The Gunshot at Frame 285

[Robert Harris]

"Wait a second here. In your videos you have the shots at the turn in Towner, a shot in the 160's, a shot at 223, and this shot at 285 all coming from your third floor DalTex shooter. Now you ARE telling us he had a high power rifle? Which is it? Did he or did he not?"

Michael, you asked about this long ago - on April 7th in fact, in the other forum, and I replied

"The first three shots might very well have all come from the same weapon. Of course, that could not have been the same as the weapons which fired the much louder shots at 285 and 312."

I also pointed out to to you, that if the 285 shot came from the Daltex, the shooter would have to have used a different weapon for that shot, or there was a another sniper with him, using a high powered rifle.

There is nothing at all unreasonable about that and you didn't even try to challenge me on it. Why do you now pretend that this is some kind of revelation you just came up with?

I also pointed out, and also explained in my video presentation, the 285 shot might very well have been fired from the Depository.

Michael, you are fabricating issues that have already been resolved and to which you had no counter argument. What is the point of this, other than harassment??

I brought this up so the readers of THIS forum would be aware of the ridiculousness of what your "theory" contains. Its not harassment Robert, not at all. Why do you have an issue with me bringing it up? Is there some part of our exchange you do not want the readers here to have read? I bet there is. I bet you wish they had not read any of it. Challenge you on it, hell all I could do was laugh about it.

I wonder if all these shooters with all these weapons marched in platoon formation into the Dal Tex. :ice

As far as issues resolved, you have not resolved one of the errors in your videos to date. All you did was come to another forum garnering support for these same ideas. Judging by the amount of responses you are getting I think your "theory" has epically failed here as well. These readers are not stupid. They see the exact position you are in.

It must be difficult.

Keep changing the theory Robert, its your only hope of getting it right. In fact, scratch that. Just go back to the drawing board.

Michael, why exactly do you call it "ridiculousness" that there might have been two snipers in the Daltex, or a sniper with two weapons?

Can you be specific for a change?

[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??

Edited April 25, 2010 by Robert Harris

[Robert Harris]

Michael said, "That is some funny stuff. How could Alvarez have "discovered" a shot, and then "speculate it was a siren"

Watch the video and read his paper, Michael. Alvarez was a staunch WC defender and by his own admission, set as a "boundary condition" the presumption that Oswald fired all the shots. Therefore, as he also stated, Oswald could not have fired both a shot at 285 and at 312.

He also said the reactions following 312 were stronger than the ones following 285, which made perfect sense if they had both been fired by Oswald, but obviously, they had not.

And that is just one more reason why we can be absolutely certain that Oswald did not fired both of those shots - in addition to the minor detail that such a thing was impossible.

[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?

[Robert Harris]

Michael stated, "Alvarez never said there was a shot at 285, and this theory has been seriously debunked over at Duncan's place."

Yes Michael, I specifically stated that Alvarez speculated that the noise was a siren, which we all know is not correct.

As for this being "debunked", that's ludicrous.

In fact, you have recently gone to fallback position #4, claiming that Oswald could have fired both of those shots.

To promote your latest "theory", you have had to defy Alvarez, the FBI, the HSCA and every other legitimate, documented test of that rifle, in favor of an anonymous Youtuber whom you had to misrepresent in order to make your case.

It just doesn't get any more pathetic than this, Michael.

[Mike Williams]

Michael said, "That is some funny stuff. How could Alvarez have "discovered" a shot, and then "speculate it was a siren"

Watch the video and read his paper, Michael. Alvarez was a staunch WC defender and by his own admission, set as a "boundary condition" the presumption that Oswald fired all the shots. Therefore, as he also stated, Oswald could not have fired both a shot at 285 and at 312.

He also said the reactions following 312 were stronger than the ones following 285, which made perfect sense if they had both been fired by Oswald, but obviously, they had not.

And that is just one more reason why we can be absolutely certain that Oswald did not fired both of those shots - in addition to the minor detail that such a thing was impossible.

Again for the reading comprehension impaired.

Alvarez, who you cite as the person who "discovered" the shot, does not even believe it was a shot. Why is that? Simple really, there was no shot at 285. I would think a man like Alvarez would certainly have determined if there were. He also based his conclusion on the fact that of all the jiggle episodes this was the smallest and least impressive. This same determination was also made by Scott and Hartman in their analysis.

There is no evidence whatsoever of a shot at 285.

[Mike Williams]

"Wait a second here. In your videos you have the shots at the turn in Towner, a shot in the 160's, a shot at 223, and this shot at 285 all coming from your third floor DalTex shooter. Now you ARE telling us he had a high power rifle? Which is it? Did he or did he not?"

Michael, you asked about this long ago - on April 7th in fact, in the other forum, and I replied

"The first three shots might very well have all come from the same weapon. Of course, that could not have been the same as the weapons which fired the much louder shots at 285 and 312."

I also pointed out to to you, that if the 285 shot came from the Daltex, the shooter would have to have used a different weapon for that shot, or there was a another sniper with him, using a high powered rifle.

There is nothing at all unreasonable about that and you didn't even try to challenge me on it. Why do you now pretend that this is some kind of revelation you just came up with?

I also pointed out, and also explained in my video presentation, the 285 shot might very well have been fired from the Depository.

Michael, you are fabricating issues that have already been resolved and to which you had no counter argument. What is the point of this, other than harassment??

I brought this up so the readers of THIS forum would be aware of the ridiculousness of what your "theory" contains. Its not harassment Robert, not at all. Why do you have an issue with me bringing it up? Is there some part of our exchange you do not want the readers here to have read? I bet there is. I bet you wish they had not read any of it. Challenge you on it, hell all I could do was laugh about it.

I wonder if all these shooters with all these weapons marched in platoon formation into the Dal Tex. :ice

As far as issues resolved, you have not resolved one of the errors in your videos to date. All you did was come to another forum garnering support for these same ideas. Judging by the amount of responses you are getting I think your "theory" has epically failed here as well. These readers are not stupid. They see the exact position you are in.

It must be difficult.

Keep changing the theory Robert, its your only hope of getting it right. In fact, scratch that. Just go back to the drawing board.

Michael, why exactly do you call it "ridiculousness" that there might have been two snipers in the Daltex, or a sniper with two weapons?

Can you be specific for a change?

Well first off what kind of weapons would they be that fire bullets uses suppressors and have to be assembled? :ice

I know that it appears common sense is not your strong suit, but let me see if I can help you out here.

Not one single person has ever said they heard shots inside the Dal-Tex.

Not one single weapon was found inside the Dal-Tex

The "broken window" you allege for your shooter (of this mystery weapon) is completely intact.

I have been very specific in every post here, so this should come as no change to you.

[Robert Harris]

Michael said, "Remember this as you watch and see how often Robert "corrects" these witnesses that he says were "not confused".

as if that were some kind of rebuttal, but then he turned around and fully agreed,

"OF course some of them were confused, I think it is completely understandable given the circumstances."

But notice that he is not interested in specifics. There's a reason for that.

The "confusion" lies in the fact that Mrs. Kennedy did not realize that her husband was hit at 223, and thought that he was wounded by the shot that she heard later, AFTER she looked back and saw JFK in distress, and AFTER she heard her husband shouting, "Oh, no, no, no". And throughout her entire life, she was adamant that she never looked to the rear again after she heard that "second" shots.

But Mrs. Connally turned to the rear TWICE after frame 223, the last time being at about frame 282.

And in fact, in the other forum, Michael has admitted that Mrs. Connally and the other limo passengers were startled by a loud noise at frame 285 and began to react at 290-292.

Nellie's reaction began at precisely, frame 291, and then pulled her husband back to her, exactly as she testified.

It is ridiculously obvious, that she was reacting to the gunshot then, that she thought, hit her husband.

[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.

[Mike Williams]

Michael said, "Remember this as you watch and see how often Robert "corrects" these witnesses that he says were "not confused".

as if that were some kind of rebuttal, but then he turned around and fully agreed,

"OF course some of them were confused, I think it is completely understandable given the circumstances."

But notice that he is not interested in specifics. There's a reason for that.

The "confusion" lies in the fact that Mrs. Kennedy did not realize that her husband was hit at 223, and thought that he was wounded by the shot that she heard later, AFTER she looked back and saw JFK in distress, and AFTER she heard her husband shouting, "Oh, no, no, no". And throughout her entire life, she was adamant that she never looked to the rear again after she heard that "second" shots.

But Mrs. Connally turned to the rear TWICE after frame 223, the last time being at about frame 282.

And in fact, in the other forum, Michael has admitted that Mrs. Connally and the other limo passengers were startled by a loud noise at frame 285 and began to react at 290-292.

Nellie's reaction began at precisely, frame 291, and then pulled her husband back to her, exactly as she testified.

It is ridiculously obvious, that she was reacting to the gunshot then, that she thought, hit her husband.

Nellie is quite specific.

First Hit JFK

Second Hit JBC

Third was the headshot.

There was no shot between John and the head shot

thus there was no shot at 285.

Its quite simple.

[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?

[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?

Michael, I'm sorry that you have to resort to personal insults, just because you got caught with your pants down.

And yes, as I already told you "mag30th" is certainly not unknown to me. He and cdddraftsman are partners and went after me, a year or so ago. After he posted physical threats to me at Youtube, I reported him to appropriate law enforcement.

I think you've found your soulmates, 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?

Michael, I'm sorry that you have to resort to personal insults, just because you got caught with your pants down.

And yes, as I already told you "mag30th" is certainly not unknown to me. He and cdddraftsman are partners and went after me, a year or so ago. After he posted physical threats to me at Youtube, I reported him to appropriate law enforcement.

I think you've found your soulmates, Michael.

It is very apparent someone got caught with their pants down. I suggest you pull em back up, and try delivering some less than hysterical research.

I have to ask. If he is known to you, then why in the other thread do you refer to him as an unknown ?

This is an interesting misrepresentation.

Oh he threatened you did he? hahahah It was probably just another one of your moronic conspiracy theories. Im sure some guy from Youtube is going to waste his time on you. Thats just hilarious.

[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?

Edited April 25, 2010 by Robert Harris

[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!