Another Look at the Shooting

[Robert Harris]

Although I have been a member of this forum for several years, I have mostly been a lurker, soaking up a lot of good information from some of you, who are obviously, extremely knowledgeable. My postings have been mostly, to "lone nut" groups, whom I have always believed, most needed to get the word

But I believe there are important aspects of the shooting in Dealey Plaza which have been overlooked by both sides of the debate, and I would like to share them with you. In this video presentation, I look at the shooting from start to finish. Much of this will contradict what you have heard in the past. I only ask that you be objective and weigh the evidence, carefully. The complete presentation in Quicktime format, can be seen here:

http://www.jfkhistory.com/ALL/ALL.mov

It is also on Youtube, broken into parts, in order to stay within their time limits. This is part 1.

Robert Harris

[Lee Forman]

Although I have been a member of this forum for several years, I have mostly been a lurker, soaking up a lot of good information from some of you, who are obviously, extremely knowledgeable. My postings have been mostly, to "lone nut" groups, whom I have always believed, most needed to get the word

But I believe there are important aspects of the shooting in Dealey Plaza which have been overlooked by both sides of the debate, and I would like to share them with you. In this video presentation, I look at the shooting from start to finish. Much of this will contradict what you have heard in the past. I only ask that you be objective and weigh the evidence, carefully. The complete presentation in Quicktime format, can be seen here:

http://www.jfkhistory.com/ALL/ALL.mov

It is also on Youtube, broken into parts, in order to stay within their time limits. This is part 1.

Welcome Robert - would like to ensure that you aren't 'panned' on your first post here. I have not watched your entire video - so far, only the opening - and I must say that it is VERY interesting. For example - and not sure if it was on this forum or another - a claim was made of some sort - cannot remember the context - something along the lines of the Towner not being suspect - and I did a bit on those missing frames from Towner - and was very puzzled as to a potential reason [background, botched turn, etc.]. You pose an interesting theory - and it's well worth the consideration - and I am looking forward to viewing the remainder of your video in its entirety.

Will post more as I have the chance to view it, and am looking forward to it, and your response.

Many kind regards,

- lee

Robert Harris

[Robert Harris]

Although I have been a member of this forum for several years, I have mostly been a lurker, soaking up a lot of good information from some of you, who are obviously, extremely knowledgeable. My postings have been mostly, to "lone nut" groups, whom I have always believed, most needed to get the word

But I believe there are important aspects of the shooting in Dealey Plaza which have been overlooked by both sides of the debate, and I would like to share them with you. In this video presentation, I look at the shooting from start to finish. Much of this will contradict what you have heard in the past. I only ask that you be objective and weigh the evidence, carefully. The complete presentation in Quicktime format, can be seen here:

http://www.jfkhistory.com/ALL/ALL.mov

It is also on Youtube, broken into parts, in order to stay within their time limits. This is part 1.

Welcome Robert - would like to ensure that you aren't 'panned' on your first post here. I have not watched your entire video - so far, only the opening - and I must say that it is VERY interesting. For example - and not sure if it was on this forum or another - a claim was made of some sort - cannot remember the context - something along the lines of the Towner not being suspect - and I did a bit on those missing frames from Towner - and was very puzzled as to a potential reason [background, botched turn, etc.]. You pose an interesting theory - and it's well worth the consideration - and I am looking forward to viewing the remainder of your video in its entirety.

Will post more as I have the chance to view it, and am looking forward to it, and your response.

Many kind regards,

- lee

Robert Harris

Thank you Lee.

I think JFK's reactions in the Towner film require an explanation. They began just as the limousine pulled in front of the Daltex building and they are unlike anything we have ever seen him do prior to that point, in that or any other motorcade.

A shot that early has always been dismissed because witnesses never claimed to have heard anything then, but even the WC has admitted that most witnesses stated that they only heard one early shot, prior to closely bunched shots at the very end. That would seem to suggest that this was not the only shot that went unheard.

"..a substantial majority of the witnesses stated that the shots were not evenly spaced. Most witnesses recalled that the second and third shots were bunched together."

Anyway, I really appreciate your willingness to look at this with an open mind. I look forward to any other thoughts you might have on the issues raised in my video.

Robert Harris

[John Dolva]

I think interesting. Like you say needs to be looked at again and again. Perhaps the one exciced frame from the toqner is the one between where the intensity of the subs reflection on the limo chrome peaks and overexposes it. The wave thing strikes me as possibly being not a fist clench but a movement of a relaxed hand with fingers slightly curled moved to chin then a peek ahead. Perhaps innoccuous*. (Just some devils advocate things). Seeing this and seeling an explanation in the other film could then lead to its degradation.

If you create a panorama of the towner and measure the distance of wheel travel the jump is one frame, just as the reflection peaks and likely overexposes a frame which is then exciced.

*add maybe he spotted the unbrella and knowing its symbolism and paused and had a better look, decided how to deal with it, back to normal.

Edited April 18, 2010 by John Dolva

[Robert Harris]

I think interesting. Like you say needs to be looked at again and again. Perhaps the one exciced frame from the toqner is the one between where the intensity of the subs reflection on the limo chrome peaks and overexposes it. The wave thing strikes me as possibly being not a fist clench but a movement of a relaxed hand with fingers slightly curled moved to chin then a peek ahead. Perhaps innoccuous*. (Just some devils advocate things). Seeing this and seeling an explanation in the other film could then lead to its degradation.

If you create a panorama of the towner and measure the distance of wheel travel the jump is one frame, just as the reflection peaks and likely overexposes a frame which is then exciced.

*add maybe he spotted the unbrella and knowing its symbolism and paused and had a better look, decided how to deal with it, back to normal.

John, I went back to the video (Quicktime version) and single-stepped through that section. It appears to me, that the apparent fist is visible in several frames when the hand was well above the level of the chrome.

I think the key here, in terms of understanding what was going on, is to sit down and try to duplicate JFK's reactions. Start to wave as he did, and then snap your hand back within half a second, simultaneous with making a fist (or whatever one considers it to be). Almost instantly, after that, he falls to his left and then straightens up again.

Edited April 18, 2010 by Robert Harris

[John Dolva]

Ok. What do people tend to do when momentarily puzzled? Just a suggestion.

Fall could be lean for a better look? Hence the notion of spotting something and a suggestion is the symbolism of umbrella a la chamberlain (?) would not have been lost on JFK?

hmmmm...

Edited April 18, 2010 by John Dolva

[Robert Harris]

Ok. What do people tend to do when momentarily puzzled? Just a suggestion.

Fall could be lean for a better look? Hence the notion of spotting something and a suggestion is the symbolism of umbrella a la chamberlain (?) would not have been lost on JFK?

hmmmm...

John, do you really think JFK could have see the UM at that point? Witt didn't raise it higher into the air until JFK was much closer to him.

RH

[Walt Rollins]

Good effort, Robert. Interesting that you included all the different theories, those used by both the LNers as well as the CT's (single bullet theory, missed shots, sewer shot, etc.) and merged them to explain a conspiracy. The single bullet theory could very well be correct but only if a shot had come from the Dal-Tex building. Arlen Specter might have got it half right except for the angles. I still think Oswald fired no shots at all and was not on the 6th floor at the time of the shooting and that the Z film and many others as you have demonstrated have been tampered with and altered. This creates a bit of a problem for parts of your theory when you utilized the Z film so much in your explanation of the head shots. I wonder if you have read Doug Horne's books relating to the x-rays and film alteration as well as JFK's head wounds as seen in Dallas and Bethesda. Overall a pretty good job of trying to make the pieces fit from the evidence that the general public has at its' finger tips. Mafia figures might have been involved to an extent but they could not order the destruction and alteration of evidence and wounds don't you agree?

[John Dolva]

I wrote umbrella rather than umbrella man, and I don't know if JFK could see the umbrella from there. The overexposed frame, a lean rather than fall et.c. are suggested alternatives. Sighting an umbrella is suggested as a reason for the lean over to look.

[Robert Harris]

Good effort, Robert. Interesting that you included all the different theories, those used by both the LNers as well as the CT's (single bullet theory, missed shots, sewer shot, etc.) and merged them to explain a conspiracy. The single bullet theory could very well be correct but only if a shot had come from the Dal-Tex building. Arlen Specter might have got it half right except for the angles. I still think Oswald fired no shots at all and was not on the 6th floor at the time of the shooting and that the Z film and many others as you have demonstrated have been tampered with and altered. This creates a bit of a problem for parts of your theory when you utilized the Z film so much in your explanation of the head shots. I wonder if you have read Doug Horne's books relating to the x-rays and film alteration as well as JFK's head wounds as seen in Dallas and Bethesda. Overall a pretty good job of trying to make the pieces fit from the evidence that the general public has at its' finger tips. Mafia figures might have been involved to an extent but they could not order the destruction and alteration of evidence and wounds don't you agree?

Thanks Walt. When I look at this stuff, I pay no attention to who it supports or contradicts. I just do the best I can to figure out what happened.

Actually, I don't think the Zfilm was tampered with, or at least I don't until I see stronger evidence than I have so far. I didn't mean to give the impression that I did.

I think the coverup was separate from the crime itself - umm.. mostly anyway. I think most people in government honestly believed they were doing the right thing by covering up conspiracy leads, which they believed, would lead to Castro and WW3.

Hoover is a different story, and he was the one who was phoning people in the DOJ and the cabinet, telling them that the public must be convinced that there was no conspiracy. Hoover was tight with the mob and definitely in their pocket. I think he knew good and well, who was behind the assassination, and probably had foreknowledge. Of course, the FBI was responsible for 99% of the investigation and they did things to coverup the conspiracy, which were just criminal. Did you see the section on ce399 yet?

Oswald is a very tricky issue. I discuss the question of his guilt toward the end of the presentation, but I honestly am not sure whether he was a good guy or a bad buy.

Bob

Edited April 19, 2010 by Robert Harris

[Mike Williams]

Ok. What do people tend to do when momentarily puzzled? Just a suggestion.

Fall could be lean for a better look? Hence the notion of spotting something and a suggestion is the symbolism of umbrella a la chamberlain (?) would not have been lost on JFK?

hmmmm...

John,

Concerning part 1,

I think we might find the answer to JFK's unusual movements in the Testimony of Roy Truly.

"And the President's car following close behind came along at an average speed of 10 or 15 miles an hour. It wasn't that much, because they were getting ready to turn. And the driver of the Presidential car swung out too far to the right, and he came almost within an inch of running into this little abutment here, between Elm and the Parkway. And he slowed down perceptibly and pulled back to the left to get over into the middle lane of the parkway. Not being familiar with the street, he came too far out this way when he made his turn. "

Seems logical to me.

Something else to consider is that if this alleged sniper in the Dal Tex fired a shot, using a suppressor, why is it that only JFK seems to react to this "being pelted by asphalt or metal"? Would no one else, given all the people in the area have noticed this?

Another issue here is of course a simple search of modern suppressors tells us that those involved with high power rifles still have an average of over 115dB emitted from the muzzle. If we then consider the possibility of shooting subsonic ammo we could knock another 15dB off of this for a total of 100dB. This is with TODAYS technology. I would think that in 63' this would have been far higher. A modern ambulance siren is in the range of 100-140dB. Perfectly audible when you consider that the target was very close to the rifle at this point.

Additionally a closer look at the window this shot allegedly comes from reveals that the surface of the window is unchanged and continuous. It is not open, and it is not broken out.

Looking at a negative image of this photo seems to confirm this.

Now onto the problems in Part 2

Frame 180

In this frame Harris contends that the President was not in fact smiling and waving, but grimacing, and in a few frames later shielding his face.

Unfortunately, this is not the case. JFK was smiling and waving just as we can plainly see,and just as the witnesses in close proximity testified.

I wonder why this testimony was not checked.

Harris also contends that Jackie is responding to the second shot at this time. Why would she react to a second suppressed shot, that did not strike the ground, when she clearly did not react to the first shot much earlier that did strike the ground? This makes no sense.

Following these gross errors Harris goes on to give a nonsensical expounding on the issues and problems with suppressors. There are many incorrect issues here. The first is Mr. Harris stating that suppressors cause misfires. This is absolutely false. A misfire is when a cartridge fails to fire or is delayed in firing, neither of which have anything to do with a suppressor. Additionally, I have used suppressors in the past, and assembling one to a rifle at the target area is common practice. Most manuals will tell you to be sure not to over tighten then and only tighten them "hand tight". This insures that there is no binding in the threads which attach the suppressor to the rifle itself.

A quick search online should yield such manuals and instructions. Another simple research blunder. Silencers have been used successfully since World War 1. Hiram Maxim being the man credited with their invention in 1902. In an interesting note, Maxim also invented the first mufflers for internal combustion engines using the same basic design.

Harris then goes on to offer the usual fair of testimony in support of his theory. Many of the witnesses claim the first shot sounded like a firecracker, giant firecracker, and other such comparisons. Harris is then led to believe this supports his idea. I wonder if Harris has ever heard a silenced weapon fire. It actually sounds far more like dull thud, than a crack.

I would be willing to bet that if we canvassed Police officers who investigate crime scenes the most common analogy made by those who are telling the events, is that the shots sounded like.....a firecracker. The thought also should not be lost on any of us that some of the witnesses did not think they sounded like shots until they realized they were shots. This is also not at all uncommon.

Harris then goes on to contend that the Sniper in the Dal-Tex fires yet again at 223, and strikes JFK in the back. Harris also contends that this shot is heard by "almost no one". Untrue. Many heard that shot, and many said that the first shot rang out as the President was smiling and waving, (not grimacing and shielding his face).

This shot is related by many to be the first blast they heard. Which creates yet another problem for Harris.

Are we to believe that the shooter in the Dal-Tex has now removed his silencer?

The time frame from 160 to 223 is 63 frames, or 3.44 seconds. Are we to believe that our sniper up there has managed to remove his silencer and reacquire the target in 3.44 seconds? I would suggest this is a bit much to ask of any of us to believe.

I only managed to make it through the first two parts of this epic saga. One can after all only withstand so much.

I find these first two episodes to be works of fiction. There are to many fundamental errors made in the basic research, which should have been and could have been easily avoided.

I will as time, and patience allows, review the other parts of this series and report back accordingly.

Mike

[Robert Harris]

I wrote umbrella rather than umbrella man, and I don't know if JFK could see the umbrella from there. The overexposed frame, a lean rather than fall et.c. are suggested alternatives. Sighting an umbrella is suggested as a reason for the lean over to look.

Well, it's an interesting thought. And there is quite a tale to be told about UM and his dark complected buddy. But, I can't help but notice that these reactions began at almost the exact instant that the limo pulled in front of the Daltex building.

Bob

[Robert Harris]

Mike Williams is a fanatical, lone nutter who pretended to be a conspiracy supporter for years, until he was forced to come out of the closet and admit his agenda.

At the jfkassassinationforum.com he follows me around from thread to thread, attacking anything and everything I say and apparently intends to do the same thing in this forum. I invite interested lurkers to weight his "analysis" against mine and make their own call.

Bob

[Mike Williams]

Mike Williams is a fanatical, lone nutter who pretended to be a conspiracy supporter for years, until he was forced to come out of the closet and admit his agenda.

At the jfkassassinationforum.com he follows me around from thread to thread, attacking anything and everything I say and apparently intends to do the same thing in this forum. I invite interested lurkers to weight his "analysis" against mine and make their own call.

Bob

Robert,

I have been posting here for years. Many here know that I supported the conspiracy position whole heatedly for a great deal of that time. So to say I was pretending to support a conspiracy, is ridiculous. I did support it and made no bones about it.

Was I "forced to come out of my closet" certainly, because that is what the shooting evidence supports. It was the only honest and honorable thing to do. This is one of the least understood areas of research. Many just speculate at what they "think" could happen, and this is often not supported by the ballistic evidence.

However the fact that I believe it was a single shooter from behind means just that. It certainly does not mean that there was not a conspiracy. At this point I am willing to support a single shooter position, if that makes me a lone nutter, so be it.

All of this is beyond the point. This case deserves serious and critical research. Unfortunately yours stands up to neither criteria. The issues I raise here are valid. If you feel this is a personal affront, then I suggest you get past that and refute what I have posted.

I will continue to critique your theories, until you give an accurate representation. History deserves this, and frankly so do the earnest researchers of this or any other forum.

Now I suggest you work on correcting some of your errors, instead of crying about being picked on.

Mike

Edited April 19, 2010 by Mike Williams

[Pat Speer]

Mike, I did notice a mistake in your last critique of Robert's scenario. It is a point on which Robert is absolutely correct.

People did not hear a shot at frame 223/224. People watching Kennedy at the time of the first shot. e.g Woodward, Powers, said he was waving and then jerked to the left as a response to the shot. This happens BEFORE Kennedy goes behind the sign in the Z-film.

As a response to this fact, the HSCA theorized the single-bullet shot hit Kennedy circa frame 190.

It was only through the shenanigans of Lattimer and Posner that the SBT got moved back to 224. In his book Bugliosi plays the WC 210-224 card, and never acknowledges that he presented a photography expert to the jury in his 1986 mock trial, to prove to them Kennedy was hit around 190.

If you're as independent-minded as I suspect you are, you'll break away from the current LNT group-think, and realize that the currently proposed dogma--a first shot miss at 160, SBT at 224, and a head shot at 313, is Malarkey with a capital M.

Who knows? Maybe you'll be the first LNT to come up with a scenario that makes sense?