JFK Conspiracy Theories IV: The One With The Whales - Page 3

Robert Harris · 30th August 2015, 02:16 PM

Originally Posted by Tomtomkent

On the one hand we could see human testimony as understandably flawed, and confused. And we can see people acting in the confusion of the moment, on film, while being shot at thrice, with two bullets wounding one man and killing another.

Yes, shots were fired at least, "thrice". Hank's "two shot" theory is easily refuted.

Quote:

Or we can see the same confusion as absolute proof that people were startled, by snipers with suppressed weapons, failing to cause any known wound, without leaving a single recovered bullet, or indeed bullet hole, any evidence of their location or existence.

No one was startled by the sound of suppressed gunshots, which is why I never claimed they were.

And there is a much better way to evaluate witness testimonies, than to make sweeping generalizations about their accuracy or inaccuracy. We can test some of the most important statements, with the Zapruder film.

That's why the limo passengers are such valuable witnesses. Mrs. Connally "said" that she heard one shot, then looked back at JFK, then heard a "second shot" which provoked her to turn back to her husband and pull him back to her.

Was she correct? The Zapruder film will tell us, beyond all reasonable doubt.

http://jfkhistory.com/nellie2.gif

In the film, we can see, not only that she looked back at Kennedy, exactly as she claimed, but we can see WHEN she did that, which in this case, is even more important. She looked back at about frame 258.

Did she then, reacted to a second shot, by turning back to her husand, as she testified? Look at the Zapruder segment again. She did exactly as she stated, snapping away from JFK and to her husband, in perfect unison with Jackie and Kellerman ducking and Greer spinning around, as in his panic, he accidentally lifted his foot from the gas.

She also reacted in EXACTLY the same instant that Zapruder reacted.

Quote:

They would have needed to use a lower calibre of bullet than any found, or any that can be shown to have caused a wound.

That is untrue. Even "axman" has stated,

The only silenced rifles considered reliable in 1963 were 9mm or .45 caliber.

He has failed to document that assertion, but subsonic ammunition for both of those calibers was and is, commonly available. So at the very least, he has confirmed that two of the most popular calibers of rifles/ammunition could have been used.

Quote:

And if my understanding of suppressed weapons is correct, and they were using those favoured I the war, they would have to be at close range to avoid hitting random members of the crowd due to decreased accuracy.(though I expect Hank willl correct me on this)

No, you are absolutely correct. In fact, the last verifiable, suppressed shot, was fired at 223, when the limo was almost exactly, 100 feet from the Daltex building. That shot, BTW, was quite inaccurate, striking Kennedy in the back, roughly 8-9 inches below the center of the head, which had to have been, the preferred target.

The shots at the end, were obviously, not suppressed and were infinitely louder.

Quote:

And all based on the assumption people are startled, in a way that can ONLY be explained by a very loud (silenced) noise!

I find it hard to believe that you were unaware of what I said. The early shots were the ones that were suppressed. Only one of them was even noticed by most witnesses and neither was loud enough to provoke visible startle reactions.

The ones at 285 and 313 were many times louder and provoked dramatic and very obvious, startle reactions.

Notice that the suppressed shots stopped when the limo went out of range. Only then, were the high powered rifles fired.

HSienzant · 30th August 2015, 05:38 PM

Originally Posted by Robert Harris

I have refuted that argument over and over again. Your claim is that there was no shot circa 160, right? You are not disputing the shot at 223, right? Let's go very my refutations AGAIN.

John Connally proved you wrong in spades. He "heard" the first of those two early shots but only "felt" the one at 223,

It is not conceivable to me that I could have been hit by the first bullet, and then I felt the blow from something which was obviously a bullet, which I assumed was a bullet, and I never heard the second shot, didn't hear it.

Mrs. Kennedy stated that she was looking to her left when she heard that first shot/noise,

Mrs. KENNEDY. You know, there is always noise in a motorcade and there are always motorcycles, besides us, a lot of them backfiring. So I was looking to the left. I guess there was a noise, but it didn't seem like any different noise really because there is so much noise

She was looking to her left at 160, wasn't she? But by 223, she had turned completely to her right, looking at JFK. She had to have heard a pre-223 shot then.

Besides her own statement that she turned to her right, following that "noise", she was corroborated by Phil Willis, who had her in his camera lens then.

When I took slide No. 4, the President was smiling and waving and looking straight ahead, and Mrs. Kennedy was likewise smiling and facing more to my side of the street. When the first shot was fired, her head seemed to just snap in that direction

He reaffirmed that in this statement,

In slide No. 4 he was looking pretty much toward--straight ahead, and she was looking more to the left, which would be my side of the street. Then when the first shot was fired, she turned to the right toward him

You tell me Hank. When did Mrs. Kennedy turn to JFK? I see that beginning at about 169. What do you get?

In addition to John Connally's testimony and the reactions by Mrs. Kennedy and Phil Willis, we can see Rosemary Willis, who told Gerald Posner that she stopped running when she heard that first shot, coming to a complete stop. Look at the film. That happened, prior to frame 223.

http://www.jfk-online.com/rosemary-w...-dunckel-2.gif

Rosemary came to a complete stop before 223. You are wrong, Hank. There were at least two early shots. That fact is beyond reasonable doubt.

And here's another one, if that's not enough for. Mrs. Donald Baker testified,

Mrs. BAKER. Well, as I said, I thought it was a firecracker. It looked just like you could see the sparks from it and I just thought it was a firecracker..

How could she have seen "sparks", rising from the pavement, from the 223 shot, that passed through two men?

Wow, that's persuasive. Not. I find more of the same cherry-picking you've done before, along with a large helping of your interpretations of what the various witnesses meant. You assume the witnesses are absolutely correct when it suits your purposes, but dismiss their accounts when it doesn't.

For example:

Mrs. Kennedy heard a 'noise'. Not a gunshot, and likened it to all the other noises she heard during the motorcade. Including motorcycle backfires. To you, that's somehow evidence of a gunshot.

Not to me.

John Connally heard only two gunshots, and was struck with one of them, with the other one, he testified, hitting JFK in the head. To you, that's evidence of two early shots (and supposedly, two or three or more later ones). In addition, as mentioned before, Connally was a victim of the gunfire and didn't even realize he was shot in the wrist or thigh until he was told so during his recovery process. You think his testimony is somehow solid evidence of an additional gunshot.

It's not to me.

Mrs. Baker heard a 'firecracker', and thought she saw sparks from it. To you, that's evidence of a gunshot.

Not to me.

A young child (six years old?) in 1963, Rosemary Willis claims something in the early 1990's that she isn't on record as saying at any time prior. You find her nearly three-decade later recollection credible (as you did with a federal agent - Frank Ellsworth - who recalled seeing a rifle on a different floor in the TSBD). We saw how well that went for you. You think her recollection of hearing a gunshot three decades after the fact is evidence of a gunshot.

It's not to me.

I'm sorry, your arguments here are not persuasive. Other witnesses gave contrary accounts. Clint Hill, Roy Kellerman, and Bill Greer all heard just one shot before the head shot. You ignore their testimony (or 'reinterpret' it to your liking), and that of the testimony of others, to somehow think you can claim evidence for at least four, and possibly five or more shots during the assassination. But to get to four or more, you must invoke shooters that left no evidence behind from where they shot, left no evidence behind of hitting their target at any time, and also used weapons firing bullets that weren't heard.

I find that rationalization of the evidence beyond amazing.

There's no evidence for four or five shots (more witnesses heard two shots than heard four or more) and there's no evidence for the additional shooters you conjecture.

I'm sorry, but it's true.

Hank

Robert Harris · 31st August 2015, 04:45 AM

Originally Posted by HSienzant

You make quite a few assertions in the above, but document very few of them.

Where is the evidence to support your assertions about a bullet recovered in the operating room? You cite the non-evidence of a published book ghost-written by another man.

I cited Connally's first hand statement, from his autobiography. Are you actually calling Mickey Herskowitz a liar?? This man's reputation is impeccable. He has written for numerous other celebrities, including an American president. From Wikipedia:

He has authored over 30 books, many of them jointly written autobiographies of famous Americans in politics, sports and media (including Gene Autry, Nolan Ryan, Paul “Bear” Bryant, George Allen, Tom Kite, John Connally and Prescott Bush), and others ghostwritten autobiographies of celebrities in similar fields (including Dan Rather, Mickey Mantle, Howard Cosell, Bette Davis, Shirley Jones, Marty Ingels and Gene Tierney).

This man has NEVER been accused of lying or misrepresenting the people he wrote for, and he was citing Connally's first person statements.

"..the most curious discovery of all took place when they rolled me off the stretcher, and onto the examining table. A metal object fell to the floor, with a click no louder than a wedding band. The nurse picked it up and slipped it into her pocket."

Connally was corroborated by Dallas District attorney, Henry Wade. This is from his interview by the Dallas Morning news on 11/21/93. You can confirm that, via the Dallas Morning News website at http://www.dallasnews.com/

And you can read the entire interview here:

http://jfkhistory.com/Wade.html

I also went out to see (Gov. John) Connally, but he was in the operating room. Some nurse had a bullet in her hand, and said this was on the gurney that Connally was on. I talked with Nellie Connally a while and then went on home.

Q: What did you do with the bullet? Is this the famous pristine bullet people have talked about?

A: I told her to give it to the police, which she said she would. I assume that's the pristine bullet.

Further corroboration came from officer Bobby Nolan, who was guarding Connally's room. This is from an interview I made of him, about three years ago. With his permission, the interview was recorded, and can be heard in this presentation:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cvqCtaBkyyE

Nolan: I was talking to a man who was one of governor Connally's aides. His name was - I think it was either Stinton or Stimmons (Bill Stinson). And he was an aide to the Governor. And she came up and told him that she had the bullet that came off of the gurney.

Now I don't know what gurney. I think they meant Governor Connally's gurney. And she said, "What do you want me to do with it?" He and I were just sitting there in the hallway talking to me and said, "Give it to him"

Q. Was it a bullet fragment or a complete bullet?

Nolan: I don't know. It was a - they told me that is was a bullet.

And I don't know if it was a fragment of a bullet or a whole bullet because it was in a little, small brown envelope. And it was sealed and it was about, I'd say 2 by 3 inches. And it was in that envelope when I got it and I never did look at it or anything."

Q. Now when the nurse gave it to you, did she describe it as a bullet fragment or as a bullet.

Nolan: Uh no. She just said it was a bullet. That's all.

Quote:

Nearly every one of your paragraphs above can be followed by the simple question: "What's the evidence for this claim?"

They were all sourced in the article I linked for you.

http://jfkhistory.com/bell/bellarticle/BellArticle.html

Quote:

And by the way, links to articles written by conspiracy theorists are not evidence.

So, no one who disagrees with you can be presenting valid evidence? Is that REALLY what you are claiming?

The clincher to this, is one little word, "GURNEY". A nurse in scrubs, emerging from the surgery of a gunshot victim, carrying a bullet, is not supposed to have gotten it from a gurney. She is supposed to have acquired it from the surgery.

It is the improbability of that term that makes it such a certainty.

The FBI claimed that nursing supervisor Audrey Bell told them that she gave an envelope containing a single fragment to Nolan. If that were true, my case would go down the commode, but guess what?

Yep, Bell was adamant that the FBI misrepresented her and that she never gave her envelope, which actually contained four tiny fragments, Nolan or any other uniformed cop. She gave it to plain clothed agents, AKA suits.

Surprise, surprise!

From the ARRB:

When shown an FBI FD-302 dated November 23,1963 (Agency File Number 000919, Record# 180-l 0090-10270), she felt it was inaccurate in two respects: it quotes her as turning over “the metal fragment (singular),” whereas she is positive it was multiple fragments - it says she
turned over the fragment to a Texas State Trooper, whereas she recalls turning it over to plainclothes Federal agents who were either FBI or Secret Service.

Need any more sources, Hank?

Regnad Kcin · 31st August 2015, 05:37 PM

Originally Posted by Robert Harris

If there were flaws, you would be able to describe them, with specificity.

While possible, I can't recall anyone being so thoroughly rebutted as you have been during your time here. I doubt very much any meager further addition of mine would prove to unjam the logs of your thinking.

Loss Leader · 1st September 2015, 03:31 PM

Originally Posted by Robert Harris

The clincher to this, is one little word, "GURNEY". A nurse in scrubs, emerging from the surgery of a gunshot victim, carrying a bullet, is not supposed to have gotten it from a gurney. She is supposed to have acquired it from the surgery.

It is the improbability of that term that makes it such a certainty.

That has to be the least persuasive argument I've ever read.

I implore you to study - not history - but the manner in which historians actually piece together information. I don't think you're going about it correctly.

Pope130 · 1st September 2015, 07:54 PM

Originally Posted by Tomtomkent

I'm tired of the thread going in circles with no evidence to support the same tired assumptions.

Lets do something new.

Lets assume you were the guy responsible for killing JFK and you had the budget it would take to make even a mundane conspiracy claim. Lets say a few million dollars it would take to establish a "second Oswald" as some theories claim. How would you spend two million dollars to assassinate JFK and frame somebody else. Cheapest, most reliable, and least incriminating suggestion gets the contract... (There is a point here)

I've considered this idea before; "If I were planning this..."

My best scenario is to catch him at the apartment of one of his girlfriends after he has shaken the Secret Service. Burst in, shoot them both, leave a mystery. Is it a mob hit? Maybe a jealous boyfriend? Obsessed Marilyn Monroe fan?

The great advantage is that family and friends of the deceased assist in the cover-up because of the embarrassing circumstances.

HSienzant · 1st September 2015, 08:20 PM

Originally Posted by Tomtomkent

I'm tired of the thread going in circles with no evidence to support the same tired assumptions.

Lets do something new.

Lets assume you were the guy responsible for killing JFK and you had the budget it would take to make even a mundane conspiracy claim. Lets say a few million dollars it would take to establish a "second Oswald" as some theories claim. How would you spend two million dollars to assassinate JFK and frame somebody else. Cheapest, most reliable, and least incriminating suggestion gets the contract... (There is a point here)

Give some psychosomatic drugs to the pilot of AF1... get him on record as visiting a psychologist who fails to realize he's a pilot, and talking of suicide. Then arrange to crash the plane. All you need to do then is control the investigation at the NTSB level. All that can be accomplished with fewer than ten people in the know and less than a half-million in 1963 dollars, I would estimate.

Or better yet, give the pilot one of those drugs that conspiracy theorists like to conjecture caused heart attacks in some of the dead witnesses. Or even better, give it to JFK. Heck, he was taking a ton of stuff from "Dr. Feelgood" (amphetamines and the like). A simple "accidental" overdose from the good doctor would do it (it worked for Michael Jackson).

No patsy required.

Or just release some damaging info about JFK's White House dalliances. It brought down some people in England earlier that year (in the Profumo affair).

Not sure why a patsy is your requirement in the above, but since you stipulate one, none of my above suggestions are eligible and fit what you asked for.

I do doubt an unlimited budget could accomplish everything that's argued for by conspiracy theorists.

The absurdities argued in the name of a JFK conspiracy are beyond belief.

For example, Body Alteration: for every autopsist who you approach, certainly 9 of 10 would NOT agree to be party to such a plan. Yet none of the other people who declined the opportunity to work as part of the team to alter the President's body ever came forward to claim they knew about it. So now you need a kill squad to bump off the 9 who were approached who declined, or you need some important info you can use to blackmail the nine who declined. But the kill squad costs money. And obtaining that info costs time and money.

The same could be argued for every other argument advanced by the conspiracy theorist brigade. For everyone involved in swapping one item of evidence that didn't implicate Oswald for one piece that did, again, 9 of 10 people approached must have declined before the conspirators found one willing to do it. None of those approached to take part came forward, so they must have been silenced somehow.

It adds up quickly, as does the Oswald doubles and the forgers who need to forge his signature on documents. And the experts who were needed to testify the way the conspirators wanted. And you need someone to kill the kill squad, the forgers, the experts and the doubles (both those who declined and those who accepted), or blackmail them all into silence, because they might talk about how the conspirators approached them and reveal the inner workings.... you can see how this can add up to real money very quickly.

But conspiracy theorists argue -- as Bob Harris does here in this thread currently, but he is by no means alone -- that much of the hard evidence implicating Oswald is planted, merely because it conflicts with their theories and they can find one witness somewhere who once said something different, even if they had to wait 30 years or more for the counter-claim to surface. It apparently never occurs to them to re-assess their theory in light of the fact the hard evidence disproves it. Or if it does occur to them, they quickly dismiss it as not worthy of consideration.

Bob Harris has argued that a second rifle was found on a different floor of the TSBD. But what happened to it, and why isn't it in the evidence record? He doesn't say. Someone on the inside must have been responsible for bringing it in, someone on the inside must have been responsible for bringing it out. And not being seen either time. How does one accomplish that feat? Who is the most likely candidate? Were others approached and declined? Why no statements from them? Why no evidence of this supposed other rifle, other than a recollection of hearsay from three decades after the fact from one man?

Hank

Sandy McCroskey · 1st September 2015, 08:21 PM

I must be very dense, as no one else has mentioned it, but I can't fathom the allusion to whales in the title of the new thread.

Robert Harris · 1st September 2015, 08:37 PM

Originally Posted by HSienzant

Wow, that's persuasive. Not. I find more of the same cherry-picking you've done before, along with a large helping of your interpretations of what the various witnesses meant.

No you don't. If you did, you would have been specific about the witnesses I misinterpreted.

And how can I be "cherry picking" when there are no other witnesses who contradicted me?

Quote:

You assume the witnesses are absolutely correct when it suits your purposes, but dismiss their accounts when it doesn't.

You know very well, that that is untrue. And you will prove it by failing to produce even a single, valid example of me doing that.

Quote:

Mrs. Kennedy heard a 'noise'. Not a gunshot, and likened it to all the other noises she heard during the motorcade. Including motorcycle backfires. To you, that's somehow evidence of a gunshot.

No sir - that is what the 160 shot sounded like. That is why most witnesses didn't recognize it as a gunshot.

THAT is why we see no startle reactions to the early shots, even remotely similar to these:

jfkhistory.com/ducking.gif

or the ones following 313.

That is why we see all the happy, smiling faces in the Altgens photo, taken at 255 after at least two (or whatever number you want to fabricate) shots have been fired. Look at Dave Powers, grinning ear to ear.

http://jfkhistory.com/altgens.jpg

The early shots could not possibly have come from an unsuppressed, high powered rifle - Oswald's or anyone else's. If they had, we would be seeing people screaming and diving to the ground, as well as Secret Service agents grabbing their guns and running for the limo, prior to 223.

That is why none of the Secret Service agents did more than look around, prior to 285. NOTHING they heard prior to that, sounded like a real gunshot.

And why do you ignore the fact that Mrs. Kennedy was fully corroborated by Phil Willis, who had her centered in the lens of his camera at the time?

When I took slide No. 4, the President was smiling and waving and looking straight ahead, and Mrs. Kennedy was likewise smiling and facing more to my side of the street. When the first shot was fired, her head seemed to just snap in that direction

He reaffirmed that in this statement,

In slide No. 4 he was looking pretty much toward--straight ahead, and she was looking more to the left, which would be my side of the street. Then when the first shot was fired, she turned to the right toward him

Another witness, who reacted similarly to Mrs. Connally, was SA George Hickey. He stated,

After a very short distance I heard a loud report which sounded like a firecracker. It appeared to come from the right and rear and seemed to me to be at ground level. I stood up and looked to my right and rear in an attempt to identify it.

I'm sure you know how to spot Hickey in the wide version of the Zapruder film. He is in the back seat of the followup car, behind the driver. Watch him closely.

Notice that well before the limo emerges from behind the Stemmons sign, he has started to rise and turn to his right. By 255, when the Altgens photo was taken, he will be fully risen and turned to the rear. But this is when he began those movements - once again, well before 223.

http://jfkhistory.com/hickey.gif

And while you are studying Hickey, also notice John Ready, standing on the right running board, and turning to his right, prior to 223. This is from his original report,

I was about 25-30 feet from President Kennedy who was located in the right rear seat. I heard what appeared to be fire crackers going off from my position. I immediately turned to my right rear trying to locate the source

How many more witnesses will it take, Hank?

[/quote]John Connally heard only two gunshots, and was struck with one of them, with the other one, he testified, hitting JFK in the head. [/quote]

Yes, he HEARD only two gunshots. But they were in addition to the one that hit him.

READ HIS TESTIMONY.

Shot 1: We had just made the turn, well, when I heard what I thought was a shot

Shot 2: Obviously, at least the major wound that I took in the shoulder through the chest couldn't have been anything but the second shot.

Shot 3: and then, of course, the third shot sounded, and I heard the shot very clearly. I heard it hit him.

Obviously, the second shot was silent.

Mr. SPECTER.. Governor, you have described hearing a first shot and a third shot. Did you hear a second shot?

Governor CONNALLY. No; I did not.

Neither did anyone else.

Now, if you want to accuse me of "cherry picking", here is your chance. John Connally was the only surviving passenger in the limo who heard no more than one shot at the end of the attack. In fact, it may be that he heard 285 but not 313, since he was getting very close to losing consciousness then.

But there is no doubt that he heard the shot 150-160, which was prior to him being wounded, and the shot at 223, which he clearly reacted to, but which no one else heard either.

Quote:

To you, that's evidence of two early shots

Well of course it is, just as it is evidence to pretty much everyone else on the planet who's studied this thing:-)

Quote:

(and supposedly, two or three or more later ones).

No, Connally's statements are evidence for shots at 160 and 223, as well as one of the shots at the end. Please do not distort or try to exaggerate what I say.

Quote:

In addition, as mentioned before, Connally was a victim of the gunfire and didn't even realize he was shot in the wrist or thigh until he was told so during his recovery process. You think his testimony is somehow solid evidence of an additional gunshot.

The irony of you accusing me of selectively agreeing with witnesses is getting very thick around here

Last week, he was your star witness

Connally heard the shot circa 160 BEFORE he was hit. There is no reason to doubt him at all, on that shot. And it is quite easy to see that he was hit at 223, as I think, we both agree, do we not?

Quote:

Mrs. Baker heard a 'firecracker', and thought she saw sparks from it. To you, that's evidence of a gunshot.

Not to me.

It's "evidence" to Gerald Posner and every other nutter I have encountered, prior to you.

But then, they weren't aware of the little problem with only one of the early shots being audible.

Quote:

A young child (six years old?) in 1963, Rosemary Willis claims something in the early 1990's that she isn't on record as saying at any time prior.

LOL! She wasn't "on record", saying anything about the case before Gerald Posner interviewed her. And it doesn't exactly require adulthood to remember stopping when she heard a gunshot.

Have you noticed Hank, that you never produce evidence to support your attacks on all these witnesses. You attack them for the solitary reason that they disagree with you. Never mind, that even your fellow LN advocates don't agree with you either.

You are judging witnesses based on whether they support your "theory", when what you should be doing is basing your theories on THEM.

Conclusions should be drawn from evidence, not visa versa.

Quote:

Other witnesses gave contrary accounts. Clint Hill, Roy Kellerman, and Bill Greer all heard just one shot before the head shot.

YES!! Practically everyone in Dealey Plaza that day, only HEARD one of the early shots - just like John Connally.

And the absolute clincher here, is that whether you think there was one early shot or a dozen, NONE OF THEM were loud enough to provoke startle reactions like we see following 285 and 313.

When were you planning to address that fact?

The HSCA confirmed that Oswald's rifle generated 130 decibels at street level. That's 16 TIMES louder than 90db, the point at which involuntary startle reactions will occur. Other high powered rifles are even louder.

If Oswald had fired all the shots, the earliest would have been the loudest and most startling to the ears of the limo passengers.

Where do we see people simultaneously ducking, spinning around, shielding their ears, etc? Why don't we see reactions like these, any time prior to 285?

http://jfkhistory.com/ducking.gif

You need to address this issue, Hank. It is incredibly important. We're talking about involuntary reactions. If the 223 shot came from an unsuppressed, high powered rifle, we would have seen the same kind of reactions we see, following the shots at the end.

Why don't we see that?

Border Reiver · 2nd September 2015, 04:27 AM

Originally Posted by Robert Harris

That is untrue. Even "axman" has stated,

The only silenced rifles considered reliable in 1963 were 9mm or .45 caliber.

Yes, the Deslile Carbine, a Lee Enfield No.4 modified to take a .45 ACP cartridge and made with an integral suppressor. Very popular with SOE and OSS during WWII. It was a very effective weapon - out to about 50 metres. After that range, the subsonic ammunitiion was of lower lethality and accuracy due to the rather substantial bullet drop.

Quote:

He has failed to document that assertion, but subsonic ammunition for both of those calibers was and is, commonly available. So at the very least, he has confirmed that two of the most popular calibers of rifles/ammunition could have been used.

.45ACP and 9mm Parabellum are pistol calibres, not rifle rounds, first of all.

Second, where is the physical evidence that would support the use of such a weapon? Casings, bullet strikes, etc.

Without such evidence all you have is speculation.

vtbub · 2nd September 2015, 09:05 AM

Originally Posted by Tomtomkent

I'm tired of the thread going in circles with no evidence to support the same tired assumptions.

Lets do something new.

Lets assume you were the guy responsible for killing JFK and you had the budget it would take to make even a mundane conspiracy claim. Lets say a few million dollars it would take to establish a "second Oswald" as some theories claim. How would you spend two million dollars to assassinate JFK and frame somebody else. Cheapest, most reliable, and least incriminating suggestion gets the contract... (There is a point here)

Does it have to be shooting him in public?

An overdose of barbituates in the private quarters would do the trick nicely. Pay off some people and voila.

If I was in charge of ensuring a public death, Main Street with throngs of people and many buildings to target, not TSBD or the knoll.

Tomtomkent · 2nd September 2015, 09:58 AM

There are only three proven shots. Two hit the passengers, one hit the traffic gantry.

Robert: Being able to show us that you think what witnesses saw or heard is compatible with any other shot, rather than assuming the Z film shows 'startle reactions', why not show us the physical evidence for other bullets being fired.

Show us the bullets, or their impact on physical evidence, then you can discuss as and when they may have been fired.

If you can not show us that the bullets made any mark on the world, then no matter how convinced you happen to be, it can not be stated with any confidence that anybody reacted to bullets over any other noise in the chaotic situation.

Please stop trying to dress speculation as fact.

Robert Harris · 2nd September 2015, 12:00 PM

Originally Posted by Regnad Kcin

While possible, I can't recall anyone being so thoroughly rebutted as you have been during your time here.

What was the best refutation you've seen?

RoboTimbo · 2nd September 2015, 06:28 PM

Originally Posted by Robert Harris

No you don't. If you did, you would have been specific about the witnesses I misinterpreted.

Yes he did and yes he has. Multiple times. You've ignored the rebuttals which point out the fatal flaws to your arguments every time.

Quote:

And how can I be "cherry picking" when there are no other witnesses who contradicted me?

Other than the ones who contradicted you, you mean?

Tell us more about the other rifle found in the TSBD on a different floor. What happened to it? Which shots were fired from it? How many spent casings were found on the other floor belonging to that rifle? Who fired it? Was it also suppressed? At which frames of the Z film do you see evidence of shots from that rifle? There would be some distinctive flinches, right?

Also, share what you know about the shooter in the storm drain. At which frames do you see evidence of shots from there? More flinches which you would be able to tell just from looking that it was from shots from the storm drain, right?

Robert Harris · 2nd September 2015, 07:11 PM

Originally Posted by Loss Leader

That has to be the least persuasive argument I've ever read.

You couldn't possibly be more wrong.

The fact that Connally, Wade and Nolan, ALL talked about the bullet coming from a "gurney", is the clincher.

It is so unintuitive, that it couldn't have been a mistake or a misunderstanding.

The bullet that Connally described, was indeed, the one that wounded him and probably JFK. It couldn't possibly have been the same one that Tomlinson found.

Nor could the bullet that Tomlinson found have been CE399, which is why all four of the men who handled it prior to it going to the FBI, refused to confirm it, and why neither of the initials of the two men who marked the Tomlinson bullet can be found on CE399. READ THE ARTICLE.

http://jfkhistory.com/bell/bellarticle/BellArticle.html

Robert Harris · 2nd September 2015, 07:17 PM

Originally Posted by vtbub

Does it have to be shooting him in public?

Every American president who has been assassinated, has been assassinated in public.

And every failed attempt to assassinate an American president has been carried out in public.

Obviously, folks who do this kind of thing are not as bright as you are:-)

Robert Harris · 2nd September 2015, 07:47 PM

Originally Posted by Tomtomkent

There are only three proven shots.

That is untrue. We can be certain that at least four were fired, at 150-160, 223, 285 and 313. There may have been others.

Quote:

Two hit the passengers one hit the traffic gantry.

There is no evidence that a bullet hit the traffic light or any part of it. There may however, have been an earlier shot, fired prior to Zapruder turning his camera back on at 133. I discuss it during the first few minutes of this presentation.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cvqCtaBkyyE

Quote:

Robert: Being able to show us that you think what witnesses saw or heard is compatible with any other shot, rather than assuming the Z film shows 'startle reactions', why not show us the physical evidence for other bullets being fired.

Rather than request a specific evidence type, because you believe I don't have it, why not ask simply for good evidence that would be persuasive in a courtroom? That's like asking for DNA evidence for global warming:-)

There is however, rock solid, hard evidence that the bullet which hit JFK and Connally was not fired from Oswald's rifle. That includes the hard evidence that CE399 was not the bullet that was found by Daryl Tomlinson and was not the bullet that wounded John Connally. You can read about it in this article as well as in my recent discussion with Hank.

http://jfkhistory.com/bell/bellarticle/BellArticle.html

Don't you think you should also be concerned about the scientific evidence, produced by two of the top scientists in the U.S, who found that there was a loud and startling noise which took place at precisely the instant the limo passengers as well as Abraham Zapruder, reacted?

Why aren't you asking me about the empirical evidence of three people simultaneously ducking, while two others spun away from the probable source of that shot, all in the same 1/6th of one second? Don't you want to know why that happened?

http://jfkhistory.com/ducking.gif

Quote:

Show us the bullets, or their impact on physical evidence, then you can discuss as and when they may have been fired.

There are no verifiable bullets that have ever been entered into evidence. CE399 was obviously, not fired during the assassination.

However, there was a lead smear discovered on the Main St. curbing, which was believed to have been from the bullet that caused debris to fly into the face of James Tague, nicking his cheek and causing a trickle of blood.

That bullet was almost certainly, the one fired at 285, which was the second audible shot, as Tague himself, stated. Likewise, Bill Greer felt the "concussion" from the shock wave of what he described as the "second shot". That is precisely what he should have felt from the passing, supersonic bullet.

The shot missed JFK and went on to shatter on the pavement, breaking apart and sending a chunk of lead to strike the Main St. curbing and a tiny piece of debris to nick Tague.

The "hard evidence" alone, is enough to prove that Oswald was not the only shooter. The scientific and empirical evidence makes that a certainty beyond any possible doubt.

Robert Harris · 2nd September 2015, 07:59 PM

Originally Posted by Border Reiver

Second, where is the physical evidence that would support the use of such a weapon? Casings, bullet strikes, etc.

Without such evidence all you have is speculation.

That is untrue.

The proof that at least one suppressed weapon was used, is that almost no one heard more than one of the early shots. Even John Connally never heard the shot at 223, that hit him.

If you have a better explanation for why that happened, I would be delighted to hear it.

Oswald's rifle was proven to generate 130 decibels at street level. That's 16 times louder than the level at which involuntary startle reactions will occur. We see clear startle reactions following 285 and 313, but nothing even remotely similar, prior to 285.

http://jfkhistory.com/ducking.gif

The one early shot that was heard - circa 150-160, also never provoked startle reactions and might have only been heard because it struck the pavement, shattering and causing "sparks" to rise up. The 223 shot only passed through human tissue, so remained totally silent.

Loss Leader · 2nd September 2015, 09:49 PM

Originally Posted by Sandy McCroskey

I must be very dense, as no one else has mentioned it, but I can't fathom the allusion to whales in the title of the new thread.

It was a reference to Star Trek IV and was written by this moderator.

Any further discussion of the title should take place in another thread.

Posted By:Loss Leader

Robert Harris · 2nd September 2015, 09:56 PM

Originally Posted by HSienzant

But conspiracy theorists argue -- as Bob Harris does here in this thread currently, but he is by no means alone -- that much of the hard evidence implicating Oswald is planted

I said no such thing, and it's getting a bit tiring, hearing you misrepresent me.

CE399 couldn't possibly have been planted. If it had, the men who originally handled it, would have had no problem confirming it, and the initials of SA Johnsen and FBI agent Todd, would have been on it.

CE399 was very obviously, not the bullet that Tomlinson found. When the FBI discovered that the original was not fired by Oswald, they undoubtedly fired a round from Oswald's rifle into water or wadding and then presented it to the WC.

In addition to the unanimous refusal of those four men to confirm CE399 and the absence of the markings of Johnsen and Todd, it is obvious that they discovered Tomlinson's bullet did not match with fragments they received just before midnight on 11/22/63. Why else would they have needed to call Tomlinson in the wee hours of 11/23 to tell him to keep his mouth shut about the bullet he found?

This is from the recorded 1967 interview of Tomlinson by Ray Marcus. The interview is also documented in the HSCA records.

Tomlinson: On Friday morning about 12:30 to 1 o'clock - uh, excuse me, that's Saturday morning - after the assassination, the FBI woke me up on the phone and told me to to keep my mouth shut.

Marcus: About the circumstances of your finding the bullet?

Tomlinson: That is (one short word, unintelligible) what I found…

Marcus: I understand exactly what you mean, when they call you, it's pretty authoritative. But the thing is this, did they say - was there any particular thing about what they said or they just didn't want you to talk about it period?

Tomlinson: Just don't talk about it period.

Quote:

Bob Harris has argued that a second rifle was found on a different floor of the TSBD.

You need to start citing me VERBATIM, Hank. I said that Frank Ellsworth made that claim, and that if true, it would explain both the alleged Mauser and Oswald's rifle being present in the Depository. It would also explain the evidence suggesting that the two, unsuppressed rifle shots came from the 6th floor.

You pointed out that people from the DPD contradicted him, but they were subordinate to the FBI, whose stated agenda, directly from Hoover, was that the public must be convinced that Oswald acted alone. The FBI had already carried out that agenda when they covered up deception by Jack Ruby, when he denied during his polygraph test, being associated with Oswald and the conspiracy.

They also fabricated evidence, replacing the actual bullets found at Parkland, with one they produced themselves.

Therefore, any testimony coming from the FBI or DPD, must be taken with a rather large grain of salt.

But NO, that bullet was very obviously, NOT planted.

Quote:

But what happened to it, and why isn't it in the evidence record?

Both Tomlinson's bullet and the one that wounded Connally, wound up at the FBI. You need to ask them that question.

Quote:

He doesn't say.

Actually, I have, but only for the last 20 years:-)

Quote:

Someone on the inside must have been responsible for bringing it in

You really need to stop misrepresenting me. If you are confused about my analysis, reread my articles and watch my presentations. As a last resort, just PM me and ask

Robert Harris · 2nd September 2015, 10:27 PM

Originally Posted by RoboTimbo

Yes he did and yes he has. Multiple times.

No he hasn't, and you will prove that by failing to cite even a single example of me misrepresenting anyone.

Quote:

You've ignored the rebuttals which point out the fatal flaws to your arguments every time.

Strange, but why is it that people like yourself, who make that accusation, you are never, ever, ever, able to describe a specific "rebuttal"?

Why is that, Robo?

Quote:

Other than the ones who contradicted you, you mean?

Which ones are you referring to?

Quote:

Tell us more about the other rifle found in the TSBD on a different floor.

If there was one, it was probably a Mauser, although ATF agent Ellsworth said it was Oswald's rifle that was found on a lower floor.

Quote:

What happened to it?

It undoubtedly, would have wound up at the FBI. You need to ask them what they did with it.

Quote:

Which shots were fired from it?

The 313 shot probably would have come from the more powerful Mauser. It provoked more pronounced reactions than the 285 shot did, and Alvarez also confirmed that Zapruder's reaction to 313 was more pronounced than to 285.

Quote:

How many spent casings were found on the other floor belonging to that rifle?

I have no idea. I don't think the FBI/DPD would have reported any evidence like that.

Quote:

Who fired it?

No idea. I can't imagine why the snipers were so reluctant to leave their business cards:-)

Quote:

Was it also suppressed?

That's a silly question. The rifles that were used to fire the 285 and 313 shots were obviously unsuppressed and extremely loud, which is why they provoked such dramatic reactions among the limo passengers and Zapruder.

Quote:

At which frames of the Z film do you see evidence of shots from that rifle?

I'm not sure what you mean by "that" rifle. I suspect that Oswald fired the weaker shot at 285 and that the other 6th floor sniper fired the one at 313, for the reasons I just explained.

Quote:

There would be some distinctive flinches, right?

There would be much more than that. The reactions included people simultaneously ducking, spinning around, etc.

Quote:

Also, share what you know about the shooter in the storm drain.

I don't know for sure, that there was one there.

Why are you only asking about things that cannot be resolved? Let's talk about what is provable - like that fact that only one of the early shots was audible.

And the fact that the country's top physicists discovered a loud and startling noise at precisely, frame 285.

And the fact that "most" of the witnesses that day, heard closely bunched shots at the end, which matched perfectly with shots 1.5 seconds apart.

And the fact that Zapruder reacted at EXACTLY the same instant that the limo passengers did.

Once we agree that Oswald couldn't have fired all the shots, then we can talk about other issues that are speculative or uncertain.

Tomtomkent · 2nd September 2015, 11:58 PM

Originally Posted by Robert Harris

That is untrue. We can be certain that at least four were fired, at 150-160, 223, 285 and 313. There may have been others.

My statement was perfectly true. We only have evidence for three bullets. Your speculation of what may or may not be a bullet on the Z film is not evidence of a suitable quality to convince. Nor to state as fact.

Originally Posted by Robert Harris

There is no evidence that a bullet hit the traffic light or any part of it.

Erm, the final destination is not the key. We have evidence of three bullets being fired. Not from the z film, but from bullet casings. Of the probable impact points, the gantry is the most likely:

hannel.nationalgeographic.com/explorer/galleries/explorer-jfk-the-lost-bullet-pictures/at/triple-underpass-39917/

http://www.washingtondecoded.com/sit...onds-in-d.html

Originally Posted by Robert Harris

There may however, have been an earlier shot, fired prior to Zapruder turning his camera back on at 133. I discuss it during the first few minutes of this presentation.

But I don't care what you think you see or don't see in the Z film. There were three spent shell casings. Ergo we have evidence of three shots. Two of which hit victims.

Originally Posted by Robert Harris

Rather than request a specific evidence type, because you believe I don't have it, why not ask simply for good evidence that would be persuasive in a courtroom?

Firstly, that is not why I asked for the evidence.
Secondly, I have not been specific. I will accept any physical evidence of more bullets being fired. Signs of the bullets themselves, casings left, a hole left by their impact. I have left a wide open goal.

Secondly: We are not in a courtroom. We are discussing a historical event. I am asking for evidence suitable for establishing a historical narrative.

Let me be absolutely clear: Before I ask if any frames is best explained by being reactions to multiple shooters, I will need viable physical evidence of additional shooters.

Please stop counting your chicken before the eggs have been laid.

Originally Posted by Robert Harris

That's like asking for DNA evidence for global warming:-)

No.

That is like asking for evidence that the globe is warming to support the theory of global warming. You could offer me evidence the ice caps are retracting, that mean temperatures from set locations are on an increasing trend, or any number of viable sources.

What you are doing however is akin to proving global warming by suggesting people look too warm in holiday snaps.

Originally Posted by Robert Harris

There is however, rock solid, hard evidence that the bullet which hit JFK and Connally was not fired from Oswald's rifle.

This is your opinion. That all three bullets recovered were from Oswalds rifle, and Oswalds rifle alone leads me to another opinion.

Originally Posted by Robert Harris

That includes the hard evidence that CE399 was not the bullet that was found by Daryl Tomlinson and was not the bullet that wounded John Connally. You can read about it in this article as well as in my recent discussion with Hank.

http://jfkhistory.com/bell/bellarticle/BellArticle.html

Mr Seizant has made a far more convincing case, in no small part because of his eloquence, but more importantly, because he displays a far more realistic view of how evidence is gathered, analysed, and meaningfully presented.

I recommend that even if you disagree with his views, you at least consider the difference between his methodology and his own, and contemplate why people keep telling you they are not convinced by you.

Originally Posted by Robert Harris

Don't you think you should also be concerned about the scientific evidence, produced by two of the top scientists in the U.S, who found that there was a loud and startling noise which took place at precisely the instant the limo passengers as well as Abraham Zapruder, reacted?

Yes. It is considered in the totality of evidence.

As there remains no physical evidence of any more bullets, and as neither 'loud' nor 'startling' is a synonym for gunshot, I remain unconvinced your explanation is the only explanation. Or even a viable explanation.

There were other noises in Dallas that day. Screams, sirens, engine noise, and others, that could be loud, or startling. And we have evidence there were people who could scream, engines that could have made noise, sirens that could have wailed, and so forth.

What we are lacking is evidence for other rifles, and other gunshots.

Originally Posted by Robert Harris

Why aren't you asking me about the empirical evidence of three people simultaneously ducking, while two others spun away from the probable source of that shot, all in the same 1/6th of one second? Don't you want to know why that happened?

Because your interpretation of those actions is not empirical evidence. It is your opinion that those movements are a reaction to a noise, your opinion that it is a gunshot, your opinion that they were aware of the source.

Again. If those are reactions to a noise, that does not follow that it can only be a gunshot. Find evidence of the gunshot, and I will consider it an explanation for those movements.

Until then, I am afraid those could just be people reacting in confusion and panic, and your interpretation offers no insight above and beyond that of anybody else. You see people turning away from a noise. Perhaps they were turning towards something. Perhaps they were ducking, because somebody told them to duck.

We need evidence, or all you have is speculation.

[quote=Robert Harris;10852989]
There are no verifiable bullets that have ever been entered into evidence. CE399 was obviously, not fired during the assassination.
[quote]
There were two. One fractured within JFK. And CE399 obtained from the gurney. This is the evidence I accept. You have yet to support your claim with the minimum standard of evidence required to change my mind.

Originally Posted by Robert Harris

However, there was a lead smear discovered on the Main St. curbing, which was believed to have been from the bullet that caused debris to fly into the face of James Tague, nicking his cheek and causing a trickle of blood.

That bullet was almost certainly, the one fired at 285, which was the second audible shot, as Tague himself, stated. Likewise, Bill Greer felt the "concussion" from the shock wave of what he described as the "second shot". That is precisely what he should have felt from the passing, supersonic bullet.

The shot missed JFK and went on to shatter on the pavement, breaking apart and sending a chunk of lead to strike the Main St. curbing and a tiny piece of debris to nick Tague.

Or it was fragment of the bullet that caused the explosive head wound.

There is no certainty. But the mark on the pavement and the minor wound remain consistent with the three shots known to be fired.

Originally Posted by Robert Harris

The "hard evidence" alone, is enough to prove that Oswald was not the only shooter. The scientific and empirical evidence makes that a certainty beyond any possible doubt.

Oswalds is the only rifle we have evidence for having fired that day.
Oswald firing alone is the theory that best fits the totality of physical evidence.

Nothing you have supplied in any post or presentation changes that.

RoboTimbo · 3rd September 2015, 06:15 AM

Originally Posted by Robert Harris

That is untrue. We can be certain that at least four were fired, at 150-160, 223, 285 and 313. There may have been others.

Patently untrue. Nobody has ever made a case for any shots other than those fired by Oswald. There have been claims of other shots but those claims were found to be without merit and based only on someone's opinion and inference. No evidence of other shots, shooters or weapons has ever been presented.

Quote:

Rather than request a specific evidence type, because you believe I don't have it, why not ask simply for good evidence that would be persuasive in a courtroom? That's like asking for DNA evidence for global warming:-)

Ah, so you believe that your "evidence" is persuasive enough to present to the FBI? I don't remember you ever answering that question, despite the number of times it's been asked.

Quote:

There is however, rock solid, hard evidence that the bullet which hit JFK and Connally was not fired from Oswald's rifle. That includes the hard evidence that CE399 was not the bullet that was found by Daryl Tomlinson and was not the bullet that wounded John Connally. You can read about it in this article as well as in my recent discussion with Hank.

Well, no.

Actually, there is only evidence that the bullet that struck JFK and Connally was fired by Oswald from Oswald's rifle from the 6th floor of the TSBD. Refer back to the videos I had you watch. You haven't said in what way you disagree with them. I'll have to assume that you agree with them if you've not found any way to disagree with them.

Quote:

There are no verifiable bullets that have ever been entered into evidence. CE399 was obviously, not fired during the assassination.

Again, patently false.

Quote:

The "hard evidence" alone, is enough to prove that Oswald was not the only shooter. The scientific and empirical evidence makes that a certainty beyond any possible doubt.

What "hard evidence" do you have for any additional phantom shooters, phantom suppressed rifles, phantom bullets which hit nothing in Texas? No "hard evidence" has ever been presented for any of those things.

For example, you've presented us with your opinions and inferences, creating an entire back story for what you infer is a flinch in response to some specific sound you've inferred from a silent video. Did you have anything else at all?

RoboTimbo · 3rd September 2015, 06:19 AM

Originally Posted by Robert Harris

The proof that at least one suppressed weapon was used, is that almost no one heard more than one of the early shots.

Which of Oswald's three shots are you referring to as "early"?

Quote:

If you have a better explanation for why that happened, I would be delighted to hear it.

Your explanation has been shown to be your opinion and only an inference based on the back story you invented out of whole cloth to lead you to your desired conclusion. No other explanation is needed. You still have the burden of proof.

Quote:

Oswald's rifle was proven to generate 130 decibels at street level. That's 16 times louder than the level at which involuntary startle reactions will occur. We see clear startle reactions following 285 and 313, but nothing even remotely similar, prior to 285.

http://jfkhistory.com/ducking.gif

The one early shot that was heard - circa 150-160, also never provoked startle reactions and might have only been heard because it struck the pavement, shattering and causing "sparks" to rise up. The 223 shot only passed through human tissue, so remained totally silent.

Thank you for illustrating how opinion and inference works.

HSienzant · 3rd September 2015, 07:11 AM

Originally Posted by Robert Harris

The proof that at least one suppressed weapon was used, is that almost no one heard more than one of the early shots.

Wow. That's the best example of one sentence invoking the logical fallacy of a circular argument I've ever seen.

You're actually invoking as evidence that an extra shot was fired early from a suppressed weapon the lack of evidence that anyone heard it???

Sorry, that's not close to persuasive. You might as well conjecture a pink unicorn assassin in the Dal-Tex building, using the same logic. Nobody saw one of those either. So the proof that at least one pink unicorn was in the Dal-Tex building firing away at the President is that no one saw it.

You do understand that the stated pink unicorn "logic" and your argument for the early suppressed shot follow the exact same form, I trust. I also trust you see the issue with the pink unicorn argument.

It is surprising to me you don't see the issue with your own argument above.

Hank

HSienzant · 3rd September 2015, 07:41 AM

Originally Posted by Robert Harris

And why do you ignore the fact that Mrs. Kennedy was fully corroborated by Phil Willis, who had her centered in the lens of his camera at the time?

When I took slide No. 4, the President was smiling and waving and looking straight ahead, and Mrs. Kennedy was likewise smiling and facing more to my side of the street. When the first shot was fired, her head seemed to just snap in that direction

He reaffirmed that in this statement,

In slide No. 4 he was looking pretty much toward--straight ahead, and she was looking more to the left, which would be my side of the street. Then when the first shot was fired, she turned to the right toward him

Because she isn't corroborated by Willis. Willis said the first shot was almost simultaneous with his slide #5. This image:

http://www.history-matters.com/archi...ol21_0397b.htm

He says that here in his description of that slide: http://www.history-matters.com/archi...ol21_0395a.htm

"... THIS SLIDE WAS TAKEN AT THE EXACT INSTANT THE FIRST BULLET STRUCK THE PRESIDENT..."
What frame of the Zapruder film does that correspond to, Robert?

Zapruder frame 202. That's closer to Z223 (by 1.1 second), than to Z150-Z160 (2.3 to 2.8 seconds).

http://www.history-matters.com/archi...Vol7_0252a.htm

It's also when you believe the first shot struck the President, is it not (Zapruder frame 223)?

Now, you can insist Willis missed the first shot by about three seconds, being three seconds late when he claimed it was simultaneous, or you can understand that some of us understand that memory is a recreation, not a recording of the event. And that Willis, more than likely, heard the first shot just AFTER he took his slide #5, and simply inflated his (and its) importance by later remembering he heard the first shot just AS he took his slide #5.

(His slide #5, incidentally, is the same as Hudson Exhibit #1, which he references in his testimony as almost simultaneous with the first shot).

Here's Hudson Exhibit #1:

http://www.history-matters.com/archi...ol20_0102a.htm

This is what I mean by being selective and cherry picking. You ignore the evidence contrary to your view, and you emphasize the evidence that supports your contentions. You pretend Willis is a great witness, but according to your own arguments, he thought the first shot was almost simultaneous with his slide #5, but it was actually 2.3 to 2.8 seconds later, and NOT "almost simultaneous".

So which is it? Is Willis an excellent witness, an average one, or a poor one?

He's excellent when you want him to be. And rather poor otherwise (2.3 to 2.8 seconds later for that "almost simultaneous" shot).

Hank

Hank

Robert Harris · 3rd September 2015, 08:30 AM

Originally Posted by Loss Leader

That has to be the least persuasive argument I've ever read.

I implore you to study - not history - but the manner in which historians actually piece together information. I don't think you're going about it correctly.

Could you please be specific about what exactly, I am not doing correctly?

It is significant that Wade and Nolan were both told by the nurse that she had a whole bullet from Connally's "gurney". Consider Connally's description of the event:

..the most curious discovery of all took place when they rolled me off the stretcher, and onto the examining table. A metal object fell to the floor, with a click no louder than a wedding band. The nurse picked it up and slipped it into her pocket.

Of course, the bullet actually came from his thigh, but it had to have first landed on the gurney before falling to the floor. The nurse obviously, saw it fall from that gurney, which is why she told Nolan and Wade that it came from there.

And the fact that the "gurney" is such a non-intuitive place for it to have come from, makes it a certainty that this was not just a misunderstanding.

In fact, Connally aide, Bill Stinson, who Nolan mentioned, was busy taking care of Connally's administrative chores, and obviously wasn't paying close attention to the nurse and made the mistake of thinking the bullet came from the surgery that had just been completed. This is from his interview with Ramparts magazine,

The last thing they did, was to remove the bullet from the governor's thigh---because that was the least thing that was wrong with him.

Of course, Stinson was wrong; the doctors stated that they found no bullet in Connally's thigh. His mistake was in mentally substituting the more intuitive explanation for the bullet - an error the others did not make.

HSienzant · 3rd September 2015, 09:25 AM

Originally Posted by Robert Harris

You couldn't possibly be more wrong.

The fact that Connally, Wade and Nolan, ALL talked about the bullet coming from a "gurney", is the clincher.

It is so unintuitive, that it couldn't have been a mistake or a misunderstanding.

The bullet that Connally described, was indeed, the one that wounded him and probably JFK. It couldn't possibly have been the same one that Tomlinson found.

Nor could the bullet that Tomlinson found have been CE399, which is why all four of the men who handled it prior to it going to the FBI, refused to confirm it, and why neither of the initials of the two men who marked the Tomlinson bullet can be found on CE399. READ THE ARTICLE.

http://jfkhistory.com/bell/bellarticle/BellArticle.html

So, in your theory, as I understand it, there are FOUR "magic" bullets, not one.

Magic Bullet, the First: This would be the one that Tomlinson found in a hospital corridor, near a stretch that had once been occupied by the Governor when he was first brought into Parkland Hospital. According to your argument, as I understand it, this bullet was more pointed that CE399, and was not CE399. It somehow vanished, according to you, from the evidence trail.

Magic Bullet, the Second: This would be the one that Governor Connally supposedly saw fall onto his hospital stretcher. That was then mentioned by Wade, and Nolan. It too somehow vanished, according to you, from the evidence trail.

Magic Bullet, the Third: This would be the one in the record, Commission Exhibit 399. This one: http://www.history-matters.com/archi...ol17_0038a.htm (bottom of page). The one that is traceable to Oswald's weapon, to the exclusion of all other weapons in the world. According to your theory, this bullet had nothing to do with the assassination of the President, and somehow appeared in the evidence trail in lieu of one of the above bullets (presumably, "Magic Bullet, the First").

Magic Bullet, the Fourth: This would be the one that must have shattered and left the multiple fragments contained within an envelope that nurse Audrey Bell said she gave to a man in a suit.

Another example of you simply ignoring or arguing away evidence you don't like, and conjecturing up theories to support your argument that Oswald didn't fire the shot that wounded both the President and the Governor.

You throw away the hard evidence that links Oswald to the assassination (CE399), and then, based on recollections from 3, 15, 35, or 49 years after the assassination, imagine there must been other bullets in the evidence trail instead.

Sometimes I wonder if you even know what you're arguing for. In a preceding post, you cited Bell's recollection of multiple fragments within an envelope as if it confirmed Officer Nolan's recollection of a bullet in an envelope. Her recollection doesn't confirm his, her recollection contradicts his, and shows you (or should show you but doesn't) the issue with relying on recollections from decades after the fact. You ignore the contradictions between the recollections and blithely cite both recollections.

Hank

CORed · 3rd September 2015, 10:25 AM

Originally Posted by HSienzant

Because she isn't corroborated by Willis. Willis said the first shot was almost simultaneous with his slide #5. This image:

http://www.history-matters.com/archi...ol21_0397b.htm

He says that here in his description of that slide: http://www.history-matters.com/archi...ol21_0395a.htm

"... THIS SLIDE WAS TAKEN AT THE EXACT INSTANT THE FIRST BULLET STRUCK THE PRESIDENT..."
What frame of the Zapruder film does that correspond to, Robert?

Zapruder frame 202. That's closer to Z223 (by 1.1 second), than to Z150-Z160 (2.3 to 2.8 seconds).

http://www.history-matters.com/archi...Vol7_0252a.htm

It's also when you believe the first shot struck the President, is it not (Zapruder frame 223)?

Now, you can insist Willis missed the first shot by about three seconds, being three seconds late when he claimed it was simultaneous, or you can understand that some of us understand that memory is a recreation, not a recording of the event. And that Willis, more than likely, heard the first shot just AFTER he took his slide #5, and simply inflated his (and its) importance by later remembering he heard the first shot just AS he took his slide #5.

(His slide #5, incidentally, is the same as Hudson Exhibit #1, which he references in his testimony as almost simultaneous with the first shot).

Here's Hudson Exhibit #1:

http://www.history-matters.com/archi...ol20_0102a.htm

This is what I mean by being selective and cherry picking. You ignore the evidence contrary to your view, and you emphasize the evidence that supports your contentions. You pretend Willis is a great witness, but according to your own arguments, he thought the first shot was almost simultaneous with his slide #5, but it was actually 2.3 to 2.8 seconds later, and NOT "almost simultaneous".

So which is it? Is Willis an excellent witness, an average one, or a poor one?

He's excellent when you want him to be. And rather poor otherwise (2.3 to 2.8 seconds later for that "almost simultaneous" shot).

Hank

Hank

The whole notion that sounds from witness accounts can be assigned to specific frames of a film is absurd. Human memory simply does not have anything close to that kind of time resolution.

Tomtomkent · 3rd September 2015, 10:30 AM

Originally Posted by Robert Harris

The clincher to this, is one little word, "GURNEY". A nurse in scrubs, emerging from the surgery of a gunshot victim, carrying a bullet, is not supposed to have gotten it from a gurney. She is supposed to have acquired it from the surgery.

Supposed to?

Who dictates where and when an item should be found other than happistance?

If the bullet was dislodged from a victim while he lay on a gurney, and was only found after moving the victim, who decrees this happistance is not to be allowed?

HSienzant · 3rd September 2015, 11:14 AM

Originally Posted by Robert Harris

Every American president who has been assassinated, has been assassinated in public.

And every failed attempt to assassinate an American president has been carried out in public.

Obviously, folks who do this kind of thing are not as bright as you are:-)

Blair House. Truman. The plan was to shoot their way in, and execute Truman in his residence. They never got that far, but that was the plan. Obviously, some people would plan it so a public assassination is not a necessity.

Hank

HSienzant · 3rd September 2015, 12:19 PM

Originally Posted by Robert Harris

CE399 could not possibly have been the bullet that wounded Connally and probably JFK. John Connally himself, confirmed that the actual bullet was picked up by a nurse...

Actually, John Connally confirmed no such thing. I've challenged you previously to post his testimony to that end and you punted each time, ignoring the challenge. The only thing you have is a hearsay statement *purportedly from Connally* that was published in a book.

It's not evidence when it was published, it was not evidence when you read it, it was not evidence when you cited it, and it never will be evidence. It will always be hearsay.

You have no evidence. You have hearsay.

Originally Posted by Robert Harris

And yes, there were fragments found in the limo which supposedly matched with Oswald's rifle, which might actually be from his rifle, but you can only be certain of that if you have a lot of unjustified faith in Mr. Hoover and his boys.

Argumentum ad innuendo. You present no evidence that is the case, you simply allege it and expect us to accept the allegation as true.

http://www.fallacydetective.com/news...tic-ad-hominem

== QUOTE ==Innuendo is actually not a true logical fallacy, but more of a propaganda and manipulation technique. It tries to psychologically manipulate your opinions. "Innuendo" is used when indirect hints are dropped that something suspicious is afoot. Nothing is said out in the open, for fear they would actually have to back it up.
== UNQUOTE ==

You can't back it up, so you merely suggest it's possible.

Beyond that, you're accusing (or "innuendoing") the wrong group in any case. Secret Service agents found the fragments, not the FBI, and the Secret Service delivered it directly to FBI Agent Orrin Bartlett, who delivered it to FBI Agent Robert Frazier, according to his testimony (the two fragments in question are CE567 and CE569). Frazier did the examination, and he determined those fragments came from Oswald's rifle, to the exclusion of all other weapons in the world.

http://jfkassassination.net/russ/testimony/frazr2.htm

== QUOTE ==
Mr. SPECTER - Now, where, according to information provided to you then, was the fragment designated Commission Exhibit 567 found?
Mr. FRAZIER - That was found by the Secret Service upon their examination of the limousine here in Washington when it first arrived from Dallas, and Commission No. 567 was delivered by Deputy Chief Paul Paterni and by a White House detail chief, Floyd M. Boring, to a liaison agent of the FBI, Orrin Bartlett, who delivered them to me in the laboratory at 11:50 p,m., on November 22, 1963.
...
Mr. SPECTER - Would you state what the chain of possession was from the time of discovery of Exhibit 569 until the time it came into your possession, based on the records of the FBI, please, if you have those records available?
Mr. FRAZIER - Yes, sir. It was delivered by Secret Service Deputy Chief Paul Paterni, and SAC of the White House detail Floyd M. Boring of the Secret Service again, to Special Agent Orrin Bartlett of the FBI who delivered it to me at 11:50 p.m. on November 22, 1963.
== UNQUOTE ==

So let's be clear: When you accuse the FBI via innuendo of monkeying with the evidence and substituting two illegitimate fragments for the actual ones, you're actually accusing either Orrin Bartlett or Robert Frazier, or both, of very serious crimes.

You have any evidence of that? Of course not. You're content to merely besmirch their reputations to advance your agenda.

Again, you have no evidence. You have innuendo.

We can do this for most every one of your claims.

Hank

Robert Harris · 3rd September 2015, 12:27 PM

Originally Posted by HSienzant

Because she isn't corroborated by Willis. Willis said the first shot was almost simultaneous with his slide #5.

Willis #5 was taken at the equivalent of frame 202, more than a second prior to 223. Sorry Hank - still no cigar.

Furthermore, it is easy to see that the shot was earlier than 202, because the Zapruder film proves that Jackie had already turned completely to her right and toward her husband by then.

http://jfkhistory.com/z202.png

His repeated statement that Jackie was turned to her left when that shot was fired, combined with her own statement that she was turned to the left, far outweighs his subjective opinion about slide #5, and it might be worth considering that that slide was worth a LOT more money if it was believed to have been simultaneous with the first shot.

But this is a moot question anyway, since frame 202, was well before the shot at 223.

Quote:

Zapruder frame 202. That's closer to Z223 (by 1.1 second), than to Z150-Z160 (2.3 to 2.8 seconds).

Sorry Hank. "Close" only counts in horse shoes and hand grenades.

Willis claimed that the shot was fired at the same instant that he released the shutter, but that was untrue.

As he correctly stated, he saw Jackie turned to her left when the first shot was fired and then saw her turn toward her husband, as he also stated (twice). It was after she turned, that he snapped slide #5.

Quote:

It's also when you believe the first shot struck the President, is it not (Zapruder frame 223)?

OMG!! Are you actually going to argue that the shot was fired prior to 223??

Quote:

Now, you can insist Willis missed the first shot by about three seconds,

This has nothing to do with what I "insist". It has everything to do with the evidence. His own statements prove that he was not truthful when he said the first shot was simultaneous with him snapping #5.

As I stated previously, the Zapruder film provides us with the ability to conclusively prove or disprove important witness statements. It proved that Nellie was correct and it proved that Phil Willis wasn't.

Read his testimony. He goes on and on and on, trying to argue that #5 was simultaneous with the first shot. If that had been true, his photo would have been far more famous and valuable than it was.

Quote:

This is what I mean by being selective and cherry picking.

Uh huh. And you choosing his subjective opinion which you ADMIT WAS WRONG, over his verified statement, made TWICE that he heard the shot while Jackie was still turned to her left, and the fact that she said exactly the same thing, is not something that you cherry picked??

The Zapruder film is an incredibly important filter for numerous witness statements. It not only tests for whether various events actually took place, but for WHEN they took place, which is often much more important.

Quote:

You ignore the evidence contrary to your view,

I never ignore important evidence. I test it as best I can, to determine whether it is true.

Quote:

and you emphasize the evidence that supports your contentions.

My "contentions" are the product of the evidence.

I'm disappointed that you haven't figured that out by now. It's not just a fluke that I consistently present evidence to prove my assertions.

Quote:

You pretend Willis is a great witness,

Utter nonsense.

I evaluate what witnesses say and try to test their statements. If they can be verified, then they become "great" sentences:-)

Quote:

but according to your own arguments, he thought the first shot was almost simultaneous with his slide #5,

I have no idea what he "thought". I only know what he said.

Quote:

but it was actually 2.3 to 2.8 seconds later, and NOT "almost simultaneous".

The first shot was fired while Jackie, SA Hickey and SA Johns were turned to their left. Each of them turned to their right, well before 223, after they heard the first shot.

Not only did they say that, but we can confirm in the Zapruder film that they did exactly what they claimed. And we can confirm that each of them did that prior to the shot at 223.

And speaking of people who claimed that they turned from their left to their right in reaction to the first shot, another fellow said exactly that. His name was John Connally.

Remember him? He stated that he heard the first shot and was hit by the second, but never heard the second shot. He also stated this:

We had just made the turn, well, when I heard what I thought was a shot. I heard this noise which I immediately took to be a rifle shot. I instinctively turned to my right

Gosh, let's see if he was telling the truth. What do you think, Hank?

http://jfkhistory.com/jbcturns.gif

That's FOUR witnesses who said they were looking to their left and turned in reaction to the first shot. And EVERY ONE OF THEM can be easily corroborated in the Zapruder film.

Are you actually going to continue with this "theory" that there were a total of two shots??

"The driver did it", might be easier to defend. At least you would have an optical illusion to work with

HSienzant · 3rd September 2015, 12:36 PM

Originally Posted by HSienzant

And, please go back to the very beginning of your ventures into this forum and tell us the evidence that puts Jim Braden as a conspirator. Be specific.

I asked nearly two months ago and reminded you of my desire to see that evidence more than once. For example, I asked here:

http://www.internationalskeptics.com...postcount=2572

Here are just some of the posts you made with claims about Braden:

http://www.internationalskeptics.com...postcount=2526

http://www.internationalskeptics.com...postcount=2577

http://www.internationalskeptics.com...postcount=3930

http://www.internationalskeptics.com...7&postcount=18

None of your posts naming Braden contained any evidence - only assertions. I'd like to see the evidence - naming names, citing the testimony. Do you have any you intend to share?

Hank

Still waiting for Robert Harris to find the time to cite the evidence for his claims concerning Jim Braden. I've only been asking for two months and one day now.

http://www.internationalskeptics.com...postcount=2097

Hank

Robert Harris · 3rd September 2015, 01:58 PM

Originally Posted by Tomtomkent

My statement was perfectly true. We only have evidence for three bullets.

Evidence for what?

There is no evidence confirming that any of the shell casings found on the 6th floor were fired that day. You can't even prove that Oswald's rifle was fired then.

Quote:

Your speculation of what may or may not be a bullet on the Z film is not evidence of a suitable quality to convince. Nor to state as fact.

It's not good enough to just blurt something like that out. You need to present evidence or at least, some kind of reasoning to support your accusations.

How do you explain the fact that "most" witnesses, according to the WC, heard two closely bunched shots at the end of the attack? That includes all of the nonvictims in the limousine.

How do you explain the loud and startling noise at frame 285, which provoked three people to duck, while two others spun around and away from the probable source of that shot, at enormous speed?

I don't believe there are any plausible, alternative explanations; do you?

And how do you explain the absence of similar reactions to the early shots? Why don't we see people simultaneously ducking, spinning around, shielding their ears etc?

You will find NO Secret Service agents acting, no witnesses screaming, diving to the ground or anything else that is consistent with reactions to 130 decibel, high powered rifle shots until AFTER frame 285.

How do you explain that?

How do you explain all the happy, smiling faces in the Altgens photo, after at least two, high powered rifle shots had supposedly been fired??

And how do you explain why most of the witnesses only heard one of the early shots?

It is ludicrous to think that the early shots came from a high powered rifle - Oswald's or anyone else's.

Quote:

Erm, the final destination is not the key. We have evidence of three bullets being fired. Not from the z film, but from bullet casings.

Sorry, but that argument doesn't improve with repetition. If you can't prove they were fired on 11/22/63, then you need to go back to the drawing board.

Quote:

Of the probable impact points, the gantry is the most likely:

hannel.nationalgeographic.com/explorer/galleries/explorer-jfk-the-lost-bullet-pictures/at/triple-underpass-39917/

I have no idea what you mean, stating the "gantry" is the most likely impact point.

But Holland is not a competent researcher. His theory has been refuted, even by nutters like Gary Mack and Dale Myers. Myers, one of the more radical of the LN advocates, reviewed that documentary in considerable detail at his blog.

http://jfkfiles.blogspot.com/2012/01...lland-and.html

Holland's greatest achievement in his documentary, was to con (or bribe) Amos Euins to totally reverse his Warren Commission testimony in which he said he heard four shots and reported seeing an older, balding man with a rifle. He originally, told a reporter that he thought the sniper was a black man.

But after Max got through with him, he was an absolutely perfect, PC, three shot witness who was sure he saw Oswald in that window.

To put it another way, Holland is not just incompetent; he is thoroughly lacking in integrity. And you will find many LNers who feel the same way I do about that.

Quote:

But I don't care what you think you see or don't see in the Z film. There were three spent shell casings. Ergo we have evidence of three shots.

That's the third time you have repeated that argument. Maybe it will come true after five or six more??

Quote:

Firstly, that is not why I asked for the evidence.

I did not state why you asked for evidence. I asked why you didn't ask for good evidence, rather than a specific evidence type.

Quote:

Secondly, I have not been specific. I will accept any physical evidence of more bullets being fired.

Oops! Now you're back to selectively demanding a single type of evidence. Why don't you just ask for good evidence - scientific, empirical and corroborated witness testimony, etc?

Quote:

Signs of the bullets themselves, casings left, a hole left by their impact. I have left a wide open goal.

No sir. You have deliberately selected a solitary evidence type, because you don't think I have it. That's great gamesmanship, but a lousy way to resolve important issues.

Why don't you just address the evidence and arguments I presented? You can start with this one from my previous post, which you have not addressed:

There is however, rock solid, hard evidence that the bullet which hit JFK and Connally was not fired from Oswald's rifle. That includes the hard evidence that CE399 was not the bullet that was found by Daryl Tomlinson and was not the bullet that wounded John Connally. You can read about it in this article as well as in my recent discussion with Hank.

http://jfkhistory.com/bell/bellarticle/BellArticle.html

Don't you think you should also be concerned about the scientific evidence, produced by two of the top scientists in the U.S, who found that there was a loud and startling noise which took place at precisely the instant the limo passengers as well as Abraham Zapruder, reacted?

Why aren't you asking me about the empirical evidence of three people simultaneously ducking, while two others spun away from the probable source of that shot, all in the same 1/6th of one second? Don't you want to know why that happened?

http://jfkhistory.com/ducking.gif

There are no verifiable bullets that have ever been entered into evidence. CE399 was obviously, not fired during the assassination.

However, there was a lead smear discovered on the Main St. curbing, which was believed to have been from the bullet that caused debris to fly into the face of James Tague, nicking his cheek and causing a trickle of blood.

That bullet was almost certainly, the one fired at 285, which was the second audible shot, as Tague himself, stated. Likewise, Bill Greer felt the "concussion" from the shock wave of what he described as the "second shot". That is precisely what he should have felt from the passing, supersonic bullet.

The shot missed JFK and went on to shatter on the pavement, breaking apart and sending a chunk of lead to strike the Main St. curbing and a tiny piece of debris to nick Tague.

The "hard evidence" alone, is enough to prove that Oswald was not the only shooter. The scientific and empirical evidence makes that a certainty beyond any possible doubt.

Robert Harris · 3rd September 2015, 06:38 PM

Originally Posted by RoboTimbo

Patently untrue. Nobody has ever made a case for any shots other than those fired by Oswald.

Sorry Robo, but I don't have time for ridiculous, unproven assertions, which is pretty much all you've posted in this last message.

Justify your claims with evidence and reason, and I will be happy to respond.

Robert Harris · 3rd September 2015, 06:47 PM

Originally Posted by RoboTimbo

Which of Oswald's three shots are you referring to as "early"?

Oswald didn't fire three shots. Only two of the shots could have come from unsuppressed, high powered rifles and they were too close for both to have been fired by Oswald.

"Early" is prior to frame 225.

HSienzant · 3rd September 2015, 07:03 PM

Originally Posted by Robert Harris

The one early shot that was heard - circa 150-160, also never provoked startle reactions and might have only been heard because it struck the pavement, shattering and causing "sparks" to rise up. The 223 shot only passed through human tissue, so remained totally silent.

Wait, what?

You're now conjecturing that the witnesses confused a strike on the pavement as a rifle shot at about frames Z150 - Z160, but when I pointed out multiple witnesses who suggested that very thing about the shot on JFK's skull (that the bullet impact on something hard caused a sound that could have been confused by some witnesses as a rifle shot) you dismissed it out of hand.

BUT NOW THAT'S YOUR EXPLANATION FOR THE SUPPOSED SHOT AT Z150-Z160! That the witnesses heard the impact of the bullet on the pavement, and the impact sound was confused by the witnesses as the sound of the first shot.

Please advise why the eyewitness testimony is not more believable than your conjectures.

Mr. SPECTER. Describe as best you can the types of sound of the second report, as distinguished from the first noise which you said was similar to a motorcycle backfire?
Mr. GREER. The second one didn't sound any different much than the first one but I kind of got, by turning around, I don't know whether I got a little concussion of it, maybe when it hit something or not, I may have gotten a little concussion that made me think there was something different to it. But so far as the noise is concerned, I haven't got any memory of any difference in them at all.

Governor CONNALLY. ... and then, of course, the third shot sounded, and I heard the shot very clearly. I heard it hit him. I heard the shot hit something, and I assumed again--it never entered my mind that it ever hit anybody but the President. I heard it hit. It was a very loud noise,just that audible, very clear.

Mr. HILL. It was right, but I cannot say for sure that it was rear, because when I mounted the car it was--it had a different sound, first of all, than the first sound that I heard. The second one had almost a double sound--as though you were standing against something metal and firing into it, and you hear both the sound of a gun going off and the sound of the cartridge hitting the metal place, which could have been caused probably by the hard surface of the head. But I am not sure that that is what caused it.
Mr. SPECTER. Are you describing this double sound with respect to what you heard on the occasion of the second shot?
Mr. HILL. The second shot that I heard; yes, sir,

And even Roy Kellerman described the final two shots as both instantaneous and a flurry:
Mr. SPECTER. Now, in your prior testimony you described a flurry of shells into the car. How many shots did you hear after the first noise which you described as sounding like a firecracker?
Mr. KELLERMAN. Mr. Specter, these shells came in all together.
Mr. SPECTER. Are you able to say how many you heard?
Mr. KELLERMAN. I am going to say two, and it was like a double bang--bang, bang.
...
Representative FORD. You don't recall precisely a second shot and a third shot such as you did in the case of the first?
Mr. KELLERMAN. Let me give you an illustration, sir, before I can give you an answer. You have heard the sound barrier, of a plane breaking the sound barrier, bang, bang? That is it.
Representative FORD. This is for the second and the third, or the flurry as you described it?
Mr. KELLERMAN. That is right; that is right, sir.

All of them put the final two sounds as very close together. Two of the four likened it to a bullet hitting something hard and a third was clear in his testimony that he heard both the sound of the muzzle blast and the sound of the impact. Some of them even suggested the something hard was the skull. You simply dismissed all that, never even trying to consider how it explains very well the final two sounds many of the witnesses heard, and why many of the closest people to the limousine with experience with firearms said there were only two shots.

Oh yeah, and some of these very same witnesses estimated the total time span of the shooting as five seconds (or less), which aligns very well with the two known shots at Z223 and Z313 (90 frames, which at 18.3 frames per second, works out to 4.9 seconds between those two shots.

Mr. SPECTER. To Mr. Lawson. All right. Was there any timespan which you could discern between the first and second shots and what you have described as the flurry?
Mr. KELLERMAN. I will estimate 5 seconds, if that.

Mr. SPECTER. Now, what is your best estimate on the timespan between the first firecracker-type noise you heard and the second shot which you have described?
Mr. HILL. Approximately 5 seconds.

Mr. SPECTER. To the best of your ability to recollect and estimate, how much time elapsed from the first noise which you have described as being similar to the backfire of a motor vehicle until you heard the second noise?
Mr. GREER. It seems a matter of seconds, I really couldn't say. Three or four seconds.
Mr. SPECTER. How much time elapsed, to the best of your ability to estimate and recollect, between the time of the second noise and the time of the third noise?
Mr. GREER. The last two seemed to be just simultaneously, one behind the other, but I don't recollect just how much, how many seconds were between the two. I couldn't really say.

So some of the closest witnesses heard ONLY two shots, and some of the same witnesses estimated the shooting as taking only five seconds.

Yet somehow you insist they didn't hear the known shots at Z223 and Z313., but rather, there were three audible shots at Z150-Z160, Z285 and Z313. Those three shots work out to 8.4 to 8.9 seconds. With the conjectured fifth shot you suggested was possible in the Z335 range, we're up to ten seconds for the total time span of the shots.

So you're arguing for four or five shots in 8 to 10 seconds, despite the closest witnesses to the limo disagreeing -- hearing half as many shots in half as much time.

Your arguments simply ignore any and all contrary evidence. As I've pointed out previously.

Hank

HSienzant · 3rd September 2015, 07:11 PM

Originally Posted by Robert Harris

THAT is why we see no startle reactions to the early shots, even remotely similar to these:

jfkhistory.com/ducking.gif

or the ones following 313.

So now we're up to at LEAST SIX SHOTS!

According to Robert Harris' own words.

One at Z150-160
One at Z223
One at Z285
One at Z313
and at least two more after Z313 ("the ones [plural] after 313").

And yet many of the closest witnesses heard only two, and the vast majority (about 90%) said three.

So we're up to how many assassins from how many locations, firing those six or more shots in total?

Hank

HSienzant · 3rd September 2015, 07:29 PM

Originally Posted by Robert Harris

Obviously, the second shot was silent.

Mr. SPECTER.. Governor, you have described hearing a first shot and a third shot. Did you hear a second shot?

Governor CONNALLY. No; I did not.

Neither did anyone else.

I remind you that approximately 90% of the witnesses heard three shots. Your claim that "Neither did anyone else" hear a second shot (between the first & third) is patently untrue. Most witnesses claimed to hear three shots.

Originally Posted by Robert Harris

Obviously, the second shot was silent.

Obviously, there are other possibilities than the one above you allow. Like the Governor, under the duress of the shooting, didn't hear the shot that struck him because his nervous system was overwhelmed at the time by the stress of a bullet penetrating his trunk, going through his wrist and into his thigh. Another possibility you haven't eliminated is that the Governor simply mis-remembered after the fact, and was struck by the first of two shots he heard, and the President was struck in the head by the second of two shots he heard. Do explain in detail what methodology you used to eliminate those two possibilities. Was it as simple as choosing the one you liked best and ignoring all the others?

Obviously, that's one answer.

N

Originally Posted by Robert Harris

ow, if you want to accuse me of "cherry picking", here is your chance. John Connally was the only surviving passenger in the limo who heard no more than one shot at the end of the attack. In fact, it may be that he heard 285 but not 313, since he was getting very close to losing consciousness then.

Except he connected the sound of the second shot he heard with the impact on the head, and on the resulting spray of brain matter that swamped the car.

CONNALLY: ... the third shot sounded, and I heard the shot very clearly. I heard it hit him. I heard the shot hit something, and I assumed again--it never entered my mind that it ever hit anybody but the President. I heard it hit. It was a very loud noise, just that audible, very clear.
Immediately I could see on my clothes, my clothing, I could see on the interior of the car which, as I recall, was a pale blue, brain tissue, which I immediately recognized, and I recall very well, on my trousers there was one chunk of brain tissue as big as almost my thumb, thumbnail, and again I did not see the President at any time either after the first, second, or third shots, but I assumed always that it was he who was hit and no one else.

So he was awake and clear enough to hear the Z313 impact. But didn't hear any shot at Z285 whatsoever. Your argument for Connally hearing Z285 is therefore shot down.

In flames.

You quote his language very carefully when it agrees with your theory but ignore it entirely when it conflicts with your theory. That's the very definition of cherry-picking, I would think.

Hank

30th August 2015, 02:16 PM	#81
Robert Harris Muse Join Date: Jun 2015 Posts: 867	Originally Posted by Tomtomkent On the one hand we could see human testimony as understandably flawed, and confused. And we can see people acting in the confusion of the moment, on film, while being shot at thrice, with two bullets wounding one man and killing another. Yes, shots were fired at least, "thrice". Hank's "two shot" theory is easily refuted. Quote: Or we can see the same confusion as absolute proof that people were startled, by snipers with suppressed weapons, failing to cause any known wound, without leaving a single recovered bullet, or indeed bullet hole, any evidence of their location or existence. No one was startled by the sound of suppressed gunshots, which is why I never claimed they were. And there is a much better way to evaluate witness testimonies, than to make sweeping generalizations about their accuracy or inaccuracy. We can test some of the most important statements, with the Zapruder film. That's why the limo passengers are such valuable witnesses. Mrs. Connally "said" that she heard one shot, then looked back at JFK, then heard a "second shot" which provoked her to turn back to her husband and pull him back to her. Was she correct? The Zapruder film will tell us, beyond all reasonable doubt. http://jfkhistory.com/nellie2.gif In the film, we can see, not only that she looked back at Kennedy, exactly as she claimed, but we can see WHEN she did that, which in this case, is even more important. She looked back at about frame 258. Did she then, reacted to a second shot, by turning back to her husand, as she testified? Look at the Zapruder segment again. She did exactly as she stated, snapping away from JFK and to her husband, in perfect unison with Jackie and Kellerman ducking and Greer spinning around, as in his panic, he accidentally lifted his foot from the gas. She also reacted in EXACTLY the same instant that Zapruder reacted. Quote: They would have needed to use a lower calibre of bullet than any found, or any that can be shown to have caused a wound. That is untrue. Even "axman" has stated, The only silenced rifles considered reliable in 1963 were 9mm or .45 caliber. He has failed to document that assertion, but subsonic ammunition for both of those calibers was and is, commonly available. So at the very least, he has confirmed that two of the most popular calibers of rifles/ammunition could have been used. Quote: And if my understanding of suppressed weapons is correct, and they were using those favoured I the war, they would have to be at close range to avoid hitting random members of the crowd due to decreased accuracy.(though I expect Hank willl correct me on this) No, you are absolutely correct. In fact, the last verifiable, suppressed shot, was fired at 223, when the limo was almost exactly, 100 feet from the Daltex building. That shot, BTW, was quite inaccurate, striking Kennedy in the back, roughly 8-9 inches below the center of the head, which had to have been, the preferred target. The shots at the end, were obviously, not suppressed and were infinitely louder. Quote: And all based on the assumption people are startled, in a way that can ONLY be explained by a very loud (silenced) noise! I find it hard to believe that you were unaware of what I said. The early shots were the ones that were suppressed. Only one of them was even noticed by most witnesses and neither was loud enough to provoke visible startle reactions. The ones at 285 and 313 were many times louder and provoked dramatic and very obvious, startle reactions. Notice that the suppressed shots stopped when the limo went out of range. Only then, were the high powered rifles fired.
Robert Harris Muse Join Date: Jun 2015 Posts: 867

30th August 2015, 05:38 PM	#82
HSienzant Illuminator Join Date: Dec 2011 Location: USA Posts: 4,394	Originally Posted by Robert Harris I have refuted that argument over and over again. Your claim is that there was no shot circa 160, right? You are not disputing the shot at 223, right? Let's go very my refutations AGAIN. John Connally proved you wrong in spades. He "heard" the first of those two early shots but only "felt" the one at 223, It is not conceivable to me that I could have been hit by the first bullet, and then I felt the blow from something which was obviously a bullet, which I assumed was a bullet, and I never heard the second shot, didn't hear it. Mrs. Kennedy stated that she was looking to her left when she heard that first shot/noise, Mrs. KENNEDY. You know, there is always noise in a motorcade and there are always motorcycles, besides us, a lot of them backfiring. So I was looking to the left. I guess there was a noise, but it didn't seem like any different noise really because there is so much noise She was looking to her left at 160, wasn't she? But by 223, she had turned completely to her right, looking at JFK. She had to have heard a pre-223 shot then. Besides her own statement that she turned to her right, following that "noise", she was corroborated by Phil Willis, who had her in his camera lens then. When I took slide No. 4, the President was smiling and waving and looking straight ahead, and Mrs. Kennedy was likewise smiling and facing more to my side of the street. When the first shot was fired, her head seemed to just snap in that direction He reaffirmed that in this statement, In slide No. 4 he was looking pretty much toward--straight ahead, and she was looking more to the left, which would be my side of the street. Then when the first shot was fired, she turned to the right toward him You tell me Hank. When did Mrs. Kennedy turn to JFK? I see that beginning at about 169. What do you get? In addition to John Connally's testimony and the reactions by Mrs. Kennedy and Phil Willis, we can see Rosemary Willis, who told Gerald Posner that she stopped running when she heard that first shot, coming to a complete stop. Look at the film. That happened, prior to frame 223. http://www.jfk-online.com/rosemary-w...-dunckel-2.gif Rosemary came to a complete stop before 223. You are wrong, Hank. There were at least two early shots. That fact is beyond reasonable doubt. And here's another one, if that's not enough for. Mrs. Donald Baker testified, Mrs. BAKER. Well, as I said, I thought it was a firecracker. It looked just like you could see the sparks from it and I just thought it was a firecracker.. How could she have seen "sparks", rising from the pavement, from the 223 shot, that passed through two men? Wow, that's persuasive. Not. I find more of the same cherry-picking you've done before, along with a large helping of your interpretations of what the various witnesses meant. You assume the witnesses are absolutely correct when it suits your purposes, but dismiss their accounts when it doesn't. For example: Mrs. Kennedy heard a 'noise'. Not a gunshot, and likened it to all the other noises she heard during the motorcade. Including motorcycle backfires. To you, that's somehow evidence of a gunshot. Not to me. John Connally heard only two gunshots, and was struck with one of them, with the other one, he testified, hitting JFK in the head. To you, that's evidence of two early shots (and supposedly, two or three or more later ones). In addition, as mentioned before, Connally was a victim of the gunfire and didn't even realize he was shot in the wrist or thigh until he was told so during his recovery process. You think his testimony is somehow solid evidence of an additional gunshot. It's not to me. Mrs. Baker heard a 'firecracker', and thought she saw sparks from it. To you, that's evidence of a gunshot. Not to me. A young child (six years old?) in 1963, Rosemary Willis claims something in the early 1990's that she isn't on record as saying at any time prior. You find her nearly three-decade later recollection credible (as you did with a federal agent - Frank Ellsworth - who recalled seeing a rifle on a different floor in the TSBD). We saw how well that went for you. You think her recollection of hearing a gunshot three decades after the fact is evidence of a gunshot. It's not to me. I'm sorry, your arguments here are not persuasive. Other witnesses gave contrary accounts. Clint Hill, Roy Kellerman, and Bill Greer all heard just one shot before the head shot. You ignore their testimony (or 'reinterpret' it to your liking), and that of the testimony of others, to somehow think you can claim evidence for at least four, and possibly five or more shots during the assassination. But to get to four or more, you must invoke shooters that left no evidence behind from where they shot, left no evidence behind of hitting their target at any time, and also used weapons firing bullets that weren't heard. I find that rationalization of the evidence beyond amazing. There's no evidence for four or five shots (more witnesses heard two shots than heard four or more) and there's no evidence for the additional shooters you conjecture. I'm sorry, but it's true. Hank
	__________________ I have never ”refused” to provide evidence. I provide evidence if requested to do so in a specific and relevant manner. Hanks ”method” [of requesting evidence] is not going to [get me to] provide any evidence since it has a completely different purpose. To create the the illusion of me not providing evidence when requested to do so. - Manifesto

31st August 2015, 04:45 AM	#83
Robert Harris Muse Join Date: Jun 2015 Posts: 867	Originally Posted by HSienzant You make quite a few assertions in the above, but document very few of them. Where is the evidence to support your assertions about a bullet recovered in the operating room? You cite the non-evidence of a published book ghost-written by another man. I cited Connally's first hand statement, from his autobiography. Are you actually calling Mickey Herskowitz a liar?? This man's reputation is impeccable. He has written for numerous other celebrities, including an American president. From Wikipedia: He has authored over 30 books, many of them jointly written autobiographies of famous Americans in politics, sports and media (including Gene Autry, Nolan Ryan, Paul “Bear” Bryant, George Allen, Tom Kite, John Connally and Prescott Bush), and others ghostwritten autobiographies of celebrities in similar fields (including Dan Rather, Mickey Mantle, Howard Cosell, Bette Davis, Shirley Jones, Marty Ingels and Gene Tierney). This man has NEVER been accused of lying or misrepresenting the people he wrote for, and he was citing Connally's first person statements. "..the most curious discovery of all took place when they rolled me off the stretcher, and onto the examining table. A metal object fell to the floor, with a click no louder than a wedding band. The nurse picked it up and slipped it into her pocket." Connally was corroborated by Dallas District attorney, Henry Wade. This is from his interview by the Dallas Morning news on 11/21/93. You can confirm that, via the Dallas Morning News website at http://www.dallasnews.com/ And you can read the entire interview here: http://jfkhistory.com/Wade.html I also went out to see (Gov. John) Connally, but he was in the operating room. Some nurse had a bullet in her hand, and said this was on the gurney that Connally was on. I talked with Nellie Connally a while and then went on home. Q: What did you do with the bullet? Is this the famous pristine bullet people have talked about? A: I told her to give it to the police, which she said she would. I assume that's the pristine bullet. Further corroboration came from officer Bobby Nolan, who was guarding Connally's room. This is from an interview I made of him, about three years ago. With his permission, the interview was recorded, and can be heard in this presentation: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cvqCtaBkyyE Nolan: I was talking to a man who was one of governor Connally's aides. His name was - I think it was either Stinton or Stimmons (Bill Stinson). And he was an aide to the Governor. And she came up and told him that she had the bullet that came off of the gurney. Now I don't know what gurney. I think they meant Governor Connally's gurney. And she said, "What do you want me to do with it?" He and I were just sitting there in the hallway talking to me and said, "Give it to him" Q. Was it a bullet fragment or a complete bullet? Nolan: I don't know. It was a - they told me that is was a bullet. And I don't know if it was a fragment of a bullet or a whole bullet because it was in a little, small brown envelope. And it was sealed and it was about, I'd say 2 by 3 inches. And it was in that envelope when I got it and I never did look at it or anything." Q. Now when the nurse gave it to you, did she describe it as a bullet fragment or as a bullet. Nolan: Uh no. She just said it was a bullet. That's all. Quote: Nearly every one of your paragraphs above can be followed by the simple question: "What's the evidence for this claim?" They were all sourced in the article I linked for you. http://jfkhistory.com/bell/bellarticle/BellArticle.html Quote: And by the way, links to articles written by conspiracy theorists are not evidence. So, no one who disagrees with you can be presenting valid evidence? Is that REALLY what you are claiming? The clincher to this, is one little word, "GURNEY". A nurse in scrubs, emerging from the surgery of a gunshot victim, carrying a bullet, is not supposed to have gotten it from a gurney. She is supposed to have acquired it from the surgery. It is the improbability of that term that makes it such a certainty. The FBI claimed that nursing supervisor Audrey Bell told them that she gave an envelope containing a single fragment to Nolan. If that were true, my case would go down the commode, but guess what? Yep, Bell was adamant that the FBI misrepresented her and that she never gave her envelope, which actually contained four tiny fragments, Nolan or any other uniformed cop. She gave it to plain clothed agents, AKA suits. Surprise, surprise! From the ARRB: When shown an FBI FD-302 dated November 23,1963 (Agency File Number 000919, Record# 180-l 0090-10270), she felt it was inaccurate in two respects: it quotes her as turning over “the metal fragment (singular),” whereas she is positive it was multiple fragments - it says she turned over the fragment to a Texas State Trooper, whereas she recalls turning it over to plainclothes Federal agents who were either FBI or Secret Service. Need any more sources, Hank?
Robert Harris Muse Join Date: Jun 2015 Posts: 867

31st August 2015, 05:37 PM	#84
Regnad Kcin Philosopher Join Date: Mar 2002 Posts: 8,783	Originally Posted by Robert Harris If there were flaws, you would be able to describe them, with specificity. While possible, I can't recall anyone being so thoroughly rebutted as you have been during your time here. I doubt very much any meager further addition of mine would prove to unjam the logs of your thinking.
Regnad Kcin Philosopher Join Date: Mar 2002 Posts: 8,783	__________________ My heros are Alex Zanardi and Evelyn Glennie.

1st September 2015, 03:31 PM	#85
Loss Leader Do you want to date my Avatar? Moderator Join Date: Jul 2006 Location: Florida Posts: 25,249	Originally Posted by Robert Harris The clincher to this, is one little word, "GURNEY". A nurse in scrubs, emerging from the surgery of a gunshot victim, carrying a bullet, is not supposed to have gotten it from a gurney. She is supposed to have acquired it from the surgery. It is the improbability of that term that makes it such a certainty. That has to be the least persuasive argument I've ever read. I implore you to study - not history - but the manner in which historians actually piece together information. I don't think you're going about it correctly.
	__________________ I have the honor to be Your Obdt. S^t L. Leader Last edited by Loss Leader; 1st September 2015 at 03:33 PM.

1st September 2015, 07:54 PM	#86
Pope130 Master Poster Join Date: Sep 2005 Location: Oregon Posts: 2,665	Originally Posted by Tomtomkent I'm tired of the thread going in circles with no evidence to support the same tired assumptions. Lets do something new. Lets assume you were the guy responsible for killing JFK and you had the budget it would take to make even a mundane conspiracy claim. Lets say a few million dollars it would take to establish a "second Oswald" as some theories claim. How would you spend two million dollars to assassinate JFK and frame somebody else. Cheapest, most reliable, and least incriminating suggestion gets the contract... (There is a point here) I've considered this idea before; "If I were planning this..." My best scenario is to catch him at the apartment of one of his girlfriends after he has shaken the Secret Service. Burst in, shoot them both, leave a mystery. Is it a mob hit? Maybe a jealous boyfriend? Obsessed Marilyn Monroe fan? The great advantage is that family and friends of the deceased assist in the cover-up because of the embarrassing circumstances.

1st September 2015, 08:20 PM	#87
HSienzant Illuminator Join Date: Dec 2011 Location: USA Posts: 4,394	Originally Posted by Tomtomkent I'm tired of the thread going in circles with no evidence to support the same tired assumptions. Lets do something new. Lets assume you were the guy responsible for killing JFK and you had the budget it would take to make even a mundane conspiracy claim. Lets say a few million dollars it would take to establish a "second Oswald" as some theories claim. How would you spend two million dollars to assassinate JFK and frame somebody else. Cheapest, most reliable, and least incriminating suggestion gets the contract... (There is a point here) Give some psychosomatic drugs to the pilot of AF1... get him on record as visiting a psychologist who fails to realize he's a pilot, and talking of suicide. Then arrange to crash the plane. All you need to do then is control the investigation at the NTSB level. All that can be accomplished with fewer than ten people in the know and less than a half-million in 1963 dollars, I would estimate. Or better yet, give the pilot one of those drugs that conspiracy theorists like to conjecture caused heart attacks in some of the dead witnesses. Or even better, give it to JFK. Heck, he was taking a ton of stuff from "Dr. Feelgood" (amphetamines and the like). A simple "accidental" overdose from the good doctor would do it (it worked for Michael Jackson). No patsy required. Or just release some damaging info about JFK's White House dalliances. It brought down some people in England earlier that year (in the Profumo affair). Not sure why a patsy is your requirement in the above, but since you stipulate one, none of my above suggestions are eligible and fit what you asked for. I do doubt an unlimited budget could accomplish everything that's argued for by conspiracy theorists. The absurdities argued in the name of a JFK conspiracy are beyond belief. For example, Body Alteration: for every autopsist who you approach, certainly 9 of 10 would NOT agree to be party to such a plan. Yet none of the other people who declined the opportunity to work as part of the team to alter the President's body ever came forward to claim they knew about it. So now you need a kill squad to bump off the 9 who were approached who declined, or you need some important info you can use to blackmail the nine who declined. But the kill squad costs money. And obtaining that info costs time and money. The same could be argued for every other argument advanced by the conspiracy theorist brigade. For everyone involved in swapping one item of evidence that didn't implicate Oswald for one piece that did, again, 9 of 10 people approached must have declined before the conspirators found one willing to do it. None of those approached to take part came forward, so they must have been silenced somehow. It adds up quickly, as does the Oswald doubles and the forgers who need to forge his signature on documents. And the experts who were needed to testify the way the conspirators wanted. And you need someone to kill the kill squad, the forgers, the experts and the doubles (both those who declined and those who accepted), or blackmail them all into silence, because they might talk about how the conspirators approached them and reveal the inner workings.... you can see how this can add up to real money very quickly. But conspiracy theorists argue -- as Bob Harris does here in this thread currently, but he is by no means alone -- that much of the hard evidence implicating Oswald is planted, merely because it conflicts with their theories and they can find one witness somewhere who once said something different, even if they had to wait 30 years or more for the counter-claim to surface. It apparently never occurs to them to re-assess their theory in light of the fact the hard evidence disproves it. Or if it does occur to them, they quickly dismiss it as not worthy of consideration. Bob Harris has argued that a second rifle was found on a different floor of the TSBD. But what happened to it, and why isn't it in the evidence record? He doesn't say. Someone on the inside must have been responsible for bringing it in, someone on the inside must have been responsible for bringing it out. And not being seen either time. How does one accomplish that feat? Who is the most likely candidate? Were others approached and declined? Why no statements from them? Why no evidence of this supposed other rifle, other than a recollection of hearsay from three decades after the fact from one man? Hank
	__________________ I have never ”refused” to provide evidence. I provide evidence if requested to do so in a specific and relevant manner. Hanks ”method” [of requesting evidence] is not going to [get me to] provide any evidence since it has a completely different purpose. To create the the illusion of me not providing evidence when requested to do so. - Manifesto

1st September 2015, 08:21 PM	#88
Sandy McCroskey Thinker Join Date: Jun 2015 Posts: 186	I must be very dense, as no one else has mentioned it, but I can't fathom the allusion to whales in the title of the new thread.
Sandy McCroskey Thinker Join Date: Jun 2015 Posts: 186

1st September 2015, 08:37 PM	#89
Robert Harris Muse Join Date: Jun 2015 Posts: 867	Originally Posted by HSienzant Wow, that's persuasive. Not. I find more of the same cherry-picking you've done before, along with a large helping of your interpretations of what the various witnesses meant. No you don't. If you did, you would have been specific about the witnesses I misinterpreted. And how can I be "cherry picking" when there are no other witnesses who contradicted me? Quote: You assume the witnesses are absolutely correct when it suits your purposes, but dismiss their accounts when it doesn't. You know very well, that that is untrue. And you will prove it by failing to produce even a single, valid example of me doing that. Quote: Mrs. Kennedy heard a 'noise'. Not a gunshot, and likened it to all the other noises she heard during the motorcade. Including motorcycle backfires. To you, that's somehow evidence of a gunshot. No sir - that is what the 160 shot sounded like. That is why most witnesses didn't recognize it as a gunshot. THAT is why we see no startle reactions to the early shots, even remotely similar to these: jfkhistory.com/ducking.gif or the ones following 313. That is why we see all the happy, smiling faces in the Altgens photo, taken at 255 after at least two (or whatever number you want to fabricate) shots have been fired. Look at Dave Powers, grinning ear to ear. http://jfkhistory.com/altgens.jpg The early shots could not possibly have come from an unsuppressed, high powered rifle - Oswald's or anyone else's. If they had, we would be seeing people screaming and diving to the ground, as well as Secret Service agents grabbing their guns and running for the limo, prior to 223. That is why none of the Secret Service agents did more than look around, prior to 285. NOTHING they heard prior to that, sounded like a real gunshot. And why do you ignore the fact that Mrs. Kennedy was fully corroborated by Phil Willis, who had her centered in the lens of his camera at the time? When I took slide No. 4, the President was smiling and waving and looking straight ahead, and Mrs. Kennedy was likewise smiling and facing more to my side of the street. When the first shot was fired, her head seemed to just snap in that direction He reaffirmed that in this statement, In slide No. 4 he was looking pretty much toward--straight ahead, and she was looking more to the left, which would be my side of the street. Then when the first shot was fired, she turned to the right toward him Another witness, who reacted similarly to Mrs. Connally, was SA George Hickey. He stated, After a very short distance I heard a loud report which sounded like a firecracker. It appeared to come from the right and rear and seemed to me to be at ground level. I stood up and looked to my right and rear in an attempt to identify it. I'm sure you know how to spot Hickey in the wide version of the Zapruder film. He is in the back seat of the followup car, behind the driver. Watch him closely. Notice that well before the limo emerges from behind the Stemmons sign, he has started to rise and turn to his right. By 255, when the Altgens photo was taken, he will be fully risen and turned to the rear. But this is when he began those movements - once again, well before 223. http://jfkhistory.com/hickey.gif And while you are studying Hickey, also notice John Ready, standing on the right running board, and turning to his right, prior to 223. This is from his original report, I was about 25-30 feet from President Kennedy who was located in the right rear seat. I heard what appeared to be fire crackers going off from my position. I immediately turned to my right rear trying to locate the source How many more witnesses will it take, Hank? [/quote]John Connally heard only two gunshots, and was struck with one of them, with the other one, he testified, hitting JFK in the head. [/quote] Yes, he HEARD only two gunshots. But they were in addition to the one that hit him. READ HIS TESTIMONY. Shot 1: We had just made the turn, well, when I heard what I thought was a shot Shot 2: Obviously, at least the major wound that I took in the shoulder through the chest couldn't have been anything but the second shot. Shot 3: and then, of course, the third shot sounded, and I heard the shot very clearly. I heard it hit him. Obviously, the second shot was silent. Mr. SPECTER.. Governor, you have described hearing a first shot and a third shot. Did you hear a second shot? Governor CONNALLY. No; I did not. Neither did anyone else. Now, if you want to accuse me of "cherry picking", here is your chance. John Connally was the only surviving passenger in the limo who heard no more than one shot at the end of the attack. In fact, it may be that he heard 285 but not 313, since he was getting very close to losing consciousness then. But there is no doubt that he heard the shot 150-160, which was prior to him being wounded, and the shot at 223, which he clearly reacted to, but which no one else heard either. Quote: To you, that's evidence of two early shots Well of course it is, just as it is evidence to pretty much everyone else on the planet who's studied this thing:-) Quote: (and supposedly, two or three or more later ones). No, Connally's statements are evidence for shots at 160 and 223, as well as one of the shots at the end. Please do not distort or try to exaggerate what I say. Quote: In addition, as mentioned before, Connally was a victim of the gunfire and didn't even realize he was shot in the wrist or thigh until he was told so during his recovery process. You think his testimony is somehow solid evidence of an additional gunshot. The irony of you accusing me of selectively agreeing with witnesses is getting very thick around here Last week, he was your star witness Connally heard the shot circa 160 BEFORE he was hit. There is no reason to doubt him at all, on that shot. And it is quite easy to see that he was hit at 223, as I think, we both agree, do we not? Quote: Mrs. Baker heard a 'firecracker', and thought she saw sparks from it. To you, that's evidence of a gunshot. Not to me. It's "evidence" to Gerald Posner and every other nutter I have encountered, prior to you. But then, they weren't aware of the little problem with only one of the early shots being audible. Quote: A young child (six years old?) in 1963, Rosemary Willis claims something in the early 1990's that she isn't on record as saying at any time prior. LOL! She wasn't "on record", saying anything about the case before Gerald Posner interviewed her. And it doesn't exactly require adulthood to remember stopping when she heard a gunshot. Have you noticed Hank, that you never produce evidence to support your attacks on all these witnesses. You attack them for the solitary reason that they disagree with you. Never mind, that even your fellow LN advocates don't agree with you either. You are judging witnesses based on whether they support your "theory", when what you should be doing is basing your theories on THEM. Conclusions should be drawn from evidence, not visa versa. Quote: Other witnesses gave contrary accounts. Clint Hill, Roy Kellerman, and Bill Greer all heard just one shot before the head shot. YES!! Practically everyone in Dealey Plaza that day, only HEARD one of the early shots - just like John Connally. And the absolute clincher here, is that whether you think there was one early shot or a dozen, NONE OF THEM were loud enough to provoke startle reactions like we see following 285 and 313. When were you planning to address that fact? The HSCA confirmed that Oswald's rifle generated 130 decibels at street level. That's 16 TIMES louder than 90db, the point at which involuntary startle reactions will occur. Other high powered rifles are even louder. If Oswald had fired all the shots, the earliest would have been the loudest and most startling to the ears of the limo passengers. Where do we see people simultaneously ducking, spinning around, shielding their ears, etc? Why don't we see reactions like these, any time prior to 285? http://jfkhistory.com/ducking.gif You need to address this issue, Hank. It is incredibly important. We're talking about involuntary reactions. If the 223 shot came from an unsuppressed, high powered rifle, we would have seen the same kind of reactions we see, following the shots at the end. Why don't we see that?
Robert Harris Muse Join Date: Jun 2015 Posts: 867

2nd September 2015, 04:27 AM	#90
Border Reiver Philosopher Join Date: Sep 2011 Posts: 6,329	Originally Posted by Robert Harris That is untrue. Even "axman" has stated, The only silenced rifles considered reliable in 1963 were 9mm or .45 caliber. Yes, the Deslile Carbine, a Lee Enfield No.4 modified to take a .45 ACP cartridge and made with an integral suppressor. Very popular with SOE and OSS during WWII. It was a very effective weapon - out to about 50 metres. After that range, the subsonic ammunitiion was of lower lethality and accuracy due to the rather substantial bullet drop. Quote: He has failed to document that assertion, but subsonic ammunition for both of those calibers was and is, commonly available. So at the very least, he has confirmed that two of the most popular calibers of rifles/ammunition could have been used. .45ACP and 9mm Parabellum are pistol calibres, not rifle rounds, first of all. Second, where is the physical evidence that would support the use of such a weapon? Casings, bullet strikes, etc. Without such evidence all you have is speculation.
	__________________ Questions, comments, queries, bitches, complaints, rude gestures and/or remarks?

2nd September 2015, 09:05 AM	#91
vtbub Critical Thinker Join Date: May 2011 Posts: 252	Originally Posted by Tomtomkent I'm tired of the thread going in circles with no evidence to support the same tired assumptions. Lets do something new. Lets assume you were the guy responsible for killing JFK and you had the budget it would take to make even a mundane conspiracy claim. Lets say a few million dollars it would take to establish a "second Oswald" as some theories claim. How would you spend two million dollars to assassinate JFK and frame somebody else. Cheapest, most reliable, and least incriminating suggestion gets the contract... (There is a point here) Does it have to be shooting him in public? An overdose of barbituates in the private quarters would do the trick nicely. Pay off some people and voila. If I was in charge of ensuring a public death, Main Street with throngs of people and many buildings to target, not TSBD or the knoll.
vtbub Critical Thinker Join Date: May 2011 Posts: 252

2nd September 2015, 09:58 AM	#92
Tomtomkent Philosopher Join Date: Jul 2010 Posts: 8,569	There are only three proven shots. Two hit the passengers, one hit the traffic gantry. Robert: Being able to show us that you think what witnesses saw or heard is compatible with any other shot, rather than assuming the Z film shows 'startle reactions', why not show us the physical evidence for other bullets being fired. Show us the bullets, or their impact on physical evidence, then you can discuss as and when they may have been fired. If you can not show us that the bullets made any mark on the world, then no matter how convinced you happen to be, it can not be stated with any confidence that anybody reacted to bullets over any other noise in the chaotic situation. Please stop trying to dress speculation as fact.
Tomtomkent Philosopher Join Date: Jul 2010 Posts: 8,569	__________________ @tomhodden Never look up an E-book because this signature line told you. Especially not Dead Lament (ASIN: B00JEN1MWY). Or A Little Trouble (ASIN: B00GQFZZQW).

2nd September 2015, 12:00 PM	#93
Robert Harris Muse Join Date: Jun 2015 Posts: 867	Originally Posted by Regnad Kcin While possible, I can't recall anyone being so thoroughly rebutted as you have been during your time here. What was the best refutation you've seen?
Robert Harris Muse Join Date: Jun 2015 Posts: 867

2nd September 2015, 06:28 PM	#94
RoboTimbo Hostile Nanobacon Join Date: Jul 2008 Location: Perfection, NV Posts: 29,166	Originally Posted by Robert Harris No you don't. If you did, you would have been specific about the witnesses I misinterpreted. Yes he did and yes he has. Multiple times. You've ignored the rebuttals which point out the fatal flaws to your arguments every time. Quote: And how can I be "cherry picking" when there are no other witnesses who contradicted me? Other than the ones who contradicted you, you mean? Tell us more about the other rifle found in the TSBD on a different floor. What happened to it? Which shots were fired from it? How many spent casings were found on the other floor belonging to that rifle? Who fired it? Was it also suppressed? At which frames of the Z film do you see evidence of shots from that rifle? There would be some distinctive flinches, right? Also, share what you know about the shooter in the storm drain. At which frames do you see evidence of shots from there? More flinches which you would be able to tell just from looking that it was from shots from the storm drain, right?

2nd September 2015, 07:11 PM	#95
Robert Harris Muse Join Date: Jun 2015 Posts: 867	Originally Posted by Loss Leader That has to be the least persuasive argument I've ever read. You couldn't possibly be more wrong. The fact that Connally, Wade and Nolan, ALL talked about the bullet coming from a "gurney", is the clincher. It is so unintuitive, that it couldn't have been a mistake or a misunderstanding. The bullet that Connally described, was indeed, the one that wounded him and probably JFK. It couldn't possibly have been the same one that Tomlinson found. Nor could the bullet that Tomlinson found have been CE399, which is why all four of the men who handled it prior to it going to the FBI, refused to confirm it, and why neither of the initials of the two men who marked the Tomlinson bullet can be found on CE399. READ THE ARTICLE. http://jfkhistory.com/bell/bellarticle/BellArticle.html
Robert Harris Muse Join Date: Jun 2015 Posts: 867

2nd September 2015, 07:17 PM	#96
Robert Harris Muse Join Date: Jun 2015 Posts: 867	Originally Posted by vtbub Does it have to be shooting him in public? Every American president who has been assassinated, has been assassinated in public. And every failed attempt to assassinate an American president has been carried out in public. Obviously, folks who do this kind of thing are not as bright as you are:-)
Robert Harris Muse Join Date: Jun 2015 Posts: 867

2nd September 2015, 07:47 PM	#97
Robert Harris Muse Join Date: Jun 2015 Posts: 867	Originally Posted by Tomtomkent There are only three proven shots. That is untrue. We can be certain that at least four were fired, at 150-160, 223, 285 and 313. There may have been others. Quote: Two hit the passengers one hit the traffic gantry. There is no evidence that a bullet hit the traffic light or any part of it. There may however, have been an earlier shot, fired prior to Zapruder turning his camera back on at 133. I discuss it during the first few minutes of this presentation. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cvqCtaBkyyE Quote: Robert: Being able to show us that you think what witnesses saw or heard is compatible with any other shot, rather than assuming the Z film shows 'startle reactions', why not show us the physical evidence for other bullets being fired. Rather than request a specific evidence type, because you believe I don't have it, why not ask simply for good evidence that would be persuasive in a courtroom? That's like asking for DNA evidence for global warming:-) There is however, rock solid, hard evidence that the bullet which hit JFK and Connally was not fired from Oswald's rifle. That includes the hard evidence that CE399 was not the bullet that was found by Daryl Tomlinson and was not the bullet that wounded John Connally. You can read about it in this article as well as in my recent discussion with Hank. http://jfkhistory.com/bell/bellarticle/BellArticle.html Don't you think you should also be concerned about the scientific evidence, produced by two of the top scientists in the U.S, who found that there was a loud and startling noise which took place at precisely the instant the limo passengers as well as Abraham Zapruder, reacted? Why aren't you asking me about the empirical evidence of three people simultaneously ducking, while two others spun away from the probable source of that shot, all in the same 1/6th of one second? Don't you want to know why that happened? http://jfkhistory.com/ducking.gif Quote: Show us the bullets, or their impact on physical evidence, then you can discuss as and when they may have been fired. There are no verifiable bullets that have ever been entered into evidence. CE399 was obviously, not fired during the assassination. However, there was a lead smear discovered on the Main St. curbing, which was believed to have been from the bullet that caused debris to fly into the face of James Tague, nicking his cheek and causing a trickle of blood. That bullet was almost certainly, the one fired at 285, which was the second audible shot, as Tague himself, stated. Likewise, Bill Greer felt the "concussion" from the shock wave of what he described as the "second shot". That is precisely what he should have felt from the passing, supersonic bullet. The shot missed JFK and went on to shatter on the pavement, breaking apart and sending a chunk of lead to strike the Main St. curbing and a tiny piece of debris to nick Tague. The "hard evidence" alone, is enough to prove that Oswald was not the only shooter. The scientific and empirical evidence makes that a certainty beyond any possible doubt.
Robert Harris Muse Join Date: Jun 2015 Posts: 867

2nd September 2015, 07:59 PM	#98
Robert Harris Muse Join Date: Jun 2015 Posts: 867	Originally Posted by Border Reiver Second, where is the physical evidence that would support the use of such a weapon? Casings, bullet strikes, etc. Without such evidence all you have is speculation. That is untrue. The proof that at least one suppressed weapon was used, is that almost no one heard more than one of the early shots. Even John Connally never heard the shot at 223, that hit him. If you have a better explanation for why that happened, I would be delighted to hear it. Oswald's rifle was proven to generate 130 decibels at street level. That's 16 times louder than the level at which involuntary startle reactions will occur. We see clear startle reactions following 285 and 313, but nothing even remotely similar, prior to 285. http://jfkhistory.com/ducking.gif The one early shot that was heard - circa 150-160, also never provoked startle reactions and might have only been heard because it struck the pavement, shattering and causing "sparks" to rise up. The 223 shot only passed through human tissue, so remained totally silent.
Robert Harris Muse Join Date: Jun 2015 Posts: 867

2nd September 2015, 09:56 PM	#100
Robert Harris Muse Join Date: Jun 2015 Posts: 867	Originally Posted by HSienzant But conspiracy theorists argue -- as Bob Harris does here in this thread currently, but he is by no means alone -- that much of the hard evidence implicating Oswald is planted I said no such thing, and it's getting a bit tiring, hearing you misrepresent me. CE399 couldn't possibly have been planted. If it had, the men who originally handled it, would have had no problem confirming it, and the initials of SA Johnsen and FBI agent Todd, would have been on it. CE399 was very obviously, not the bullet that Tomlinson found. When the FBI discovered that the original was not fired by Oswald, they undoubtedly fired a round from Oswald's rifle into water or wadding and then presented it to the WC. In addition to the unanimous refusal of those four men to confirm CE399 and the absence of the markings of Johnsen and Todd, it is obvious that they discovered Tomlinson's bullet did not match with fragments they received just before midnight on 11/22/63. Why else would they have needed to call Tomlinson in the wee hours of 11/23 to tell him to keep his mouth shut about the bullet he found? This is from the recorded 1967 interview of Tomlinson by Ray Marcus. The interview is also documented in the HSCA records. Tomlinson: On Friday morning about 12:30 to 1 o'clock - uh, excuse me, that's Saturday morning - after the assassination, the FBI woke me up on the phone and told me to to keep my mouth shut. Marcus: About the circumstances of your finding the bullet? Tomlinson: That is (one short word, unintelligible) what I found… Marcus: I understand exactly what you mean, when they call you, it's pretty authoritative. But the thing is this, did they say - was there any particular thing about what they said or they just didn't want you to talk about it period? Tomlinson: Just don't talk about it period. Quote: Bob Harris has argued that a second rifle was found on a different floor of the TSBD. You need to start citing me VERBATIM, Hank. I said that Frank Ellsworth made that claim, and that if true, it would explain both the alleged Mauser and Oswald's rifle being present in the Depository. It would also explain the evidence suggesting that the two, unsuppressed rifle shots came from the 6th floor. You pointed out that people from the DPD contradicted him, but they were subordinate to the FBI, whose stated agenda, directly from Hoover, was that the public must be convinced that Oswald acted alone. The FBI had already carried out that agenda when they covered up deception by Jack Ruby, when he denied during his polygraph test, being associated with Oswald and the conspiracy. They also fabricated evidence, replacing the actual bullets found at Parkland, with one they produced themselves. Therefore, any testimony coming from the FBI or DPD, must be taken with a rather large grain of salt. But NO, that bullet was very obviously, NOT planted. Quote: But what happened to it, and why isn't it in the evidence record? Both Tomlinson's bullet and the one that wounded Connally, wound up at the FBI. You need to ask them that question. Quote: He doesn't say. Actually, I have, but only for the last 20 years:-) Quote: Someone on the inside must have been responsible for bringing it in You really need to stop misrepresenting me. If you are confused about my analysis, reread my articles and watch my presentations. As a last resort, just PM me and ask
Robert Harris Muse Join Date: Jun 2015 Posts: 867

2nd September 2015, 10:27 PM	#101
Robert Harris Muse Join Date: Jun 2015 Posts: 867	Originally Posted by RoboTimbo Yes he did and yes he has. Multiple times. No he hasn't, and you will prove that by failing to cite even a single example of me misrepresenting anyone. Quote: You've ignored the rebuttals which point out the fatal flaws to your arguments every time. Strange, but why is it that people like yourself, who make that accusation, you are never, ever, ever, able to describe a specific "rebuttal"? Why is that, Robo? Quote: Other than the ones who contradicted you, you mean? Which ones are you referring to? Quote: Tell us more about the other rifle found in the TSBD on a different floor. If there was one, it was probably a Mauser, although ATF agent Ellsworth said it was Oswald's rifle that was found on a lower floor. Quote: What happened to it? It undoubtedly, would have wound up at the FBI. You need to ask them what they did with it. Quote: Which shots were fired from it? The 313 shot probably would have come from the more powerful Mauser. It provoked more pronounced reactions than the 285 shot did, and Alvarez also confirmed that Zapruder's reaction to 313 was more pronounced than to 285. Quote: How many spent casings were found on the other floor belonging to that rifle? I have no idea. I don't think the FBI/DPD would have reported any evidence like that. Quote: Who fired it? No idea. I can't imagine why the snipers were so reluctant to leave their business cards:-) Quote: Was it also suppressed? That's a silly question. The rifles that were used to fire the 285 and 313 shots were obviously unsuppressed and extremely loud, which is why they provoked such dramatic reactions among the limo passengers and Zapruder. Quote: At which frames of the Z film do you see evidence of shots from that rifle? I'm not sure what you mean by "that" rifle. I suspect that Oswald fired the weaker shot at 285 and that the other 6th floor sniper fired the one at 313, for the reasons I just explained. Quote: There would be some distinctive flinches, right? There would be much more than that. The reactions included people simultaneously ducking, spinning around, etc. Quote: Also, share what you know about the shooter in the storm drain. I don't know for sure, that there was one there. Why are you only asking about things that cannot be resolved? Let's talk about what is provable - like that fact that only one of the early shots was audible. And the fact that the country's top physicists discovered a loud and startling noise at precisely, frame 285. And the fact that "most" of the witnesses that day, heard closely bunched shots at the end, which matched perfectly with shots 1.5 seconds apart. And the fact that Zapruder reacted at EXACTLY the same instant that the limo passengers did. Once we agree that Oswald couldn't have fired all the shots, then we can talk about other issues that are speculative or uncertain.
Robert Harris Muse Join Date: Jun 2015 Posts: 867

2nd September 2015, 11:58 PM	#102
Tomtomkent Philosopher Join Date: Jul 2010 Posts: 8,569	Originally Posted by Robert Harris That is untrue. We can be certain that at least four were fired, at 150-160, 223, 285 and 313. There may have been others. My statement was perfectly true. We only have evidence for three bullets. Your speculation of what may or may not be a bullet on the Z film is not evidence of a suitable quality to convince. Nor to state as fact. Originally Posted by Robert Harris There is no evidence that a bullet hit the traffic light or any part of it. Erm, the final destination is not the key. We have evidence of three bullets being fired. Not from the z film, but from bullet casings. Of the probable impact points, the gantry is the most likely: hannel.nationalgeographic.com/explorer/galleries/explorer-jfk-the-lost-bullet-pictures/at/triple-underpass-39917/ http://www.washingtondecoded.com/sit...onds-in-d.html Originally Posted by Robert Harris There may however, have been an earlier shot, fired prior to Zapruder turning his camera back on at 133. I discuss it during the first few minutes of this presentation. But I don't care what you think you see or don't see in the Z film. There were three spent shell casings. Ergo we have evidence of three shots. Two of which hit victims. Originally Posted by Robert Harris Rather than request a specific evidence type, because you believe I don't have it, why not ask simply for good evidence that would be persuasive in a courtroom? Firstly, that is not why I asked for the evidence. Secondly, I have not been specific. I will accept any physical evidence of more bullets being fired. Signs of the bullets themselves, casings left, a hole left by their impact. I have left a wide open goal. Secondly: We are not in a courtroom. We are discussing a historical event. I am asking for evidence suitable for establishing a historical narrative. Let me be absolutely clear: Before I ask if any frames is best explained by being reactions to multiple shooters, I will need viable physical evidence of additional shooters. Please stop counting your chicken before the eggs have been laid. Originally Posted by Robert Harris That's like asking for DNA evidence for global warming:-) No. That is like asking for evidence that the globe is warming to support the theory of global warming. You could offer me evidence the ice caps are retracting, that mean temperatures from set locations are on an increasing trend, or any number of viable sources. What you are doing however is akin to proving global warming by suggesting people look too warm in holiday snaps. Originally Posted by Robert Harris There is however, rock solid, hard evidence that the bullet which hit JFK and Connally was not fired from Oswald's rifle. This is your opinion. That all three bullets recovered were from Oswalds rifle, and Oswalds rifle alone leads me to another opinion. Originally Posted by Robert Harris That includes the hard evidence that CE399 was not the bullet that was found by Daryl Tomlinson and was not the bullet that wounded John Connally. You can read about it in this article as well as in my recent discussion with Hank. http://jfkhistory.com/bell/bellarticle/BellArticle.html Mr Seizant has made a far more convincing case, in no small part because of his eloquence, but more importantly, because he displays a far more realistic view of how evidence is gathered, analysed, and meaningfully presented. I recommend that even if you disagree with his views, you at least consider the difference between his methodology and his own, and contemplate why people keep telling you they are not convinced by you. Originally Posted by Robert Harris Don't you think you should also be concerned about the scientific evidence, produced by two of the top scientists in the U.S, who found that there was a loud and startling noise which took place at precisely the instant the limo passengers as well as Abraham Zapruder, reacted? Yes. It is considered in the totality of evidence. As there remains no physical evidence of any more bullets, and as neither 'loud' nor 'startling' is a synonym for gunshot, I remain unconvinced your explanation is the only explanation. Or even a viable explanation. There were other noises in Dallas that day. Screams, sirens, engine noise, and others, that could be loud, or startling. And we have evidence there were people who could scream, engines that could have made noise, sirens that could have wailed, and so forth. What we are lacking is evidence for other rifles, and other gunshots. Originally Posted by Robert Harris Why aren't you asking me about the empirical evidence of three people simultaneously ducking, while two others spun away from the probable source of that shot, all in the same 1/6th of one second? Don't you want to know why that happened? Because your interpretation of those actions is not empirical evidence. It is your opinion that those movements are a reaction to a noise, your opinion that it is a gunshot, your opinion that they were aware of the source. Again. If those are reactions to a noise, that does not follow that it can only be a gunshot. Find evidence of the gunshot, and I will consider it an explanation for those movements. Until then, I am afraid those could just be people reacting in confusion and panic, and your interpretation offers no insight above and beyond that of anybody else. You see people turning away from a noise. Perhaps they were turning towards something. Perhaps they were ducking, because somebody told them to duck. We need evidence, or all you have is speculation. [quote=Robert Harris;10852989] There are no verifiable bullets that have ever been entered into evidence. CE399 was obviously, not fired during the assassination. [quote] There were two. One fractured within JFK. And CE399 obtained from the gurney. This is the evidence I accept. You have yet to support your claim with the minimum standard of evidence required to change my mind. Originally Posted by Robert Harris However, there was a lead smear discovered on the Main St. curbing, which was believed to have been from the bullet that caused debris to fly into the face of James Tague, nicking his cheek and causing a trickle of blood. That bullet was almost certainly, the one fired at 285, which was the second audible shot, as Tague himself, stated. Likewise, Bill Greer felt the "concussion" from the shock wave of what he described as the "second shot". That is precisely what he should have felt from the passing, supersonic bullet. The shot missed JFK and went on to shatter on the pavement, breaking apart and sending a chunk of lead to strike the Main St. curbing and a tiny piece of debris to nick Tague. Or it was fragment of the bullet that caused the explosive head wound. There is no certainty. But the mark on the pavement and the minor wound remain consistent with the three shots known to be fired. Originally Posted by Robert Harris The "hard evidence" alone, is enough to prove that Oswald was not the only shooter. The scientific and empirical evidence makes that a certainty beyond any possible doubt. Oswalds is the only rifle we have evidence for having fired that day. Oswald firing alone is the theory that best fits the totality of physical evidence. Nothing you have supplied in any post or presentation changes that.
Tomtomkent Philosopher Join Date: Jul 2010 Posts: 8,569	__________________ @tomhodden Never look up an E-book because this signature line told you. Especially not Dead Lament (ASIN: B00JEN1MWY). Or A Little Trouble (ASIN: B00GQFZZQW).

3rd September 2015, 06:15 AM	#103
RoboTimbo Hostile Nanobacon Join Date: Jul 2008 Location: Perfection, NV Posts: 29,166	Originally Posted by Robert Harris That is untrue. We can be certain that at least four were fired, at 150-160, 223, 285 and 313. There may have been others. Patently untrue. Nobody has ever made a case for any shots other than those fired by Oswald. There have been claims of other shots but those claims were found to be without merit and based only on someone's opinion and inference. No evidence of other shots, shooters or weapons has ever been presented. Quote: Rather than request a specific evidence type, because you believe I don't have it, why not ask simply for good evidence that would be persuasive in a courtroom? That's like asking for DNA evidence for global warming:-) Ah, so you believe that your "evidence" is persuasive enough to present to the FBI? I don't remember you ever answering that question, despite the number of times it's been asked. Quote: There is however, rock solid, hard evidence that the bullet which hit JFK and Connally was not fired from Oswald's rifle. That includes the hard evidence that CE399 was not the bullet that was found by Daryl Tomlinson and was not the bullet that wounded John Connally. You can read about it in this article as well as in my recent discussion with Hank. Well, no. Actually, there is only evidence that the bullet that struck JFK and Connally was fired by Oswald from Oswald's rifle from the 6th floor of the TSBD. Refer back to the videos I had you watch. You haven't said in what way you disagree with them. I'll have to assume that you agree with them if you've not found any way to disagree with them. Quote: There are no verifiable bullets that have ever been entered into evidence. CE399 was obviously, not fired during the assassination. Again, patently false. Quote: The "hard evidence" alone, is enough to prove that Oswald was not the only shooter. The scientific and empirical evidence makes that a certainty beyond any possible doubt. What "hard evidence" do you have for any additional phantom shooters, phantom suppressed rifles, phantom bullets which hit nothing in Texas? No "hard evidence" has ever been presented for any of those things. For example, you've presented us with your opinions and inferences, creating an entire back story for what you infer is a flinch in response to some specific sound you've inferred from a silent video. Did you have anything else at all?

3rd September 2015, 06:19 AM	#104
RoboTimbo Hostile Nanobacon Join Date: Jul 2008 Location: Perfection, NV Posts: 29,166	Originally Posted by Robert Harris The proof that at least one suppressed weapon was used, is that almost no one heard more than one of the early shots. Which of Oswald's three shots are you referring to as "early"? Quote: If you have a better explanation for why that happened, I would be delighted to hear it. Your explanation has been shown to be your opinion and only an inference based on the back story you invented out of whole cloth to lead you to your desired conclusion. No other explanation is needed. You still have the burden of proof. Quote: Oswald's rifle was proven to generate 130 decibels at street level. That's 16 times louder than the level at which involuntary startle reactions will occur. We see clear startle reactions following 285 and 313, but nothing even remotely similar, prior to 285. http://jfkhistory.com/ducking.gif The one early shot that was heard - circa 150-160, also never provoked startle reactions and might have only been heard because it struck the pavement, shattering and causing "sparks" to rise up. The 223 shot only passed through human tissue, so remained totally silent. Thank you for illustrating how opinion and inference works.

3rd September 2015, 07:11 AM	#105
HSienzant Illuminator Join Date: Dec 2011 Location: USA Posts: 4,394	Originally Posted by Robert Harris The proof that at least one suppressed weapon was used, is that almost no one heard more than one of the early shots. Wow. That's the best example of one sentence invoking the logical fallacy of a circular argument I've ever seen. You're actually invoking as evidence that an extra shot was fired early from a suppressed weapon the lack of evidence that anyone heard it??? Sorry, that's not close to persuasive. You might as well conjecture a pink unicorn assassin in the Dal-Tex building, using the same logic. Nobody saw one of those either. So the proof that at least one pink unicorn was in the Dal-Tex building firing away at the President is that no one saw it. You do understand that the stated pink unicorn "logic" and your argument for the early suppressed shot follow the exact same form, I trust. I also trust you see the issue with the pink unicorn argument. It is surprising to me you don't see the issue with your own argument above. Hank
	__________________ I have never ”refused” to provide evidence. I provide evidence if requested to do so in a specific and relevant manner. Hanks ”method” [of requesting evidence] is not going to [get me to] provide any evidence since it has a completely different purpose. To create the the illusion of me not providing evidence when requested to do so. - Manifesto

3rd September 2015, 07:41 AM	#106
HSienzant Illuminator Join Date: Dec 2011 Location: USA Posts: 4,394	Originally Posted by Robert Harris And why do you ignore the fact that Mrs. Kennedy was fully corroborated by Phil Willis, who had her centered in the lens of his camera at the time? When I took slide No. 4, the President was smiling and waving and looking straight ahead, and Mrs. Kennedy was likewise smiling and facing more to my side of the street. When the first shot was fired, her head seemed to just snap in that direction He reaffirmed that in this statement, In slide No. 4 he was looking pretty much toward--straight ahead, and she was looking more to the left, which would be my side of the street. Then when the first shot was fired, she turned to the right toward him Because she isn't corroborated by Willis. Willis said the first shot was almost simultaneous with his slide #5. This image: http://www.history-matters.com/archi...ol21_0397b.htm He says that here in his description of that slide: http://www.history-matters.com/archi...ol21_0395a.htm "... THIS SLIDE WAS TAKEN AT THE EXACT INSTANT THE FIRST BULLET STRUCK THE PRESIDENT..." What frame of the Zapruder film does that correspond to, Robert? Zapruder frame 202. That's closer to Z223 (by 1.1 second), than to Z150-Z160 (2.3 to 2.8 seconds). http://www.history-matters.com/archi...Vol7_0252a.htm It's also when you believe the first shot struck the President, is it not (Zapruder frame 223)? Now, you can insist Willis missed the first shot by about three seconds, being three seconds late when he claimed it was simultaneous, or you can understand that some of us understand that memory is a recreation, not a recording of the event. And that Willis, more than likely, heard the first shot just AFTER he took his slide #5, and simply inflated his (and its) importance by later remembering he heard the first shot just AS he took his slide #5. (His slide #5, incidentally, is the same as Hudson Exhibit #1, which he references in his testimony as almost simultaneous with the first shot). Here's Hudson Exhibit #1: http://www.history-matters.com/archi...ol20_0102a.htm This is what I mean by being selective and cherry picking. You ignore the evidence contrary to your view, and you emphasize the evidence that supports your contentions. You pretend Willis is a great witness, but according to your own arguments, he thought the first shot was almost simultaneous with his slide #5, but it was actually 2.3 to 2.8 seconds later, and NOT "almost simultaneous". So which is it? Is Willis an excellent witness, an average one, or a poor one? He's excellent when you want him to be. And rather poor otherwise (2.3 to 2.8 seconds later for that "almost simultaneous" shot). Hank Hank
	__________________ I have never ”refused” to provide evidence. I provide evidence if requested to do so in a specific and relevant manner. Hanks ”method” [of requesting evidence] is not going to [get me to] provide any evidence since it has a completely different purpose. To create the the illusion of me not providing evidence when requested to do so. - Manifesto

3rd September 2015, 08:30 AM	#107
Robert Harris Muse Join Date: Jun 2015 Posts: 867	Originally Posted by Loss Leader That has to be the least persuasive argument I've ever read. I implore you to study - not history - but the manner in which historians actually piece together information. I don't think you're going about it correctly. Could you please be specific about what exactly, I am not doing correctly? It is significant that Wade and Nolan were both told by the nurse that she had a whole bullet from Connally's "gurney". Consider Connally's description of the event: ..the most curious discovery of all took place when they rolled me off the stretcher, and onto the examining table. A metal object fell to the floor, with a click no louder than a wedding band. The nurse picked it up and slipped it into her pocket. Of course, the bullet actually came from his thigh, but it had to have first landed on the gurney before falling to the floor. The nurse obviously, saw it fall from that gurney, which is why she told Nolan and Wade that it came from there. And the fact that the "gurney" is such a non-intuitive place for it to have come from, makes it a certainty that this was not just a misunderstanding. In fact, Connally aide, Bill Stinson, who Nolan mentioned, was busy taking care of Connally's administrative chores, and obviously wasn't paying close attention to the nurse and made the mistake of thinking the bullet came from the surgery that had just been completed. This is from his interview with Ramparts magazine, The last thing they did, was to remove the bullet from the governor's thigh---because that was the least thing that was wrong with him. Of course, Stinson was wrong; the doctors stated that they found no bullet in Connally's thigh. His mistake was in mentally substituting the more intuitive explanation for the bullet - an error the others did not make.
Robert Harris Muse Join Date: Jun 2015 Posts: 867

3rd September 2015, 09:25 AM	#108
HSienzant Illuminator Join Date: Dec 2011 Location: USA Posts: 4,394	Originally Posted by Robert Harris You couldn't possibly be more wrong. The fact that Connally, Wade and Nolan, ALL talked about the bullet coming from a "gurney", is the clincher. It is so unintuitive, that it couldn't have been a mistake or a misunderstanding. The bullet that Connally described, was indeed, the one that wounded him and probably JFK. It couldn't possibly have been the same one that Tomlinson found. Nor could the bullet that Tomlinson found have been CE399, which is why all four of the men who handled it prior to it going to the FBI, refused to confirm it, and why neither of the initials of the two men who marked the Tomlinson bullet can be found on CE399. READ THE ARTICLE. http://jfkhistory.com/bell/bellarticle/BellArticle.html So, in your theory, as I understand it, there are FOUR "magic" bullets, not one. Magic Bullet, the First: This would be the one that Tomlinson found in a hospital corridor, near a stretch that had once been occupied by the Governor when he was first brought into Parkland Hospital. According to your argument, as I understand it, this bullet was more pointed that CE399, and was not CE399. It somehow vanished, according to you, from the evidence trail. Magic Bullet, the Second: This would be the one that Governor Connally supposedly saw fall onto his hospital stretcher. That was then mentioned by Wade, and Nolan. It too somehow vanished, according to you, from the evidence trail. Magic Bullet, the Third: This would be the one in the record, Commission Exhibit 399. This one: http://www.history-matters.com/archi...ol17_0038a.htm (bottom of page). The one that is traceable to Oswald's weapon, to the exclusion of all other weapons in the world. According to your theory, this bullet had nothing to do with the assassination of the President, and somehow appeared in the evidence trail in lieu of one of the above bullets (presumably, "Magic Bullet, the First"). Magic Bullet, the Fourth: This would be the one that must have shattered and left the multiple fragments contained within an envelope that nurse Audrey Bell said she gave to a man in a suit. Another example of you simply ignoring or arguing away evidence you don't like, and conjecturing up theories to support your argument that Oswald didn't fire the shot that wounded both the President and the Governor. You throw away the hard evidence that links Oswald to the assassination (CE399), and then, based on recollections from 3, 15, 35, or 49 years after the assassination, imagine there must been other bullets in the evidence trail instead. Sometimes I wonder if you even know what you're arguing for. In a preceding post, you cited Bell's recollection of multiple fragments within an envelope as if it confirmed Officer Nolan's recollection of a bullet in an envelope. Her recollection doesn't confirm his, her recollection contradicts his, and shows you (or should show you but doesn't) the issue with relying on recollections from decades after the fact. You ignore the contradictions between the recollections and blithely cite both recollections. Hank
	__________________ I have never ”refused” to provide evidence. I provide evidence if requested to do so in a specific and relevant manner. Hanks ”method” [of requesting evidence] is not going to [get me to] provide any evidence since it has a completely different purpose. To create the the illusion of me not providing evidence when requested to do so. - Manifesto

3rd September 2015, 10:25 AM	#109
CORed Philosopher Join Date: Dec 2008 Location: Central City, Colorado, USA Posts: 7,997	Originally Posted by HSienzant Because she isn't corroborated by Willis. Willis said the first shot was almost simultaneous with his slide #5. This image: http://www.history-matters.com/archi...ol21_0397b.htm He says that here in his description of that slide: http://www.history-matters.com/archi...ol21_0395a.htm "... THIS SLIDE WAS TAKEN AT THE EXACT INSTANT THE FIRST BULLET STRUCK THE PRESIDENT..." What frame of the Zapruder film does that correspond to, Robert? Zapruder frame 202. That's closer to Z223 (by 1.1 second), than to Z150-Z160 (2.3 to 2.8 seconds). http://www.history-matters.com/archi...Vol7_0252a.htm It's also when you believe the first shot struck the President, is it not (Zapruder frame 223)? Now, you can insist Willis missed the first shot by about three seconds, being three seconds late when he claimed it was simultaneous, or you can understand that some of us understand that memory is a recreation, not a recording of the event. And that Willis, more than likely, heard the first shot just AFTER he took his slide #5, and simply inflated his (and its) importance by later remembering he heard the first shot just AS he took his slide #5. (His slide #5, incidentally, is the same as Hudson Exhibit #1, which he references in his testimony as almost simultaneous with the first shot). Here's Hudson Exhibit #1: http://www.history-matters.com/archi...ol20_0102a.htm This is what I mean by being selective and cherry picking. You ignore the evidence contrary to your view, and you emphasize the evidence that supports your contentions. You pretend Willis is a great witness, but according to your own arguments, he thought the first shot was almost simultaneous with his slide #5, but it was actually 2.3 to 2.8 seconds later, and NOT "almost simultaneous". So which is it? Is Willis an excellent witness, an average one, or a poor one? He's excellent when you want him to be. And rather poor otherwise (2.3 to 2.8 seconds later for that "almost simultaneous" shot). Hank Hank The whole notion that sounds from witness accounts can be assigned to specific frames of a film is absurd. Human memory simply does not have anything close to that kind of time resolution.

3rd September 2015, 10:30 AM	#110
Tomtomkent Philosopher Join Date: Jul 2010 Posts: 8,569	Originally Posted by Robert Harris The clincher to this, is one little word, "GURNEY". A nurse in scrubs, emerging from the surgery of a gunshot victim, carrying a bullet, is not supposed to have gotten it from a gurney. She is supposed to have acquired it from the surgery. Supposed to? Who dictates where and when an item should be found other than happistance? If the bullet was dislodged from a victim while he lay on a gurney, and was only found after moving the victim, who decrees this happistance is not to be allowed?
Tomtomkent Philosopher Join Date: Jul 2010 Posts: 8,569	__________________ @tomhodden Never look up an E-book because this signature line told you. Especially not Dead Lament (ASIN: B00JEN1MWY). Or A Little Trouble (ASIN: B00GQFZZQW).

3rd September 2015, 11:14 AM	#111
HSienzant Illuminator Join Date: Dec 2011 Location: USA Posts: 4,394	Originally Posted by Robert Harris Every American president who has been assassinated, has been assassinated in public. And every failed attempt to assassinate an American president has been carried out in public. Obviously, folks who do this kind of thing are not as bright as you are:-) Blair House. Truman. The plan was to shoot their way in, and execute Truman in his residence. They never got that far, but that was the plan. Obviously, some people would plan it so a public assassination is not a necessity. Hank
	__________________ I have never ”refused” to provide evidence. I provide evidence if requested to do so in a specific and relevant manner. Hanks ”method” [of requesting evidence] is not going to [get me to] provide any evidence since it has a completely different purpose. To create the the illusion of me not providing evidence when requested to do so. - Manifesto

3rd September 2015, 12:19 PM	#112
HSienzant Illuminator Join Date: Dec 2011 Location: USA Posts: 4,394	Originally Posted by Robert Harris CE399 could not possibly have been the bullet that wounded Connally and probably JFK. John Connally himself, confirmed that the actual bullet was picked up by a nurse... Actually, John Connally confirmed no such thing. I've challenged you previously to post his testimony to that end and you punted each time, ignoring the challenge. The only thing you have is a hearsay statement purportedly from Connally that was published in a book. It's not evidence when it was published, it was not evidence when you read it, it was not evidence when you cited it, and it never will be evidence. It will always be hearsay. You have no evidence. You have hearsay. Originally Posted by Robert Harris And yes, there were fragments found in the limo which supposedly matched with Oswald's rifle, which might actually be from his rifle, but you can only be certain of that if you have a lot of unjustified faith in Mr. Hoover and his boys. Argumentum ad innuendo. You present no evidence that is the case, you simply allege it and expect us to accept the allegation as true. http://www.fallacydetective.com/news...tic-ad-hominem == QUOTE ==Innuendo is actually not a true logical fallacy, but more of a propaganda and manipulation technique. It tries to psychologically manipulate your opinions. "Innuendo" is used when indirect hints are dropped that something suspicious is afoot. Nothing is said out in the open, for fear they would actually have to back it up. == UNQUOTE == You can't back it up, so you merely suggest it's possible. Beyond that, you're accusing (or "innuendoing") the wrong group in any case. Secret Service agents found the fragments, not the FBI, and the Secret Service delivered it directly to FBI Agent Orrin Bartlett, who delivered it to FBI Agent Robert Frazier, according to his testimony (the two fragments in question are CE567 and CE569). Frazier did the examination, and he determined those fragments came from Oswald's rifle, to the exclusion of all other weapons in the world. http://jfkassassination.net/russ/testimony/frazr2.htm == QUOTE == Mr. SPECTER - Now, where, according to information provided to you then, was the fragment designated Commission Exhibit 567 found? Mr. FRAZIER - That was found by the Secret Service upon their examination of the limousine here in Washington when it first arrived from Dallas, and Commission No. 567 was delivered by Deputy Chief Paul Paterni and by a White House detail chief, Floyd M. Boring, to a liaison agent of the FBI, Orrin Bartlett, who delivered them to me in the laboratory at 11:50 p,m., on November 22, 1963. ... Mr. SPECTER - Would you state what the chain of possession was from the time of discovery of Exhibit 569 until the time it came into your possession, based on the records of the FBI, please, if you have those records available? Mr. FRAZIER - Yes, sir. It was delivered by Secret Service Deputy Chief Paul Paterni, and SAC of the White House detail Floyd M. Boring of the Secret Service again, to Special Agent Orrin Bartlett of the FBI who delivered it to me at 11:50 p.m. on November 22, 1963. == UNQUOTE == So let's be clear: When you accuse the FBI via innuendo of monkeying with the evidence and substituting two illegitimate fragments for the actual ones, you're actually accusing either Orrin Bartlett or Robert Frazier, or both, of very serious crimes. You have any evidence of that? Of course not. You're content to merely besmirch their reputations to advance your agenda. Again, you have no evidence. You have innuendo. We can do this for most every one of your claims. Hank
	__________________ I have never ”refused” to provide evidence. I provide evidence if requested to do so in a specific and relevant manner. Hanks ”method” [of requesting evidence] is not going to [get me to] provide any evidence since it has a completely different purpose. To create the the illusion of me not providing evidence when requested to do so. - Manifesto

3rd September 2015, 12:27 PM	#113
Robert Harris Muse Join Date: Jun 2015 Posts: 867	Originally Posted by HSienzant Because she isn't corroborated by Willis. Willis said the first shot was almost simultaneous with his slide #5. Willis #5 was taken at the equivalent of frame 202, more than a second prior to 223. Sorry Hank - still no cigar. Furthermore, it is easy to see that the shot was earlier than 202, because the Zapruder film proves that Jackie had already turned completely to her right and toward her husband by then. http://jfkhistory.com/z202.png His repeated statement that Jackie was turned to her left when that shot was fired, combined with her own statement that she was turned to the left, far outweighs his subjective opinion about slide #5, and it might be worth considering that that slide was worth a LOT more money if it was believed to have been simultaneous with the first shot. But this is a moot question anyway, since frame 202, was well before the shot at 223. Quote: Zapruder frame 202. That's closer to Z223 (by 1.1 second), than to Z150-Z160 (2.3 to 2.8 seconds). Sorry Hank. "Close" only counts in horse shoes and hand grenades. Willis claimed that the shot was fired at the same instant that he released the shutter, but that was untrue. As he correctly stated, he saw Jackie turned to her left when the first shot was fired and then saw her turn toward her husband, as he also stated (twice). It was after she turned, that he snapped slide #5. Quote: It's also when you believe the first shot struck the President, is it not (Zapruder frame 223)? OMG!! Are you actually going to argue that the shot was fired prior to 223?? Quote: Now, you can insist Willis missed the first shot by about three seconds, This has nothing to do with what I "insist". It has everything to do with the evidence. His own statements prove that he was not truthful when he said the first shot was simultaneous with him snapping #5. As I stated previously, the Zapruder film provides us with the ability to conclusively prove or disprove important witness statements. It proved that Nellie was correct and it proved that Phil Willis wasn't. Read his testimony. He goes on and on and on, trying to argue that #5 was simultaneous with the first shot. If that had been true, his photo would have been far more famous and valuable than it was. Quote: This is what I mean by being selective and cherry picking. Uh huh. And you choosing his subjective opinion which you ADMIT WAS WRONG, over his verified statement, made TWICE that he heard the shot while Jackie was still turned to her left, and the fact that she said exactly the same thing, is not something that you cherry picked?? The Zapruder film is an incredibly important filter for numerous witness statements. It not only tests for whether various events actually took place, but for WHEN they took place, which is often much more important. Quote: You ignore the evidence contrary to your view, I never ignore important evidence. I test it as best I can, to determine whether it is true. Quote: and you emphasize the evidence that supports your contentions. My "contentions" are the product of the evidence. I'm disappointed that you haven't figured that out by now. It's not just a fluke that I consistently present evidence to prove my assertions. Quote: You pretend Willis is a great witness, Utter nonsense. I evaluate what witnesses say and try to test their statements. If they can be verified, then they become "great" sentences:-) Quote: but according to your own arguments, he thought the first shot was almost simultaneous with his slide #5, I have no idea what he "thought". I only know what he said. Quote: but it was actually 2.3 to 2.8 seconds later, and NOT "almost simultaneous". The first shot was fired while Jackie, SA Hickey and SA Johns were turned to their left. Each of them turned to their right, well before 223, after they heard the first shot. Not only did they say that, but we can confirm in the Zapruder film that they did exactly what they claimed. And we can confirm that each of them did that prior to the shot at 223. And speaking of people who claimed that they turned from their left to their right in reaction to the first shot, another fellow said exactly that. His name was John Connally. Remember him? He stated that he heard the first shot and was hit by the second, but never heard the second shot. He also stated this: We had just made the turn, well, when I heard what I thought was a shot. I heard this noise which I immediately took to be a rifle shot. I instinctively turned to my right Gosh, let's see if he was telling the truth. What do you think, Hank? http://jfkhistory.com/jbcturns.gif That's FOUR witnesses who said they were looking to their left and turned in reaction to the first shot. And EVERY ONE OF THEM can be easily corroborated in the Zapruder film. Are you actually going to continue with this "theory" that there were a total of two shots?? "The driver did it", might be easier to defend. At least you would have an optical illusion to work with
Robert Harris Muse Join Date: Jun 2015 Posts: 867

3rd September 2015, 12:36 PM	#114
HSienzant Illuminator Join Date: Dec 2011 Location: USA Posts: 4,394	Originally Posted by HSienzant And, please go back to the very beginning of your ventures into this forum and tell us the evidence that puts Jim Braden as a conspirator. Be specific. I asked nearly two months ago and reminded you of my desire to see that evidence more than once. For example, I asked here: http://www.internationalskeptics.com...postcount=2572 Here are just some of the posts you made with claims about Braden: http://www.internationalskeptics.com...postcount=2526 http://www.internationalskeptics.com...postcount=2577 http://www.internationalskeptics.com...postcount=3930 http://www.internationalskeptics.com...7&postcount=18 None of your posts naming Braden contained any evidence - only assertions. I'd like to see the evidence - naming names, citing the testimony. Do you have any you intend to share? Hank Still waiting for Robert Harris to find the time to cite the evidence for his claims concerning Jim Braden. I've only been asking for two months and one day now. http://www.internationalskeptics.com...postcount=2097 Hank
	__________________ I have never ”refused” to provide evidence. I provide evidence if requested to do so in a specific and relevant manner. Hanks ”method” [of requesting evidence] is not going to [get me to] provide any evidence since it has a completely different purpose. To create the the illusion of me not providing evidence when requested to do so. - Manifesto

3rd September 2015, 01:58 PM	#115
Robert Harris Muse Join Date: Jun 2015 Posts: 867	Originally Posted by Tomtomkent My statement was perfectly true. We only have evidence for three bullets. Evidence for what? There is no evidence confirming that any of the shell casings found on the 6th floor were fired that day. You can't even prove that Oswald's rifle was fired then. Quote: Your speculation of what may or may not be a bullet on the Z film is not evidence of a suitable quality to convince. Nor to state as fact. It's not good enough to just blurt something like that out. You need to present evidence or at least, some kind of reasoning to support your accusations. How do you explain the fact that "most" witnesses, according to the WC, heard two closely bunched shots at the end of the attack? That includes all of the nonvictims in the limousine. How do you explain the loud and startling noise at frame 285, which provoked three people to duck, while two others spun around and away from the probable source of that shot, at enormous speed? I don't believe there are any plausible, alternative explanations; do you? And how do you explain the absence of similar reactions to the early shots? Why don't we see people simultaneously ducking, spinning around, shielding their ears etc? You will find NO Secret Service agents acting, no witnesses screaming, diving to the ground or anything else that is consistent with reactions to 130 decibel, high powered rifle shots until AFTER frame 285. How do you explain that? How do you explain all the happy, smiling faces in the Altgens photo, after at least two, high powered rifle shots had supposedly been fired?? And how do you explain why most of the witnesses only heard one of the early shots? It is ludicrous to think that the early shots came from a high powered rifle - Oswald's or anyone else's. Quote: Erm, the final destination is not the key. We have evidence of three bullets being fired. Not from the z film, but from bullet casings. Sorry, but that argument doesn't improve with repetition. If you can't prove they were fired on 11/22/63, then you need to go back to the drawing board. Quote: Of the probable impact points, the gantry is the most likely: hannel.nationalgeographic.com/explorer/galleries/explorer-jfk-the-lost-bullet-pictures/at/triple-underpass-39917/ I have no idea what you mean, stating the "gantry" is the most likely impact point. But Holland is not a competent researcher. His theory has been refuted, even by nutters like Gary Mack and Dale Myers. Myers, one of the more radical of the LN advocates, reviewed that documentary in considerable detail at his blog. http://jfkfiles.blogspot.com/2012/01...lland-and.html Holland's greatest achievement in his documentary, was to con (or bribe) Amos Euins to totally reverse his Warren Commission testimony in which he said he heard four shots and reported seeing an older, balding man with a rifle. He originally, told a reporter that he thought the sniper was a black man. But after Max got through with him, he was an absolutely perfect, PC, three shot witness who was sure he saw Oswald in that window. To put it another way, Holland is not just incompetent; he is thoroughly lacking in integrity. And you will find many LNers who feel the same way I do about that. Quote: But I don't care what you think you see or don't see in the Z film. There were three spent shell casings. Ergo we have evidence of three shots. That's the third time you have repeated that argument. Maybe it will come true after five or six more?? Quote: Firstly, that is not why I asked for the evidence. I did not state why you asked for evidence. I asked why you didn't ask for good evidence, rather than a specific evidence type. Quote: Secondly, I have not been specific. I will accept any physical evidence of more bullets being fired. Oops! Now you're back to selectively demanding a single type of evidence. Why don't you just ask for good evidence - scientific, empirical and corroborated witness testimony, etc? Quote: Signs of the bullets themselves, casings left, a hole left by their impact. I have left a wide open goal. No sir. You have deliberately selected a solitary evidence type, because you don't think I have it. That's great gamesmanship, but a lousy way to resolve important issues. Why don't you just address the evidence and arguments I presented? You can start with this one from my previous post, which you have not addressed: There is however, rock solid, hard evidence that the bullet which hit JFK and Connally was not fired from Oswald's rifle. That includes the hard evidence that CE399 was not the bullet that was found by Daryl Tomlinson and was not the bullet that wounded John Connally. You can read about it in this article as well as in my recent discussion with Hank. http://jfkhistory.com/bell/bellarticle/BellArticle.html Don't you think you should also be concerned about the scientific evidence, produced by two of the top scientists in the U.S, who found that there was a loud and startling noise which took place at precisely the instant the limo passengers as well as Abraham Zapruder, reacted? Why aren't you asking me about the empirical evidence of three people simultaneously ducking, while two others spun away from the probable source of that shot, all in the same 1/6th of one second? Don't you want to know why that happened? http://jfkhistory.com/ducking.gif There are no verifiable bullets that have ever been entered into evidence. CE399 was obviously, not fired during the assassination. However, there was a lead smear discovered on the Main St. curbing, which was believed to have been from the bullet that caused debris to fly into the face of James Tague, nicking his cheek and causing a trickle of blood. That bullet was almost certainly, the one fired at 285, which was the second audible shot, as Tague himself, stated. Likewise, Bill Greer felt the "concussion" from the shock wave of what he described as the "second shot". That is precisely what he should have felt from the passing, supersonic bullet. The shot missed JFK and went on to shatter on the pavement, breaking apart and sending a chunk of lead to strike the Main St. curbing and a tiny piece of debris to nick Tague. The "hard evidence" alone, is enough to prove that Oswald was not the only shooter. The scientific and empirical evidence makes that a certainty beyond any possible doubt.
Robert Harris Muse Join Date: Jun 2015 Posts: 867

3rd September 2015, 06:38 PM	#116
Robert Harris Muse Join Date: Jun 2015 Posts: 867	Originally Posted by RoboTimbo Patently untrue. Nobody has ever made a case for any shots other than those fired by Oswald. Sorry Robo, but I don't have time for ridiculous, unproven assertions, which is pretty much all you've posted in this last message. Justify your claims with evidence and reason, and I will be happy to respond.
Robert Harris Muse Join Date: Jun 2015 Posts: 867