The Gunshot at Frame 285

[Robert Harris]

"I am quoting my own source. Not misrepresenting him. Write him and ask."

No sir, you did NOT cite him verbatim. Here is YOUR statement,

"All one has to do is watch that video to realize that the shooter is shooting at a 10" plate at 120 yards. This plate is on a 3 foot stand."

but the video stated that the target was

"a 10 inch by 3 foot metal plate.."

Or almost FOUR times larger than you told us it was.

Now, cite him verbatim please, and get his name. It's bad enough that you totally rely on some Youtube character's uncorroborated claim, but at the very least, he needs to have a name.

I can't believe you base your entire argument on your own deliberate misrepresentation by some anonymous character on Youtube.

Is this what you consider, responsible research, Michael??

I did as I told you I wrote him and was told the target was a 10" target, on a 3 foot tall stand.

You can contact him yourself on youtube, or at Duncan's Forum. I will not post his name without his permission.

Further he is hardly unknown to you, as you have had many run ins with him in the past haven't you?

As far as responsible research Robert....when have you EVER been concerned with that?

Cite him verbatim Michael.

It is not my job to look up your anonymous Youtubers for you.

And it is beyond pathetic that you actually misrepresent your own source.

Robert,

This is funny. I already told you what the man said. I told you exactly what he said.

I have misrepresented nothing.

Also I highly doubt the man is anonymous to you considering you wrote me concerning this man. Do you wish me to share that to prove that he is someone known to you and someone that you have had "issues" with in the past?

And you claim he is just some unknown youtuber? Robert.....he is well known to you LOL.

Would you like me to prove that?

Why do you need to "prove" what I told you several days ago, in email?

But the fact that your new friend has to operate anonymously, tells us a great deal about him, as does your claim that he was the one who lied about the dimensions of his target.

Now, I realize that you see that as a big plus for the guy, but not all of us have the same values that you do, Michael.

And speaking of integrity (or lack of) did you check out his claim that I got him banned from Duncan's forum? What did you find out, Michael?

Robert,

No one claimed anyone lied. I simply wrote the man for clarification. Do you have trouble understanding even the most simple things?

And yes I did check that out. There was a forum you got him banned from, but it was not Duncans, now was it Robert?

For the record, the man said he did not know if he could post there because you had gotten him banned FROM a forum. He did not say Duncans specifically.

I also note how this mysterious Youtuber you earlier claimed has now come to surface as someone well known to you.

Talk about misrepresenting something!

What forum did I get him banned from, Michael?

[Mike Williams]

"I am quoting my own source. Not misrepresenting him. Write him and ask."

No sir, you did NOT cite him verbatim. Here is YOUR statement,

"All one has to do is watch that video to realize that the shooter is shooting at a 10" plate at 120 yards. This plate is on a 3 foot stand."

but the video stated that the target was

"a 10 inch by 3 foot metal plate.."

Or almost FOUR times larger than you told us it was.

Now, cite him verbatim please, and get his name. It's bad enough that you totally rely on some Youtube character's uncorroborated claim, but at the very least, he needs to have a name.

I can't believe you base your entire argument on your own deliberate misrepresentation by some anonymous character on Youtube.

Is this what you consider, responsible research, Michael??

I did as I told you I wrote him and was told the target was a 10" target, on a 3 foot tall stand.

You can contact him yourself on youtube, or at Duncan's Forum. I will not post his name without his permission.

Further he is hardly unknown to you, as you have had many run ins with him in the past haven't you?

As far as responsible research Robert....when have you EVER been concerned with that?

Cite him verbatim Michael.

It is not my job to look up your anonymous Youtubers for you.

And it is beyond pathetic that you actually misrepresent your own source.

Robert,

This is funny. I already told you what the man said. I told you exactly what he said.

I have misrepresented nothing.

Also I highly doubt the man is anonymous to you considering you wrote me concerning this man. Do you wish me to share that to prove that he is someone known to you and someone that you have had "issues" with in the past?

And you claim he is just some unknown youtuber? Robert.....he is well known to you LOL.

Would you like me to prove that?

Why do you need to "prove" what I told you several days ago, in email?

But the fact that your new friend has to operate anonymously, tells us a great deal about him, as does your claim that he was the one who lied about the dimensions of his target.

Now, I realize that you see that as a big plus for the guy, but not all of us have the same values that you do, Michael.

And speaking of integrity (or lack of) did you check out his claim that I got him banned from Duncan's forum? What did you find out, Michael?

Robert,

No one claimed anyone lied. I simply wrote the man for clarification. Do you have trouble understanding even the most simple things?

And yes I did check that out. There was a forum you got him banned from, but it was not Duncans, now was it Robert?

For the record, the man said he did not know if he could post there because you had gotten him banned FROM a forum. He did not say Duncans specifically.

I also note how this mysterious Youtuber you earlier claimed has now come to surface as someone well known to you.

Talk about misrepresenting something!

What forum did I get him banned from, Michael?

Robert,

I have spent a significant time showing you things you were not astute enough to gather on your own. I am not going to address something you already know the answer to.

Obviously you have a history with this man, and its not a good one now is it?

[Robert Harris]

"I am quoting my own source. Not misrepresenting him. Write him and ask."

No sir, you did NOT cite him verbatim. Here is YOUR statement,

"All one has to do is watch that video to realize that the shooter is shooting at a 10" plate at 120 yards. This plate is on a 3 foot stand."

but the video stated that the target was

"a 10 inch by 3 foot metal plate.."

Or almost FOUR times larger than you told us it was.

Now, cite him verbatim please, and get his name. It's bad enough that you totally rely on some Youtube character's uncorroborated claim, but at the very least, he needs to have a name.

I can't believe you base your entire argument on your own deliberate misrepresentation by some anonymous character on Youtube.

Is this what you consider, responsible research, Michael??

I did as I told you I wrote him and was told the target was a 10" target, on a 3 foot tall stand.

You can contact him yourself on youtube, or at Duncan's Forum. I will not post his name without his permission.

Further he is hardly unknown to you, as you have had many run ins with him in the past haven't you?

As far as responsible research Robert....when have you EVER been concerned with that?

Cite him verbatim Michael.

It is not my job to look up your anonymous Youtubers for you.

And it is beyond pathetic that you actually misrepresent your own source.

Robert,

This is funny. I already told you what the man said. I told you exactly what he said.

I have misrepresented nothing.

Also I highly doubt the man is anonymous to you considering you wrote me concerning this man. Do you wish me to share that to prove that he is someone known to you and someone that you have had "issues" with in the past?

And you claim he is just some unknown youtuber? Robert.....he is well known to you LOL.

Would you like me to prove that?

Why do you need to "prove" what I told you several days ago, in email?

But the fact that your new friend has to operate anonymously, tells us a great deal about him, as does your claim that he was the one who lied about the dimensions of his target.

Now, I realize that you see that as a big plus for the guy, but not all of us have the same values that you do, Michael.

And speaking of integrity (or lack of) did you check out his claim that I got him banned from Duncan's forum? What did you find out, Michael?

Robert,

No one claimed anyone lied. I simply wrote the man for clarification. Do you have trouble understanding even the most simple things?

And yes I did check that out. There was a forum you got him banned from, but it was not Duncans, now was it Robert?

For the record, the man said he did not know if he could post there because you had gotten him banned FROM a forum. He did not say Duncans specifically.

I also note how this mysterious Youtuber you earlier claimed has now come to surface as someone well known to you.

Talk about misrepresenting something!

What forum did I get him banned from, Michael?

Robert,

I have spent a significant time showing you things you were not astute enough to gather on your own. I am not going to address something you already know the answer to.

Obviously you have a history with this man, and its not a good one now is it?

What forum did I get him banned from Michael?

You said you confirmed that yourself.

But the truth is, that I never complained to the admins of ANY JFK forum, about mag30th. Knowing what I know about him, I am not surprised that he was banned from various forums - but not because I made such a request.

And therefore, you never made any such discovery, did you Michael??

[Mike Williams]

"I am quoting my own source. Not misrepresenting him. Write him and ask."

No sir, you did NOT cite him verbatim. Here is YOUR statement,

"All one has to do is watch that video to realize that the shooter is shooting at a 10" plate at 120 yards. This plate is on a 3 foot stand."

but the video stated that the target was

"a 10 inch by 3 foot metal plate.."

Or almost FOUR times larger than you told us it was.

Now, cite him verbatim please, and get his name. It's bad enough that you totally rely on some Youtube character's uncorroborated claim, but at the very least, he needs to have a name.

I can't believe you base your entire argument on your own deliberate misrepresentation by some anonymous character on Youtube.

Is this what you consider, responsible research, Michael??

I did as I told you I wrote him and was told the target was a 10" target, on a 3 foot tall stand.

You can contact him yourself on youtube, or at Duncan's Forum. I will not post his name without his permission.

Further he is hardly unknown to you, as you have had many run ins with him in the past haven't you?

As far as responsible research Robert....when have you EVER been concerned with that?

Cite him verbatim Michael.

It is not my job to look up your anonymous Youtubers for you.

And it is beyond pathetic that you actually misrepresent your own source.

Robert,

This is funny. I already told you what the man said. I told you exactly what he said.

I have misrepresented nothing.

Also I highly doubt the man is anonymous to you considering you wrote me concerning this man. Do you wish me to share that to prove that he is someone known to you and someone that you have had "issues" with in the past?

And you claim he is just some unknown youtuber? Robert.....he is well known to you LOL.

Would you like me to prove that?

Why do you need to "prove" what I told you several days ago, in email?

But the fact that your new friend has to operate anonymously, tells us a great deal about him, as does your claim that he was the one who lied about the dimensions of his target.

Now, I realize that you see that as a big plus for the guy, but not all of us have the same values that you do, Michael.

And speaking of integrity (or lack of) did you check out his claim that I got him banned from Duncan's forum? What did you find out, Michael?

Robert,

No one claimed anyone lied. I simply wrote the man for clarification. Do you have trouble understanding even the most simple things?

And yes I did check that out. There was a forum you got him banned from, but it was not Duncans, now was it Robert?

For the record, the man said he did not know if he could post there because you had gotten him banned FROM a forum. He did not say Duncans specifically.

I also note how this mysterious Youtuber you earlier claimed has now come to surface as someone well known to you.

Talk about misrepresenting something!

What forum did I get him banned from, Michael?

Robert,

I have spent a significant time showing you things you were not astute enough to gather on your own. I am not going to address something you already know the answer to.

Obviously you have a history with this man, and its not a good one now is it?

What forum did I get him banned from Michael?

You said you confirmed that yourself.

But the truth is, that I never complained to the admins of ANY JFK forum, about mag30th. Knowing what I know about him, I am not surprised that he was banned from various forums - but not because I made such a request.

And therefore, you never made any such discovery, did you Michael??

Of course I did Robert. However I would think this is a matter between you and him.

Now would you care to get back to the issues or are you just bent on distracting away from the obvious errors in your theory?

[Robert Harris]

"Of course I did Robert. However I would think this is a matter between you and him.

Now would you care to get back to the issues or are you just bent on distracting away from the obvious errors in your theory?"

What forum did you "discover" that I reported mag30th? I'm sorry Michael, but given your track record, I just cannot take your word on it. What forum did I do this in, and who did I make the request to???

And for the fourth time, please cite him verbatim, describing the dimensions of his target??

There were no such dimensions in the email you forwarded to me.

And if he was indeed, the one who lied about the dimensions of his target, then why did you say "no-one" lied?? Obviously, the dimensions he described in his video were much larger than you claim that he told you. If he misrepresented his own video, then his credibility on any of this goes down the commode.

Please give us a straight answer, Michael.

And finally, since we now know that the target he claims to have hit, was more than four times larger than JFK's head, are you at least willing to admit that he did not duplicate Oswald firing the shots at 285 and 312??

And of course, neither has any other human on this planet, right Michael??

[Mike Williams]

"Of course I did Robert. However I would think this is a matter between you and him.

Now would you care to get back to the issues or are you just bent on distracting away from the obvious errors in your theory?"

What forum did you "discover" that I reported mag30th? I'm sorry Michael, but given your track record, I just cannot take your word on it. What forum did I do this in, and who did I make the request to???

And for the fourth time, please cite him verbatim, describing the dimensions of his target??

There were no such dimensions in the email you forwarded to me.

And if he was indeed, the one who lied about the dimensions of his target, then why did you say "no-one" lied?? Obviously, the dimensions he described in his video were much larger than you claim that he told you. If he misrepresented his own video, then his credibility on any of this goes down the commode.

Please give us a straight answer, Michael.

And finally, since we now know that the target he claims to have hit, was more than four times larger than JFK's head, are you at least willing to admit that he did not duplicate Oswald firing the shots at 285 and 312??

And of course, neither has any other human on this planet, right Michael??

Robert,

I am absolutely amazed at your lack of comprehension.

I have already given you the exact dimensions the Mag told me. What exactly is it you are wanting when you ask me to cite him verbatim?

He told me the target was a 10" circle on a 3 foot tall stand.

What is so difficult for you to understand in that?

What forum did you "discover" that I reported mag30th? I'm sorry Michael, but given your track record, I just cannot take your word on it. What forum did I do this in, and who did I make the request to???

Your only attacking my credibility here out of frustration. Its all hot air and that's pretty apparent.

I also never forwarded an email to you, nice try. I resent the implications about my credibility.

Further he absolutely duplicated the timing needed to shoot at 285 and 312, which was not needed as there is no shot at 285. Thats very obvious.

Edited April 25, 2010 by Mike Williams

[Robert Harris]

"Of course I did Robert. However I would think this is a matter between you and him.

Now would you care to get back to the issues or are you just bent on distracting away from the obvious errors in your theory?"

What forum did you "discover" that I reported mag30th? I'm sorry Michael, but given your track record, I just cannot take your word on it. What forum did I do this in, and who did I make the request to???

And for the fourth time, please cite him verbatim, describing the dimensions of his target??

There were no such dimensions in the email you forwarded to me.

And if he was indeed, the one who lied about the dimensions of his target, then why did you say "no-one" lied?? Obviously, the dimensions he described in his video were much larger than you claim that he told you. If he misrepresented his own video, then his credibility on any of this goes down the commode.

Please give us a straight answer, Michael.

And finally, since we now know that the target he claims to have hit, was more than four times larger than JFK's head, are you at least willing to admit that he did not duplicate Oswald firing the shots at 285 and 312??

And of course, neither has any other human on this planet, right Michael??

Robert,

I am absolutely amazed at your lack of comprehension.

I have already given you the exact dimensions the Mag told me. What exactly is it you are wanting when you ask me to cite him verbatim?

He told me the target was a 10" circle on a 3 foot tall stand.

What is so difficult for you to understand in that?

What forum did you "discover" that I reported mag30th? I'm sorry Michael, but given your track record, I just cannot take your word on it. What forum did I do this in, and who did I make the request to???

Your only attacking my credibility here out of frustration. Its all hot air and that's pretty apparent.

I also never forwarded an email to you, nice try. I resent the implications about my credibility.

Further he absolutely duplicated the timing needed to shoot at 285 and 312, which was not needed as there is no shot at 285. Thats very obvious.

Michael, he did not "duplicate" anything, firing at a target that was over four times larger than Kennedy's head.

And yes, I am indeed, questioning your credibility.

I know for a fact that I never complained about mag30th to any administrator in any forum. So, your claim that you discovered otherwise, is obviously false. And you confirm that by refusing to name the forum.

And I don't believe that mag30th lied about the dimensions of his target, not because he isn't capable of such a thing but because the dimensions were plainly displayed in his video, so there was no need for you to even ask him and there is no way he would have told a lie that was so easily busted.

Only one person I know, is that stupid.

Edited April 25, 2010 by Robert Harris

[Dean Hagerman]

Come on guys

I like both of you

Its ok and in fact healthy to disagree with theories that you think are bogus

Why dont you guys start all over fresh and battle each other in a civil manner before someone goes to far

Edited April 25, 2010 by Dean Hagerman

[Mike Williams]

"Of course I did Robert. However I would think this is a matter between you and him.

Now would you care to get back to the issues or are you just bent on distracting away from the obvious errors in your theory?"

What forum did you "discover" that I reported mag30th? I'm sorry Michael, but given your track record, I just cannot take your word on it. What forum did I do this in, and who did I make the request to???

And for the fourth time, please cite him verbatim, describing the dimensions of his target??

There were no such dimensions in the email you forwarded to me.

And if he was indeed, the one who lied about the dimensions of his target, then why did you say "no-one" lied?? Obviously, the dimensions he described in his video were much larger than you claim that he told you. If he misrepresented his own video, then his credibility on any of this goes down the commode.

Please give us a straight answer, Michael.

And finally, since we now know that the target he claims to have hit, was more than four times larger than JFK's head, are you at least willing to admit that he did not duplicate Oswald firing the shots at 285 and 312??

And of course, neither has any other human on this planet, right Michael??

Robert,

I am absolutely amazed at your lack of comprehension.

I have already given you the exact dimensions the Mag told me. What exactly is it you are wanting when you ask me to cite him verbatim?

He told me the target was a 10" circle on a 3 foot tall stand.

What is so difficult for you to understand in that?

What forum did you "discover" that I reported mag30th? I'm sorry Michael, but given your track record, I just cannot take your word on it. What forum did I do this in, and who did I make the request to???

Your only attacking my credibility here out of frustration. Its all hot air and that's pretty apparent.

I also never forwarded an email to you, nice try. I resent the implications about my credibility.

Further he absolutely duplicated the timing needed to shoot at 285 and 312, which was not needed as there is no shot at 285. Thats very obvious.

Michael, he did not "duplicate" anything, firing at a target that was over four times larger than Kennedy's head.

And yes, I am indeed, questioning your credibility.

I know for a fact that I never complained about mag30th to any administrator in any forum. So, your claim that you discovered otherwise, is obviously false. And you confirm that by refusing to name the forum.

And I don't believe that mag30th lied about the dimensions of his target, not because he isn't capable of such a thing but because the dimensions were plainly displayed in his video, so there was no need for you to even ask him and there is no way he would have told a lie that was so easily busted.

Only one person I know, is that stupid.

Robert,

He fired at and hit a 10" target mounted on a 3 foot stand. Those are his words exactly. Unless you have something to prove him otherwise, I have to believe him. I still do not comprehend where you believe anyone lied about that target, except of course the countless times you have accused anyone who does not agree with you of lying. That is shameful on your part.

I suggest if you have any evidence that he was not being honest, that you bring it forward. I wrote and ask for clarification, and got is.

Just like I consulted a physics forum, and just as I consulted an engineer.

I would also tell you, since you obviously struggle with math, the back of JFK's profile would be wider than 10" and bordering on 18-24" in height while in the limo, looking at it from an elevated position. So to say that the target (as you claim it) is 4 times larger is misleading.

It is also a far cry from your earlier statement that someone firing that fast could not hit the planet lol.

Why is it that once you are put into a spot in a debate that you then become nasty and commence with the name calling and accusations?

Its a typical tactic to avoid the issues you so desperately wish would go away.

[Mike Williams]

Come on guys

I like both of you

Its ok and in fact healthy to disagree with theories that you think are bogus

Why dont you guys start all over fresh and battle each other in a civil manner before someone goes to far

Dean,

I wish that could be the case. It can not. This is how Robert reacts to anyone who does not agree with him. Its a common tactic of Roberts.

No worries though. I have already well proven my points, and they have yet to be refuted.

On another note. I saw your post at Duncans place, and absolutely want your help! The new site will not be limited to just the LN thinking, it is for both sides. All I ask is that it be ballistically sound, if it is an article in that direction, if it is not about the shooting or ballistics, that it be accurate and provable. I want a site, for all of us, that keeps our integrity high, and the standards to match.

Please feel free to contact me for now at jfk22nov63@aol.com

I look forward to working with you on many an adventure!

[John Dolva]

Mike, you're being quite tenacious here. I dropped this one after 2/3 through the first followed by a couple of polite but unsatisfactory questions/answers. I don't quite understand why you persist.

[Dean Hagerman]

Come on guys

I like both of you

Its ok and in fact healthy to disagree with theories that you think are bogus

Why dont you guys start all over fresh and battle each other in a civil manner before someone goes to far

Dean,

I wish that could be the case. It can not. This is how Robert reacts to anyone who does not agree with him. Its a common tactic of Roberts.

No worries though. I have already well proven my points, and they have yet to be refuted.

On another note. I saw your post at Duncans place, and absolutely want your help! The new site will not be limited to just the LN thinking, it is for both sides. All I ask is that it be ballistically sound, if it is an article in that direction, if it is not about the shooting or ballistics, that it be accurate and provable. I want a site, for all of us, that keeps our integrity high, and the standards to match.

Please feel free to contact me for now at jfk22nov63@aol.com

I look forward to working with you on many an adventure!

I think its a great idea Mike and would love to contribute to your new website

[Robert Harris]

Come on guys

I like both of you

Its ok and in fact healthy to disagree with theories that you think are bogus

Why dont you guys start all over fresh and battle each other in a civil manner before someone goes to far

Dean, I appreciate your suggestion that we all play nice together.

But for that to be possible, we have to first, be truthful. I simply cannot respect anyone who is otherwise.

Robert Harris

[Mike Williams]

Mike, you're being quite tenacious here. I dropped this one after 2/3 through the first followed by a couple of polite but unsatisfactory questions/answers. I don't quite understand why you persist.

John,

Quite right. Beating a dead horse just wastes my time. I showed what needed to be shown, and so the folly of this one has to go in the can and waste no more time on it.

Mike

[Robert Harris]

Mike, you're being quite tenacious here. I dropped this one after 2/3 through the first followed by a couple of polite but unsatisfactory questions/answers. I don't quite understand why you persist.

John,

Quite right. Beating a dead horse just wastes my time. I showed what needed to be shown, and so the folly of this one has to go in the can and waste no more time on it.

Mike

That's fine Michael, although I know from numerous past experiences that you claim you won't talk about this in order to evade questions. And you will in fact, be attacking me again at the first opportunity.

You have given the impression that mag30th lied about the dimensions of his target, in order to make his performance appear much better than it really was. Do you intend to leave it like that, or do you wish to man up and tell us who REALLY misrepresented those dimensions?

And you made the statement that you confirmed that I got him booted out of a JFK forum. Would you like to correct that statement Michael? If not, then why do you refuse to give us the name of the forum?

And finally, why don't you explain why you think that anyone shooting at a target four times larger than Kennedy's head, was duplicating Oswald's scenario?

Robert Harris