no matter how ridiculous it is.

As for your blownup lo-res picture, thanks but no thanks. I'll stick with the hi rez stuff and believe what I see rather than what I'm told to see

Robert.

I follow no ones lead, i come to my own conclusions independently.

My galleries are for LN & Conspiray both are welcome, i don't take sides.

i go where my common sense and the evidence at hand leads me.

I think you may be getting a little paranoid Robert.

you think that everyone who doesn't agree 100% with your outcome, is out to get you in some sort of mini Conspiracy.

You need to chill out, and learn to take the comments on board as they were intended. ( in a constructive manner, not as a personnal attack on your integrity )

Also What blownup lo-res picture are you talking about. ?

The Corbis images Altgens 5,6,7

That i Purchased were downloaded at 2MB each ( LARGE ) and there was no need to blow them up.

Sorry Robin but your pretense that you had to remove that high res version of the Altgens photo because it had been hulkized or whatever is just pathetic to the point of being hilarious.

What I want to know is, when are you going to tell us about all those boxes you see in the window

Connally before the press cameras demonstrating his look over his shoulder upon hearing the first shot. This is what Connally looked for at the Life Magazine Interview and determined that it occurred while he was behind the road sign. (The clip has been slowed down)

I have no idea what your point is Bill. Connally told Life that he thought he turned to the rear while the limo was behind the sign and then was hit sometime after he turned to the front, at about 228. But we both know that he was hit at 223. Anyway, for the purposes of this discussion it doesn't matter when he thought he looked back. What matters is when Nellie thought he looked back. And she didn't turn toward him until the late 230's.

Since you seem so reliant on that article, why don't you take this part of it to heart?

"Of all the witnesses to the tragedy, the only unimpeachable one is the 8 mm movie camera of Abraham Zapruder, which recorded the assassination in sequence."

In the Zapruder film, we see the ONLY time that he reacted in a way that matched Mrs. Connally's description of his actions. And that took place between 234 and just after 285. That is the ONLY time he looked back far enough to even come close to seeing JFK. And we know for a fact, that Nellie was watching him then.

As she watched him, one of two things were happening. Either she realized he was wounded but then callously turned away from him to study JFK, OR she didn't know he was hurt and believed he was just turning to check out the President, like she was.

The answer is ridiculously obvious.

ROFLMAO!!!

I love how everyone on team Duncan has to believe or at least pretend to believe everything he says, no matter how ridiculous it is.

As for your blownup lo-res picture, thanks but no thanks. I'll stick with the hi rez stuff and believe what I see rather than what I'm told to see

Robert, are you confessing or talking about Duncan for you are always saying 'everyone' when claiming support for your claim .... If anyone wishes to check it out - its archived!

None of the images provided so far are quite as good as Josiah's hi-res scan. That is not to say it has not been shown, but when the size is lowered and then increased again, then it is nothing more than an enlargement of an image that lost some of its clarity during the lowering of its size only to increase it again. It would be better if people would just make small crops from the large file before decreasing its size for what ever reason. The clarity still remains with the cropped image until such a time it is enlarged again.

Now about your claim .... you were wrong about JFK making a fist, being struck in the face by debri, and no matter what quality image that has been shown so far ... the window has not been broken as you originally claimed. This was obvious when comparing it to windows that were open and showed a much darker opening. The reason for this is quite simple to understand ... the windows have a haze on the glass whereas an open or missing window is void of haze. So whether the blinds were cut, broken, or spliced is irrelevant because the window is closed and the glass shows no sign of being broken. So unless you have something else to add, then your claim has already gotten more attention than it deserved in my view. I think all you have left is to continue to make ignorant off-the-cuff irrelevant remarks about Duncan as if that somehow will help your erred claim. It doesn't!

Bill Miller

Why do you waste bandwidth with all these unsupported assertions Bill?

Your new "haze" theory is just as ridiculous as Duncan's mythical boxes and that other character who said he saw a little man in the window.

All I have to do is post the image and let people see for themselves. I don't need to post a thousand words of drivel.

There will be obvious differences in photographic quality as viewed on a monitor and thru video cards.

Quality of the card, the computer, the monitor, resolution settings, etc....

And doesn't what matter is our ability to use things like Photoshop to zoom, enhance, etc... to bring out detail in whatever quality image we have to work with.

Good, bad or indifference, Harris' image has more pixels, more data than the ONLINE version of Josiah's so at 200%, side by side, we wind up seeing in Josaih's, the little squares that become apparent when the digital image runs out of data. Green as it may be, there is some compelling "data" there.

Thank you Joseph. I don't see how any sane person can fail to realize the difference in the quality of those images.

What is more important however, is that in spite of the goofy claims that there are boxes or a little man in the window, we see in BOTH images, clear evidence that the cord on the left side has been cut, and an irregularly shaped section of the blinds in that corner is missing.

Robert...

What each of us actually sees (resolution, detail, color, etc) is very subjective imo. Some people claim the softness of the Sony TVs provides better detail than of more "sharper" manufacturers... a matter of preference.

I've added some arrows to try and understand your point.

First off some common ground:

- the "cord" of a blind, venetian in this case I believe, is always on the inside of the room, not between the blind and the window

(I would ask if you know on those specific blinds whether the cord(s) is/are on the left or right facing the window from the inside... if usually on the left then obviously your conclusions are incorrect at face value. If on the right, and potentially in the altgens image, were they within the frame of the blinds or at the very end of the window... again, matters as to you conclusions.

I see a cord hanging down in the image on the left, 1st arrow on the left

- the blinds themselves have cloth guides (top right arrow) that we see stops... the blinds are not completely down or are they even down at all? If one looks at the 3rd floor window to the left of the fire-escape we can see the overhead light and it's obvious that the blinds are up in the window full of people

- the middle arrow is the one pointing to the cut cord YOU are referring to

- the bottoms of all these windows DO NOT HAVE PANES

- YOU know for a fact that each window had blinds the spliced in window on the left seems to show the overhead lights thru the top part of the window... there are no blinds there or they are completely up. Seems the same everywhere.

Without conceding one way or the other Robert... you'd have to admit it POSSIBLE that the blinds are completely open and there are items

within that room that can cause lighter and darker areas to be noticed.

The bottom left of the window with the people also seems discolored at the bottom left... darker at least.

And this Dillard blow-up... the darkened areas within the windows, foloowing your presentation, should be broken windows and not contrasting areas casued by items behind the window.

I don't think your concept is completely far-fetched - I've read in a number of places that a shooting lane created by a hole in a wall, window or whatever is a perfect place for a sniper yet there are a number of other bits of data we should know about the blinds, window, room behind the window, etc... before we conclude THAT specific window was broken when opening the window slightly and stepping back into the room would have accomplished the same thing, I'd like to know the answer to some of these other questions.

There are three cords in that window. The rightmost is out of view. That can be confirmed in other photos taken that day.

And this is different than the Dillard photo you referenced, because there is more than just an apparent break in the left cord. The top and bottom sections are no longer aligned, which means the break is very real and not just an artifact of the photo.

I do however, appreciate you not trying to tell me you see a pile of boxes

What we are seeing cannot be explained as anything inside the room, because that could not explain the disrupted cord.

I'm not sure why anyone would be seeking a better Thompson version. This much higher resolution photo has been sitting at my website for years and is freely available to everyone.

Robert, what you are posting here again and again i most likely the Corbis purchase from Robin Unger.

It's by far so most used cause it it's really highres but it contains of lot of grain and noise.

The Thompson copy is in it's clarity a top of all. The pity is: We don't have a high resoultion version of fit.

Someone should contact Josiah. If nobody will do it the next days, i'll PM him.

So, when you post this Altgens6 image again, feel free to give Robin Credit for it.

best

Martin

OIC, so Robin is to blame for the,

"Photoshopped filtered overly sharpened mega grainy JPEG Incredible Hulkerized GREEN tinted image"

Shame on you Robin!

I mean you do believe Duncan's assessment don't you Martin? Neither you nor any of your friends disputed it, so it seems you have no quarrel with his claim as you do with so many of mine

As for "grain and noise" that is only because you can blow it up to a higher degree than the low res version you guys have been touting and see more detail, in spite of the noise. At equivalent dimensions, the higher res version displays much less distortion.

As I said over and over again it is the best version of that photo that is publicly available. You might consider simply acknowledging that I am correct and that your vendetta-driven friend is as usual, totally full of crap.

I didn't twist your arm to use it Robert.

Corbis Large Contrast modified so as to match closer to the Thompson print look

I have deleted the "Photoshopped filtered overly sharpened mega grainy JPEG Incredible Hulkerized GREEN tinted image" from my website.

New version

1.5MB Size

Click on thumbnail to view "FULL SIZE"

ROFLMAO!!!

I love how everyone on team Duncan has to believe or at least pretend to believe everything he says, no matter how ridiculous it is.

As for your blownup lo-res picture, thanks but no thanks. I'll stick with the hi rez stuff and believe what I see rather than what I'm told to see

There will be obvious differences in photographic quality as viewed on a monitor and thru video cards.

Quality of the card, the computer, the monitor, resolution settings, etc....

And doesn't what matter is our ability to use things like Photoshop to zoom, enhance, etc... to bring out detail in whatever quality image we have to work with.

Good, bad or indifference, Harris' image has more pixels, more data than the ONLINE version of Josiah's so at 200%, side by side, we wind up seeing in Josaih's, the little squares that become apparent when the digital image runs out of data. Green as it may be, there is some compelling "data" there.

Thank you Joseph. I don't see how any sane person can fail to realize the difference in the quality of those images.

What is more important however, is that in spite of the goofy claims that there are boxes or a little man in the window, we see in BOTH images, clear evidence that the cord on the left side has been cut, and an irregularly shaped section of the blinds in that corner is missing.

OIC, so Robin is to blame for the,

"Photoshopped filtered overly sharpened mega grainy JPEG Incredible Hulkerized GREEN tinted image"

Shame on you Robin!

I mean you do believe Duncan's assessment don't you Martin? Neither you nor any of your friends disputed it, so it seems you have no quarrel with his claim as you do with so many of mine

As for "grain and noise" that is only because you can blow it up to a higher degree than the low res version you guys have been touting and see more detail, in spite of the noise. At equivalent dimensions, the higher res version displays much less distortion.

As I said over and over again it is the best version of that photo that is publicly available. You might consider simply acknowledging that I am correct and that your vendetta-driven friend is as usual, totally full of crap.

Robert, my posting has nothing to do with Duncan's assessment. I only believe that the Thompson version is taken from a negative which is.... obviously better. Not everybody who disagree with you on some subjects is your enemy.

My included. When we would telephone and you would hear my voice it would be clear.

I like a lot of your research and of course i believe in a conspiracy as you as well. You give your supporters sometimes

a very hard time. Sad.

Martin

I give no one a hard time except the phonies and liars, Martin.

And I have little respect for those who support such people.

Even now, you won't admit that Duncan's allegation was false, that I "Photoshopped filtered overly sharpened mega grainy JPEG Incredible Hulkerized GREEN tinted image".

Why is that Martin? Are you here to get at the truth or to support team Duncan and operation "get Harris"?

Why did you even attack my statement about harassment in his forum, after you apparently forgot sending me emails back then in complete agreement?

I'm not sure why anyone would be seeking a better Thompson version. This much higher resolution photo has been sitting at my website for years and is freely available to everyone.

Robert, what you are posting here again and again i most likely the Corbis purchase from Robin Unger.

It's by far so most used cause it it's really highres but it contains of lot of grain and noise.

The Thompson copy is in it's clarity a top of all. The pity is: We don't have a high resoultion version of fit.

Someone should contact Josiah. If nobody will do it the next days, i'll PM him.

So, when you post this Altgens6 image again, feel free to give Robin Credit for it.

best

Martin

OIC, so Robin is to blame for the,

"Photoshopped filtered overly sharpened mega grainy JPEG Incredible Hulkerized GREEN tinted image"

Shame on you Robin!

I mean you do believe Duncan's assessment don't you Martin? Neither you nor any of your friends disputed it, so it seems you have no quarrel with his claim as you do with so many of mine

As for "grain and noise" that is only because you can blow it up to a higher degree than the low res version you guys have been touting and see more detail, in spite of the noise. At equivalent dimensions, the higher res version displays much less distortion.

As I said over and over again it is the best version of that photo that is publicly available. You might consider simply acknowledging that I am correct and that your vendetta-driven friend is as usual, totally full of crap.

I would like to add that in spite of some people's best efforts to change the subject, the most important issue discussed in this thread is that of Mrs. Connally's actions and reactions in relation to her testimony. In her earliest statements, she was very specific that she looked back and saw JFK with his hands at neck level.

"I turned over my right shoulder and looked back, and saw the President as he had both hands at his neck."

In the Zapruder film, we see her first turn toward her husband at about 239 and remain focused on him for approximately 15 frames. It was in the 250's that she began to turn toward JFK and by 258 was staring directly at him.

It was the shot at 285 that followed, which she mistakenly believed, had wounded her husband. Her reaction was in almost perfect unison with the other nonvictims in the limo and with Zapruder's reaction as determined by Dr. Luis Alvarez.

Bob,

Thanks for filling me in on your take on the medical evidence. Until now, I had not realized that anyone still took the second photo in your study seriously, given the extensive and detailed reports by highly qualified physicians at Parkland Hospital that there was cerebellar as well as cerebral tissue extruding from the wound. You really should go back and read--if you have ever read!--the same sources I recommended to Pat. This is simply stunning. Tomas Evan Robinson, in case you have heard of him, give a summary of the wounds to Joe West, which is also included in my presentation, DEALEY PLAZA REVISITED: WHAT HAPPENED TO JFK?, http://www.und.edu/org/jfkconference/UNDchapter30.pdf So if you are agreeing with Pat about the McClelland diagram, then you are also disregarding the Crenshaw diagram on page 357 (which he most certainly did not "disavow"), the visual depictions of the location of the wound on page 358, Mantik's study of the lateral cranial X-ray on page 359, the visible damage to the back of the head in frame 374 and the Parkland physicians' reports on the same page, and Robert Livingston's conclusion about the brain in diagrams and photographs at the National Archives on page 360. The summary of the observations by the mortician who prepared the body for burial observations is on page 363, including that, in addition to a large gaping hole in the back of the head, there was a small wound in the right temple, and a wound on the back, 5 to 6 inches below the shoulder to the right of the spinal column. But he also mentions the bone flap that you and others do not seem to understand which was indeed present and is accurately diagrammed in the photo you like so much (where the hole in the back of his head has so obviously been covered up, just as it has in those early frames of the Zapruder, which the Hollywood experts have reported was painted over in black), which apparently was sprung out when the frangible (or exploding) bullet entered his right temple. So I trust you understand that, for your interpretation to be correct, you have to disavow or "explain away" all of the evidence I have just cited. Could you tell me where you have done that, starting with the multiple and consistent reports from the Parkland physicians? I think you need to go back to the drawing board and reconsider your position. In addition to Aguilar's chapter in MURDER, here is something else for you to consider, where he and Kathy Cunningham clearly explain the mistakes that others like you and Pat have made in the past and--to my utter astonishment!--continue to make to this day.

HOW FIVE INVESTIGATIONS INTO JFK’S MEDICAL/AUTOPSY EVIDENCE GOT IT WRONG

Gary L. Aguilar, MD and Kathy Cunningham (May 2003)

http://www.history-matters.com/essays/jfkmed/How5Investigations/How5InvestigationsGotItWrong_tabfig.htm

The shot at 312-313 came from the rear and there was no "paradox". The head was immediately blown forward as is crystal clear in the Zapruder film and fragments of metal and bone were blown forward, striking and causing minor damage to the windshield. No other shot that day is consistent with that damage.

The second headshot was fired a small fraction of a second later, from the front and caused massive damage to the upper rear of the BOH. It is easily seen in frames following 330.

Drs. Mantik, Riley, and Robertson each went to the archives and studied the Xrays. Their conclusion was unanimous, that there were two shots which struck head - one from the rear and one from the front.

The reason that the BOH damage was not seen in some of the autopsy photos was explained by Dr. Thornton Boswell in his testimony before the ARRB. A large piece of skull was blown out and to the rear, which remained attached to the scalp. By simply flipping the scalp and bone back into place, the damage was covered over. Dr. Boswell's hand can be seen, holding the scalp in place to prevent it from falling back and uncovering the damage. This is all explained in the following article.

http://jfkhistory.com/LastShot2/BOHDamage.html

This video also explains the BOH damage, but more visually.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=65inNE7dCUE

I'm not sure I understand your position here. Are you disputing my argument that there were two headshots?

Are you suggesting that frame 337 is not an accurate depiction?

The whitish object seen at app. the base of his neck in frames during the 370's is undoubtedly, skull bone. If you read my article, you know that the ugly protrusion seen in the 330's was made up of a large piece of skull that flipped to the rear, taking hair and scalp with it, which wrapped itself over part of the inner surface of that skullpiece.

At 337, the inner surface of that bone was facing upward and outward. It makes sense that that same piece of skull flipped to the rear again, leaving it's inner surface turned inward. Its outer surface or part of its outer surface is what we see in the 370's. Its location is at exactly where we would expect it to be if that explanation is correct.

I'm not sure why anyone would be seeking a better Thompson version. This much higher resolution photo has been sitting at my website for years and is freely available to everyone.

The shot at 312-313 came from the rear and there was no "paradox". The head was immediately blown forward as is crystal clear in the Zapruder film and fragments of metal and bone were blown forward, striking and causing minor damage to the windshield. No other shot that day is consistent with that damage.

The second headshot was fired a small fraction of a second later, from the front and caused massive damage to the upper rear of the BOH. It is easily seen in frames following 330.

Drs. Mantik, Riley, and Robertson each went to the archives and studied the Xrays. Their conclusion was unanimous, that there were two shots which struck head - one from the rear and one from the front.

The reason that the BOH damage was not seen in some of the autopsy photos was explained by Dr. Thornton Boswell in his testimony before the ARRB. A large piece of skull was blown out and to the rear, which remained attached to the scalp. By simply flipping the scalp and bone back into place, the damage was covered over. Dr. Boswell's hand can be seen, holding the scalp in place to prevent it from falling back and uncovering the damage. This is all explained in the following article.

http://jfkhistory.com/LastShot2/BOHDamage.html

This video also explains the BOH damage, but more visually.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=65inNE7dCUE

Sorry Bill. Duncan made the same claim and his copy of the Altgens photo was crap.

If anybody actually believes you then I have some property down here in the Everglades they should buy

Josiah Thompson believes me and those who participated in the 'Man in the doorway" threads believe me for they too, had seen it posted. Your remarks are as reckless as your claims when you make them without first checking the facts. What happen ... did you find there are too many Josiah Thompson's on the forum to send a private message to them all so to make it worth your time.

Bill Miller

I have no idea what you are claiming that Josiah Thompson believes but there is nothing in any legitimate Altgens photo that is not in the high res version I posted, other than a lot of distortion. The image below compares equivalent sections of the photo I use with the one that Duncan and Miller use (but refuse to show us in total).

Their photo is ridiculously muddy and much lower resolution. That of course, is why Miller refuses to post a link.

Anyone who knows a pixel from

I'm sorry Bill, but with your track record you need to show us the goods if you expect any sane person to believe you have a better copy than I do.

Case in point.

"I have only the best. I don't believe you have anything better than me. Nobody with any intelligence would disagree with me. If you can't or won't prove it, by default, I am right. If you do prove it, I don't consider it valid, will ignore it, will deny seeing it, and will claim you lied about it. Everything that I disagree with is a lie because I know only truth. I am the best. I am right. I am infallible. Heed my words."

I'm in complete awe. Swooning, in fact, the breath ripped from my very breast.

Think of all the trees that would've been saved if Bob had only gotten interested in this stuff in, say, late November 1963.

LOL!! You guys are pathetically transparent.

ad hominem, ad hominem, ad hominem.

You couldn't possibly care less about the assassination, could you Duke?

I'm sorry Bill, but with your track record you need to show us the goods if you expect any sane person to believe you have a better copy than I do.

I think the rest have spoken for me. You have issues that go beyond this case.

If you wanted to find out if I am telling it straight, then all you needed to do is send Thompson a message or contact Mack at the Museum for who knows better the history of these prints.

Bill Miller

Sorry Bill. Duncan made the same claim and his copy of the Altgens photo was crap.

If anybody actually believes you then I have some property down here in the Everglades they should buy

Well then, link it.

I am not going to search it for you, Robert. I saved it when Josiah posted it and I am certain that others did as well. If all else fails you, then contact Josiah and ask if he could email a scan of it to you.

Bill Miller

I'm sorry Bill, but with your track record you need to show us the goods if you expect any sane person to believe you have a better copy than I do.

Chris, as I told you before, there is no higher quality version of the Altgens photo that is available to the public, than the one I used.

The Josiah Thompson print which was posted on a couple of forums is sharper than the print you posted.

Bill Miller

Well then, link it.

Chris, as I told you before, there is no higher quality version of the Altgens photo that is available to the public, than the one I used.

I think I'm beginning to see why reason is not a popular commodity around this place.

How could "reason" be a commodity in a place where a goodly number of people discussing the evidence in the JFK and J.D. Tippit murder cases believe that JFK's and Tippit's killer didn't even fire a single shot at either victim?

That type of mindset is reserved for an unreasonable forum, not a reasonable one.

David, I would agree with you, at least in regard to the impossibility that Oswald was a totally ignorant patsy. But the old school conspiracy buffs are not the only ones who refuse to employ reason.

Why won't you talk about the fact that witnesses never heard some of the shots and were only startled by two of them? We know exactly how loud Oswald's rifle was and we KNOW the effect shots from that rifle would have on people who were close to the bullet's path. Why won't you talk about the fact that the limo passengers were exposed to sound levels 16 times louder than the level at which involuntary startle reactions MUST take place, when high powered rifles were fired?

And why won't you talk about the fact that the only two times they reacted that way, were too close together for Oswald to have fired both of them?

And do you think it is reasonable to ignore the fact that Oswald was on a straight-line path to Ruby's apartment when he was intercepted by Tippit who just "coincidentally" happened to pick him out of a population of millions, far from the crime scene and in spite of the fact that he didn't even match the description that was being put out at the time?

If you really want to apply "reason" to this case David, you should read an excellent article entitled, "Car #10 Where are You" which describes Tippit's frantic efforts to catch Oswald during the minutes prior to their confrontation.

Yes, an awful lot of this ancient conspiracy lore is crap. But buried under all this lunacy is a rock solid case for conspiracy that you will never refute. I think you ignore it for the same reason they ignore it. You like your theory, in spite of the fact that it could not possibly be correct.

Good! Then why would you make the ridiculous claim this was not an accusation of dishonesty, which is expressly prohibited in the forum rules?

Because it is not. Calling someone a xxxx is forbidden. Being "dishonest" is a grey area, and it is left to the moderator's judgement as to whether it is a violation or not. In this case, we didn't think it violated the rules.

And why do you still refuse to even discuss the rule which prohibits personal attacks and insults? Why isn't that rule enforced?

Because almost every time it is, the accused party claims it is being applied unfairly and other accuse moderators of not letting adults discuss things, or not having a sense of humour. That particular rule HAS been discussed of late, and moderators have been loath to enforce it, except where it is clearly an unwarranted attack.

It is assessed by seeing if the post is reported, how many people reported a post, and most importantly, it is left to the judgement of moderators.

OIC, so you can call someone a xxxx so long as you use a synonym for the term. And you won't enforce the other rules because violators will complain about it.

So why do you need moderators? Oh, almost forgot - you need 'em in case someone breaks a rule that doesn't exist.

I think I'm beginning to see why reason is not a popular commodity around this place

I got your point, BTW.

Good! Then why would you make the ridiculous claim this was not an accusation of dishonesty, which is expressly prohibited in the forum rules?

And why do you still refuse to even discuss the rule which prohibits personal attacks and insults? Why isn't that rule enforced?

As for your "meeting", I think you just made that up, didn't you Evan?

No, I didn't. Contact any other moderator or administrator, and ask them to check the Report Center.

Sigh..