The Single Bullet Theory
Robert Harris
controversial, is that the arguments of both conspiracy deniers and
supporters, contain flaws that are so obvious, that they are each
infuriated by the others apparent stupidity.
The SBT is a classic example of that. CT's try to claim Connally was
wounded at a point well after JFK. But visually, there seems to be
little doubt that they were hit simultaneously.
But there are problems with the govt's position too. In addition to the
fact, that no-one heard the shot at 223, and despite the best efforts of
Dale Myer, the angles really don't work very well, for a shot from the
6th floor.
These two videos offer another explanation which I believe, make
infinitely more sense, especially, if you have some sense of geometry
and probability. See if you don't agree:
http://youtube.com/watch?v=qa1C_gwSFMY
and this addendum:
http://youtube.com/watch?v=zXYvZ_--ZFA&watch_response
Robert Harris
cdddraftsman
> (Snipped)
mag30th wrote to me in a e-mail :
Re: Re: Cosmosity, LonelyNutter, bobharris77
Just an update, Bob has created a youtube account with the handle "Mag3
(then the LETTER O instead of the number zero) and is posting as through
he is me.
I just thought Id give you the heads-up on that, I didnt want you to
see his posts and think I was slipping in the head or anything.
Here is his comment he posted and it is on his video titled Re:
Questions for Robert Harris's JFK assassination "theory":
mag3Oth
Hell, I ain't stoopid.I no there was a conspiracy. and ive been lying
my ass off about the assasinatiun.
I didnt do it fer money though i done it for sexual favers from tom
lowry. dam! it was good - even though I coudnt sit fer a week,
heehee.
I'm gonna have to keep attakin ya though, othewise no nookie for me,
heehee.
Sorry, harris I removed your answers and blocked ya cause none of my
friends can handle yer arguments anymore.
Maggie
end .......................................
Hope all's well.
Mag30th.
Robert Harris
<4482088e-1bab-4905...@d4g2000prg.googlegroups.com>,
cdddraftsman <cdddra...@yahoo.com> wrote:
Hmm.. yes, you were indeed, posting something about gay, anal sex.
That's when I finally blocked you, and removed that message.
But I am quite sure that it actually came from you, Ernest. That
definitely, was a "0". Maybe you were drinking a bit much that night:-)
Please understand, I am not homophobic. I think consenting adults can do
whatever they like. But the vulgar, gay stuff is not really appropriate
in a JFK forum.
I'm sorry if that offended you.
And BTW, there was nothing about "conspiracy" or JFK in your message. If
you really want to repeat your message, then do it accurately.
Robert Harris
cdddraftsman
> (Snipped)
Besides posting as Cosmosity, LonelyNutter, bobharris77 .....Robert
Harris has also posted under the name ReggieArnold and many other
names to try to infiltrate by spamming various video's on YouTube by
asking Ben Ulm's 3rd grader type questions .
Questions that get thoughally answered but he keeps repeating them
because he doen't like the answers provided to him .
This Bob Harris has also posted under various ages ( 60 23 & 19 )
like
some one here that we are all familar with .
It was noted at aaj by several posters that the New Bob Harris looks
nothing like the Old Bob Harris which has caused some concern that
the
JFK forum's are being spammed by a person :
Who is mentally unbalanced , the only type of person who could come
up
with multi-various explanations to a event that could have only one
possible explanation .
A person who's job it is to spread fear that our country has been
taken over by a ' hidden handed government ' , delivered by the
paranoid messenger .
A person who seditiously spreads by rumor mongering that ' All is not
right ' to mask his low , flagging and/or non-existent self esteem ,
at the same time oblivious that he may be causing others , even more
mentally unbalanced as himself to cause harm to innocent people .
Again reminicent of someone here who goes by the various handles of
robcrap , justin , justins mom , a person who has also varied his
age .
I'm also curious why Robert Harris would accuse me of being Ernest
(mag30th) here , but not accuse mag30th of being me at YouTube .
The whole psycho-drama sounds kind of nutty to me .
But then again what isn't nutty about a bunch of illiterate
hillbillys
going around shooting their mouths off about something they have
to invent evidence and testimony in order to support ?
Eh Roboharris ?
tl
yeuhd
> But there are problems with the govt's position too. In addition to the
> fact, that no-one heard the shot at 223, and despite the best efforts of
> Dale Myer, the angles really don't work very well, for a shot from the
> 6th floor.
Can you explain what you mean by "no one heard the shot at [frame]
223"?
Dale Myers (with an "s") isn't the only one to find the alignment
pointing to the 6th floor window. The HSCA also conducted a trajectory
analysis:
http://www.aarclibrary.org/publib/jfk/hsca/reportvols/vol6/html/HSCA_Vol6_0019b.htm
Conclusions
Kennedy's head wounds. -- The bullet that caused Kennedy's head wounds
at Zapruder frame 312 came from a point 29˙ to the right of true north
from the President. The bullet was descending at an angle of 16˙ below
horizontal as it approached him. This trajectory intercepted the plane
of the Texas School Book Depository approximately 11 feet west of the
southeast corner of the building at a point 15 feet above the sixth
floor windowsills.
Kennedy's back and neck wounds. -- The bullet that caused President
Kennedy's back and neck wounds came from a point 26˙ to the right of
true north from the President. It was descending at an angle of 21˙
below horizontal as it approached him. Extending this trajectory from
the position President Kennedy occupied at the time of Zapruder frame
190, the trajectory intercepted the plane of the Texas School Book
Depository approximately 11 feet west of the southeast corner and 2
feet flower than the sixth floor windowsill....
Given the position of the two men at the time of Zapruder frame 190,
the trajectory intercepted the plane of the Texas School Book
Depository 2 feet west of the southeast corner and 9 feet above the
sixth floor windowsill. Because this trajectory falls within the
trajectory range established when President Kennedy's back-neck wounds
are used as the reference points for the trajectory line, the Plane
concludes that the relative alignment of President Kennedy and
Governor Connally within the limousine is consistent with the single
bullet theory. Further, since each of these trajectories intersects
the plane of the Texas School Book Depository in the vicinity of the
southeast corner of the sixth and seventh floors, it is highly
probable that the bullets were fired from a location within this
section of the building.
Robert Harris
I'm sorry CD. That message really did come from Mag30th, which we all
know, is you.
I deleted it because it was vulgar and was not appropriate in a JFK
forum. I'm sorry if that made you angry, but you should have known
better.
Robert Harris
In article
<b866f107-05e0-40d1...@q39g2000hsf.googlegroups.com>,
David Von Pein
Robert Harris' YouTube video of 12/25/07, linked below.....
http://youtube.com/watch?v=qa1C_gwSFMY
In that video, Bob shows a turned-sideways picture of this JFK autopsy
photograph....
http://www.jfklancer.com/photos/autopsy_slideshow/images/BE5_HI.jpg
....with a circle drawn around the lower defect on JFK's back (below
the actual bullet hole), with Bob narrating that the bottom defect is
the real bullet hole.
But a careful look at the defect in Bob's video reveals that the image
in the video has definitely been "touched up" to add a more "bullet
hole-like" appearance to the defect (which is really only dried blood
on the President's back and not a "hole" at all).
There's no way that the defect as represented in Bob's video looks the
same as the more-undefined, not-as-circular defect we see in an
untouched-up autopsy picture, like this one here:
http://www.jfklancer.com/photos/autopsy_slideshow/images/BE5_HI.jpg
I'm not sure why, but the picture of the defect in Bob's video is
definitely not accurate (based on the autopsy pic from JFK-Lancer's
site above).
cdddraftsman
When a bullet just like Commission Exhibit 399 is fired through a
human wrist bone at 2,000 feed per second, it is almost certain to be
badly mangled. But when CE 399 hit Connally's wrist it had been slowed
by transiting Kennedy's torso and tumbling through Connally's chest.
When it finally hit the hard radius bone, it was traveling about 1,000
feet per second.
Dr. Martin Fackler, President of the International Wound Ballistics
Association, fired a round identical to Oswald's bullet through a
human wrist at 1,100 feet per second. Here is the resulting bullet :
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/bullet1.jpg
Dr. John K. Lattimer has also fired bullets with similar results as
shown below :
Prof. Rahn :
Was the "pristine" bullet really pristine? :
There is hardly a topic about the JFK assassination that is more
distorted than the nature of CE 399, the nearly whole bullet found on
a stretcher in Parkland Hospital. It is often called the "magic
bullet" or the "pristine bullet." This essay shows that both these
terms are false and highly misleading. The bullet was neither magic
nor pristine. In fact, it was significantly distorted.
CE 399 usually shown from the side, like this :
http://tinypic.com/view.php?pic=836l3dx&s=1
This view makes it seem undistorted. However, when viewed from the
bottom end,
it is seen to be distinctly distorted :
http://tinypic.com/fullsize.php?pic=8fyorvs&s=1&capwidth=false
(Image from Kennedy and Lincoln, by Dr. John K. Lattimer)
As Dr. John K. Lattimer has stated, to distort a full-metal jacketed
bullet like this requires viselike forces. This bullet is anything but
pristine! These forces acted on the bullet as it sliced into the two
men's bodies at initial speeds of about 1800 feet per second.
But aren't such deformations far less than would be expected for a
bullet smashing into a body? In other words, isn't CE 399 deformed too
little to have passed through one or two human bodies? Contemporary
ballistic data give the lie to this claim as well. The photos below
show the progressive deformation of full-metal jacketed bullets as the
are shot into gelatin (similar to human flesh) at speeds from 474
meters per second to 977 meters per second. Note how they remain
intact up to 652 meters per second. At speeds of 769 meters per
second, they break apart at the seam in the middle, and eventually
disintegrate into many pieces large and small :
http://tinypic.com/view.php?pic=869vn6t&s=1
(Image from page 176 of Wound Ballistics and the Scientific
Background, by Karl G. Sellier and Beat P. Kneubuehl, Elsevier 1994)
The picture below shows a better view of the ends of this same kind
of bullet, with speeds of impact (left to right) of 600 m/s, 630 m/s,
670 m/s, 690 m/s, and 710 m/s. Note how similar the second and third
cases look to CE 399. This is not surprising, since the impact
velocity of the second case, 630 m/s, is 2070 feet per, second, which
is very similar to CE 399's 1800 feet per second. Thus, in spite of
all the strong claims made about CE 399, it does not seem unusual at
all :
http://tinypic.com/fullsize.php?pic=85lkmd3&s=1&capwidth=false
(Image from page 177 of Sellier and Kneubuehl)
To be fair, we must note that CE 399 seems more somewhat deformed
for its speed than the test bullets shown above. This is because CE
399 entered JFK's back at something of an angle, not perpendicular the
way these test bullets were fired. The more of an angle, the more the
bullet will be distorted.
But can a Mannlicher-Carcano bullet penetrate two men? Easily, for
that's what it was designed to do. According to the Geneva Convention
of 1925, military bullets are to pass through soldiers and wound, not
to disintegrate inside them and kill. If you have any doubts about the
penetrating power of a Mannlicher-Carcano bullet, consider the photo
below, which shows experiments run by Dr. Lattimer and Dr. John
Nichols :
http://tinypic.com/view.php?pic=81sskeg&s=1
(Image from Lattimer's book)
Note the the bullets penetrated two feet of tough elm and four feet
(!) of Ponderosa pine. And they still weren't deformed significantly.
As the Garrison character in JFK said, "That's some bullet!"
Another argument centering on the "pristine" character of CE 399 is
that it had lost too many fragments to have passed through both men. A
strange argument, indeed, for it is now invoking the LACK of pristine
character (like having pristinity both ways). Again, Lattimer's
experiments give the lie. The pictures below show one of their test
bullets fired through a close approximation to a human cadaver. As
with 399, some lead was squeezed out the base. As opposed to Dr.
Finck, who claimed that CE 399 could not have passed through the men
because it had shed four fragments, Lattimer's test bullet yielded 41
(!) fragments from the same two grains of lead that CE 399 had lost :
http://tinypic.com/view.php?pic=8ektpol&s=1
(Image from Lattimer's book)
In summary, we have here a case where truth is stranger than
fiction. CE 399, far from being the unbelievable bullet that the JFK
critical movement claims, actually behaved totally normally as it
passed with ease through two bodies and did exactly what it was
designed to do. There is NO MYSTERY associated with CE 399. The term
"magic bullet" is false and highly misleading. Students of JFK should
never again utter these words.
The Academic JFK Assassination Site
Stressing physical evidence and critical thinking
http://karws.gso.uri.edu/JFK/JFK.html
Prof. Kenneth Rahn
cdddraftsman
When a bullet just like Commission Exhibit 399 is fired
justm...@gmail.com
> On Jan 10, 11:05 pm, Robert Harris <reharr...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > But there are problems with the govt's position too. In addition to the
> > fact, that no-one heard the shot at 223, and despite the best efforts of
> > Dale Myer, the angles really don't work very well, for a shot from the
> > 6th floor.
>
> Can you explain what you mean by "no one heard the shot at [frame]
> 223"?
>
> Dale Myers (with an "s") isn't the only one to find the alignment
> pointing to the 6th floor window. The HSCA also conducted a trajectory
>
> Conclusions
>
> Kennedy's head wounds. -- The bullet that caused Kennedy's head wounds
> from the President. The bullet was descending at an angle of 16ÿ below
> horizontal as it approached him. This trajectory intercepted the plane
> of the Texas School Book Depository approximately 11 feet west of the
> southeast corner of the building at a point 15 feet above the sixth
> floor windowsills.
>
> Kennedy's back and neck wounds. -- The bullet that caused President
> true north from the President. It was descending at an angle of 21ÿ
> below horizontal as it approached him. Extending this trajectory from
> the position President Kennedy occupied at the time of Zapruder frame
> 190, the trajectory intercepted the plane of the Texas School Book
> Depository approximately 11 feet west of the southeast corner and 2
> feet flower than the sixth floor windowsill....
>
> Given the position of the two men at the time of Zapruder frame 190,
> the trajectory intercepted the plane of the Texas School Book
> Depository 2 feet west of the southeast corner and 9 feet above the
> sixth floor windowsill. Because this trajectory falls within the
> trajectory range established when President Kennedy's back-neck wounds
> are used as the reference points for the trajectory line, the Plane
> concludes that the relative alignment of President Kennedy and
> Governor Connally within the limousine is consistent with the single
> bullet theory. Further, since each of these trajectories intersects
> the plane of the Texas School Book Depository in the vicinity of the
> southeast corner of the sixth and seventh floors, it is highly
> probable that the bullets were fired from a location within this
> section of the building.
This should be interesting...Harris and Jesus plugging their videos,
Harris and Jesus using numerous screen names to praise
themselves...Harris and Jesus both worthless CT's misleading readers
with their implications and retarded theories. The CT brothers unite,
now we have 6 stooges.
Jesus
Harris
Holmes
Rossley
Walt
and last but not least, the ignorant queen of copy and paste...Healy
ROFLMAO what a lineup.
bigdog
Bob, while you exhibit a rationality that is rare for a CT, I see several
problems with your arguments. Let's start with your diagram of Connally's
position at Z223 in order for him to be alligned for a bullet from the
TSBD. I can't put a lot of faith in a two dimensional overhead view of
JBC's head and shoulders as represented by a couple of ovals. A human body
is a liitle more complicated than that. It can twist, turn, and lean and
any small movement can radically change the angles in question. Whereas
your diagram shows JBC would have to have been sitting off the left side
of the seat, in fact his lower body could have remained centered while his
upper body leaned slightly to his left as he was looking over his right
shoulder. Myers 3-D recreation represents JBC's complete body and shows
that the wounds will line up for a shot from the TSBD without putting JBC
in any unusual position (i.e. sitting off the left side of the seat).
Secondly, I can't imagine a professional shooter chooing a 3rd floor
window of the Dal-Tex building as you hypothesize. You overlook the fact
that shooting from there would require firing through the railings of the
fire escape. While that is certainly possible to do, it creates a problem
no shooter would want. A shooter wants a clear line of fire so he can
squeeze the shot off when he chooses and not be force to fire while his
target is free from the obstructions.
Lastly, have you bothered to check as to who the tenant was of the 3rd
floor of the Dal-Tex building and whether a shooter could have known ahead
of time that the floor would be free of any onlookers. If that floor was
not clear of bystanders and the shooter could not have known ahead of time
that it would be, your argument collapses.
Robert Harris
<115df3aa-686e-424b...@q39g2000hsf.googlegroups.com>,
yeuhd <wal...@mailbag.com> wrote:
> On Jan 10, 11:05 pm, Robert Harris <reharr...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > But there are problems with the govt's position too. In addition to the
> > fact, that no-one heard the shot at 223, and despite the best efforts of
> > Dale Myer, the angles really don't work very well, for a shot from the
> > 6th floor.
>
> Can you explain what you mean by "no one heard the shot at [frame]
> 223"?
That's an excellent question.
The Warren Commission concluded that "most" witnesses who expressed an
opinion on the subject, recalled a single shot, followed by a delay, and
then two closely bunched shots at the end of the attack.
Their conclusion is easily confirmed by a study of the witnesses.
But most analysts agree, that there is visual evidence of shots fired
around Z160 and Z223. If there was only one other shot at 312-313, then
the pattern should have been the opposite of the witness conclusion.
That is, the first two would have been noticeably closer together than
the last shots.
Are you still with me?
Also, most witnesses who described the first shot, said it was different
than the others. It was not as loud and it was more like a
"firecracker". Many, probably most, did NOT believe it was a gunshot at
the time they heard it.
SA Hickey, riding just behind the President said it sounded like it came
from "street level", which makes sense, because many analysts agree that
the first shot missed the entire limousine and struck the pavement to
the right of the President.
I am quite certain that the ONLY audible sound that shot generated, was
when it hit the pavement and shattered, causing the "firecracker" sound
that the witnesses heard.
I am equally certain, that that shot was fired from a weapon that bore a
suppressor. Suppressors, or silencors are notorious, for causing
misfires and wildly inaccurate shots - exactly as happened then.
The second shot, which passed through both JFK and JBC of course, did
not hit the pavement, and so it was not heard by anyone.
That's why the witnesses only heard ONE noise prior to the very end of
the attack, and why Governor Connally said he never heard the shot that
hit him.
And why Bill Greer only reported only a single noise and then near
simultaneous shots at the very end.
And why Kellerman heard only a single shot, and then a "flurry" at the
end.
And why Nellie heard a single noise, and then thought her husband was
hit by a second shot, well after she saw JFK in distress.
And why Mrs. Kennedy said remembered hearing a "second" and "third"shot
AFTER Governor Connally started shouting.
The first two shots were fired from a silenced weapon, yeuhd. That is
not a theory. You can take it to the bank. The first shot misfired and
the bullet hit the pavement. The second shot did not, so it was unheard
by anyone on the ground.
>
> Dale Myers (with an "s") isn't the only one to find the alignment
> pointing to the 6th floor window. The HSCA also conducted a trajectory
> analysis:
> http://www.aarclibrary.org/publib/jfk/hsca/reportvols/vol6/html/HSCA_Vol6_0019
> b.htm
Fourteen years ago, I repeatedly challenged this man in ACJ, to reveal
the angles he used to claim that trajectory pointed straight back to
Oswald. He evaded me over and over and over again.
To the best of my knowledge, he has NEVER discussed the angles. And
that's because he severely misrepresented them in his videos, and
contradicted known measurements.
Look at my vids and notice that the HSCA had to shove Connally much too
far to his left, to make the CORRECT angle work. Also, they had to posit
an entry at the neckline, which is ludicrous.
http://youtube.com/watch?v=qa1C_gwSFMY
and this addendum:
http://youtube.com/watch?v=zXYvZ_--ZFA&watch_response
Myers simply ignores the angles and places his subjects wherever they
look best. In a recent Discovery Channel production, he has JFK and JBC
in an almost straight line, and nowhere near where the HSCA placed them.
I first came across Myers "work" in an ancient Amiga publication, circa
'93 or '94. His article was lifted almost word for word from *Case
Closed*, right down to his description of little Rosemary Willis.
Myers "researches" the case like a used car salesman "researches" that
'82 Yugo he's trying to sell you:-)
Look at my video. I compare with an actual drawing produced by the HSCA,
and calculated from the surveyor's diagram. By 223, the angle shifted a
little, but negligibly. It is still nowhere near the 2 degrees, which is
correct.
PLEASE watch my vids with an open mind. If you find any errors, don't
hesitate to tell me about it. And thanks again for the excellent
questions.
Robert Harris
Spiffy_one
>
> > But there are problems with the govt's position too. In addition to the
> > fact, that no-one heard the shot at 223, and despite the best efforts of
> > Dale Myer, the angles really don't work very well, for a shot from the
> > 6th floor.
>
> Can you explain what you mean by "no one heard the shot at [frame]
> 223"?
>
> Dale Myers (with an "s") isn't the only one to find the alignment
> pointing to the 6th floor window. The HSCA also conducted a trajectory
>
> Conclusions
>
> Kennedy's head wounds. -- The bullet that caused Kennedy's head wounds
> from the President. The bullet was descending at an angle of 16ÿ below
> horizontal as it approached him. This trajectory intercepted the plane
> of the Texas School Book Depository approximately 11 feet west of the
> southeast corner of the building at a point 15 feet above the sixth
> floor windowsills.
>
> Kennedy's back and neck wounds. -- The bullet that caused President
> true north from the President. It was descending at an angle of 21ÿ
> below horizontal as it approached him. Extending this trajectory from
> the position President Kennedy occupied at the time of Zapruder frame
> 190, the trajectory intercepted the plane of the Texas School Book
> Depository approximately 11 feet west of the southeast corner and 2
> feet flower than the sixth floor windowsill....
>
> Given the position of the two men at the time of Zapruder frame 190,
> the trajectory intercepted the plane of the Texas School Book
> Depository 2 feet west of the southeast corner and 9 feet above the
> sixth floor windowsill. Because this trajectory falls within the
> trajectory range established when President Kennedy's back-neck wounds
> are used as the reference points for the trajectory line, the Plane
> concludes that the relative alignment of President Kennedy and
> Governor Connally within the limousine is consistent with the single
> bullet theory. Further, since each of these trajectories intersects
> the plane of the Texas School Book Depository in the vicinity of the
> southeast corner of the sixth and seventh floors, it is highly
> probable that the bullets were fired from a location within this
> section of the building.
But there are problems with the govt's position too. In addition to the
fact, that no-one heard the shot at 223, and despite the best efforts of
Dale Myer, the angles really don't work very well, for a shot from the 6th
floor.
An absolute total and blatant lie, so what's new?
r2bz...@sbcglobal.net
***Zapruder said he heard a shot and saw JFK slump over. Nellie
Connally said she heard a shot and turned around to see JFK with his
hands at his throat.
Zapruder's camera jumped at Z227.
Andrew Mason
yeuhd wrote:
On Jan 10, 11:05 pm, Robert Harris <reharr...@yahoo.com> wrote:But there are problems with the govt's position too. In addition to the fact, that no-one heard the shot at 223, and despite the best efforts of Dale Myer, the angles really don't work very well, for a shot from the 6th floor.Can you explain what you mean by "no one heard the shot at [frame] 223"?
Andrew Mason
Gerry Simone (O)
No, I still don't believe that they were hit simultaneously at 223.
Kennedy emerges from behind the sign with his mouth already and fully
open. He's already reacting, which means he was already (and previously)
hit.
I will check out your videos.
"Robert Harris" <reha...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:reharris1-222B9...@70-3-168-216.area5.spcsdns.net...
jas
Interesting, but unfortunately the problem here is there exists no
hard evidence of a shot from 3rd floor Dal-Tex. All the evidence
points to the TSBD. I think in order to carefully and successfully
study this case one has to look at *all* the evidence, and how it all
ties together, as with any crime scene being argued in court. It's
one thing to float any theory one may conjure up, but it's another to
successfully measure that theory against the weight of the evidence of
the shot coming from the 6th floor southeast window of the TSBD. This
guy's argument just doesn't hold up.
Given all the hard evidence put together, CE399 had to have come from
6th floor TSBD per the WC. The trajectories line up-- Dale Meyers for
one proved it.
Robert Harris
> On Jan 10, 11:05 pm, Robert Harris <reharr...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > But there are problems with the govt's position too. In addition to the
> > fact, that no-one heard the shot at 223, and despite the best efforts of
> > Dale Myer, the angles really don't work very well, for a shot from the
> > 6th floor.
>
> Can you explain what you mean by "no one heard the shot at [frame]
> 223"?
That's an excellent question.
And why Bill Greer only reported single noise and then near simultaneous
shots at the very end.
And why Kellerman heard a single shot, and then a "flurry" at the end.
And why Nellie heard a single noise, and then thought her husband was
hit by a second shot, well after she saw JFK in distress.
And why Mrs. Kennedy said remembered hearing a "second" and "third"shot
AFTER Governor Connally started shouting.
The first two shots were fired from a silenced weapon, yeuhd. That is
not a theory. You can take it to the bank. The first shot misfired and
the bullet hit the pavement. The second shot did not, and it was unheard
by anyone on the ground.
>
> Dale Myers (with an "s") isn't the only one to find the alignment
> pointing to the 6th floor window. The HSCA also conducted a trajectory
> analysis:
> http://www.aarclibrary.org/publib/jfk/hsca/reportvols/vol6/html/HSCA_Vol6_0019
> b.htm
Fourteen years ago, I repeatedly challenged this man in ACJ, to reveal
the angles he used to claim that trajectory pointed straight back to
Oswald. He evaded me over and over and over again.
To the best of my knowledge, he has NEVER discussed the angles. And
that's because he severely misrepresented them in his videos, and
contradicted known measurements.
Look at my vids and notice that the HSCA had to shove Connally much too
far to his left, to make the CORRECT angle work. Also, they had to posit
an entry at the neckline, which is ludicrous.
http://youtube.com/watch?v=qa1C_gwSFMY
and this addendum:
http://youtube.com/watch?v=zXYvZ_--ZFA&watch_response
Myers simply ignores the angles and places his subjects wherever they
yeuhd
> The first two shots were fired from a silenced weapon, yeuhd. That is
> not a theory. You can take it to the bank. The first shot misfired and
> the bullet hit the pavement. The second shot did not, so it was unheard
> by anyone on the ground.
Yet 76.7% of earwitnesses who gave testimony about the number of shots
said that they heard three shots, not two. Yes, this 76.7% supermajority
of earwitnesses could be wrong, but then, so could they be wrong about the
spacing of the shots.
As for your theory (yes, I say theory) about a silencer on a rifle, does
your theory require one rifle or two? One shooter or two? One location or
two? Because 99 of 104 earwitnesses who gave testimony as to the direction
of the shots said that all shots came from one location. Yes, this
supermajority could be wrong ... well, you know the rest.
tomnln
<justm...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:b3e69a4c-3710-4977...@p69g2000hsa.googlegroups.com...
This should be interesting...Harris and Jesus plugging their videos,
Harris and Jesus using numerous screen names to praise
themselves...Harris and Jesus both worthless CT's misleading readers
with their implications and retarded theories. The CT brothers unite,
now we have 6 stooges.
Jesus
Harris
Holmes
Rossley
Walt
and last but not least, the ignorant queen of copy and paste...Healy
ROFLMAO what a lineup.
**********
If it's any consolation to you justme;
You probably aren't the only CUNT on the LN'r side.
You may be the BIGGEST but, not neccessarily the only one.
START here>>>
http://whokilledjfk.net/PROVEN%20LIES.htm
http://whokilledjfk.net/CASE%20DISMISSED.htm
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Walt
Dale Myers proved only that he knew how to load garbage into a
computer.
.- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
Robert Harris
<285438d9-152c-4a0a...@h11g2000prf.googlegroups.com>,
cdddraftsman <cdddra...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> On Jan 10, 8:05 pm, Robert Harris <reharr...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > I have long believed that the main reason this case has been so
> > controversial, is that the arguments of both conspiracy deniers and
> > supporters, contain flaws that are so obvious, that they are each
> > infuriated by the others apparent stupidity.
> >
> > The SBT is a classic example of that. CT's try to claim Connally was
> > wounded at a point well after JFK. But visually, there seems to be
> > little doubt that they were hit simultaneously.
> >
> > But there are problems with the govt's position too. In addition to the
> > fact, that no-one heard the shot at 223, and despite the best efforts of
> > Dale Myer, the angles really don't work very well, for a shot from the
> > 6th floor.
> >
> > These two videos offer another explanation which I believe, make
> > infinitely more sense, especially, if you have some sense of geometry
> > and probability. See if you don't agree:
> >
> > http://youtube.com/watch?v=qa1C_gwSFMY
> >
> > and this addendum:
> >
> > http://youtube.com/watch?v=zXYvZ_--ZFA&watch_response
> >
> > Robert Harris
>
> When a bullet just like Commission Exhibit 399 is fired through a
> human wrist bone at 2,000 feed per second, it is almost certain to be
> badly mangled.
Ernesta, it is hard to decide which is stupider - you, or a pile of
fresh manure.
You JUST posted a citation from Connally's autobiography, in which he
confirmed that the actual bullet fell out of his thigh, inside an
examining room, and was retrieved by a nurse.
That bullet could NOT have been CE-399, since the FBI took a DIFFERENT
bullet back to their lab. They took the bullet that was found out in the
hallway, next to several stretchers, and obviously, was from a totally
different victim.
Do you get it yet??
So, we have NO clue about the condition of the real bullet.
Once again, Ernesta, you have proven that you are MUCH better at
shooting yourself in the foot, than shooting at containers of jello.
Robert Harris
Andrew Mason
> On Jan 11, 11:43 pm, Robert Harris <reharr...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>>The first two shots were fired from a silenced weapon, yeuhd. That is
>>not a theory. You can take it to the bank. The first shot misfired and
>>the bullet hit the pavement. The second shot did not, so it was unheard
>>by anyone on the ground.
>
>
> Yet 76.7% of earwitnesses who gave testimony about the number of shots
> said that they heard three shots, not two. Yes, this 76.7% supermajority
> of earwitnesses could be wrong, but then, so could they be wrong about the
> spacing of the shots.
They cannot be wrong without a common reason. The statistical
signficance of the distribution of witness recollection on three shots
is just too high.
A common reason could be that they had all heard on the radio. Studies
show that suggestions will affect a witness' recollection but not by
very much and the effect diminishes pretty rapidly after the suggestion
is made. Another reason could be that they were all told to say three
shots by the police/FBI. It is pretty hard to imagine that occurred,
especially since no one has ever come forward and said it occurred.
The same goes for the shot pattern.
So any theory based on the number of shots being other than three or the
spacing being other than 1.....2...3 is a theory not based on the facts.
Andrew Mason
thali...@hotmail.com
>
> - Show quoted text -
It's interesting that it isn't discussed very often in the
assassination literature, who the tenants were in the Dal-Tex building
and what witnesses were there. I have seen a photo of the man sitting
on the stairs in the Dal-Tex building visibly reacting to a shot - who
was this man? Is his testimony on the record?
I have just watched Robert Harris Youtube videos and I have to say I
am very impressed. In particular I have never believed in the SBT
because the bullet hole in Kennedy's back was too low, as well as the
C399 bullet being too rediculous for words. The trajectory makes much
more sense from the Dal-Tex building.
thali...@hotmail.com
> In article
> <115df3aa-686e-424b-b7ef-28ac24081...@q39g2000hsf.googlegroups.com>,
Well done Robert, I am most impressed with your work. Some of the
things that didn't add up are starting to add up in my mind now. You
realise your work puts you in the basket as a CT believer now?
In one of your videos you mention you believe LHO was involved in the
assassination but not as a shooter and you will explain futher in
another video. I couldn't find that video, is it yet to be posted? I
am of the mind that LHO was a "patsy" as he claimed, but you might be
able to persuade me otherwise. I try to keep an open mind on
everything to do with the case.
Thalia :-)
thali...@hotmail.com
>
> - Show quoted text -
You rely too much on "hard" evidence. There isn't actually all that
much that adds up when you look at the case in a more than superficial
way. Anyway, it is alway the "hard" evidence that is planted at scenes
when there is a set-up (because it is the easiest to manipulate.)
Robert Harris
<9e9018ec-0b57-4400...@l6g2000prm.googlegroups.com>,
jas <lle...@gmail.com> wrote:
Jas, please reread you message.
Did you notice that you could not post a single piece of evidence or
testimony in support of your position? You only *assert* that all the
evidence supports you.
Please see my first response to yeuhd, to learn more about Myers "proof".
Robert Harris
Robert Harris
Jas, please reread your message. Notice that you have not discussed a
single piece of evidence, pro or con.
You simply assert that all evidence proves you are right.
The weight of the evidence is overwhelming, that this shot came from the
Daltex, rather than the depository. I cite my numerous facts and
evidence. You assert that you have evidence without producing a speck of
it.
Be specific, if you think your evidence is stronger.
Robert Harris
David Von Pein
Robert Harris
<6e180ea3-b099-4b5c...@j78g2000hsd.googlegroups.com>,
bigdog <jecorb...@yahoo.com> wrote:
Then complain to your congressman. That illustration was the product of
the HSCA.
Of course, as I stated in the video, I moved Connally into a more
reasonable position, to illustrate the 2 degree angle, but the original
was the government's.
More importantly, they were CORRECT, based on the known angles. Myers
just places his virtual subjects wherever they look best, and then
declares they're accurate.
That's why he could never answer my questions about the angles he used
for the trajectory back to the SN.
> A human body
> is a liitle more complicated than that.
This is NOT about anatomy. It's about the trajectory of that shot.
The angles back to the Daltex match perfectly, while those back to the
SN, require a serious misplacement of Connally.
> It can twist, turn, and lean and
> any small movement can radically change the angles in question. Whereas
> your diagram shows JBC would have to have been sitting off the left side
> of the seat, in fact his lower body could have remained centered while his
> upper body leaned slightly to his left as he was looking over his right
> shoulder. Myers 3-D recreation represents JBC's complete body and shows
> that the wounds will line up for a shot from the TSBD without putting JBC
> in any unusual position (i.e. sitting off the left side of the seat).
>
> Secondly, I can't imagine a professional shooter chooing a 3rd floor
> window of the Dal-Tex building as you hypothesize. You overlook the fact
> that shooting from there would require firing through the railings of the
> fire escape.
Well, at least you are thinking, bigdog, and trying to be rational. You
don't have to, you know. In this "moderated" newsgroup, I have already
been called a liar and a con artist, just in this one thread:-)
But if you look at the blowups on p. 185 of TKOAP, or have somebody who
owns the book, check for you, you will discover that the railings would
not obstruct a sniper's view in the slightest.
The photos are of the second floor window area, but they are identical,
all the way up.
> While that is certainly possible to do, it creates a problem
> no shooter would want. A shooter wants a clear line of fire so he can
> squeeze the shot off when he chooses and not be force to fire while his
> target is free from the obstructions.
>
> Lastly, have you bothered to check as to who the tenant was of the 3rd
> floor of the Dal-Tex building and whether a shooter could have known ahead
> of time that the floor would be free of any onlookers.
The office was used by Dallas Uranium and Oil, bigdog.
The name was never listed on the Daltex marquee in the lobby and
researchers have failed to discover anything substantial about them,
including the names of the owners, or their corporate affiliations.
I have seen claims that they were a front organization and were owned by
Hunt, but never any documentable proof.
Robert Harris
Robert Harris
<9de591c1-5789-4823...@k39g2000hsf.googlegroups.com>,
David Von Pein <davev...@aol.com> wrote:
> I've taken note of a clever (but rather blatant) deception within
> Robert Harris' YouTube video of 12/25/07, linked below.....
>
>
> http://youtube.com/watch?v=qa1C_gwSFMY
>
>
> In that video, Bob shows a turned-sideways picture of this JFK autopsy
> photograph....
>
>
> http://www.jfklancer.com/photos/autopsy_slideshow/images/BE5_HI.jpg
>
>
> ....with a circle drawn around the lower defect on JFK's back (below
> the actual bullet hole), with Bob narrating that the bottom defect is
> the real bullet hole.
>
> But a careful look at the defect in Bob's video reveals that the image
> in the video has definitely been "touched up" to add a more "bullet
> hole-like" appearance to the defect (which is really only dried blood
> on the President's back and not a "hole" at all).
ROFLMAO!!
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/back.jpg
There is the image, abrasion ring and all, straight out of my con artist
partner's website!
Zoom in on the image a bit, and you find a perfect match for what you
see in my video, minus some resolution deterioration caused by Youtube
compression.
Rather than make these ugly accusations, which you know are not true, why
don't you take a shot at explaining how that swollen ring around the
"dried blood", came to be?
And why don't you explain to us, why the ruler is clearly angled, to
measure that "dried blood" rather than your hole?
Robert Harris
Robert Harris
<c5f0d273-702c-47aa...@k2g2000hse.googlegroups.com>,
Spiffy_one <bail...@gmail.com> wrote:
LOL!!
Welcome to the "moderated" newsgroup folks, where everyone who agrees
mcadams and his team are protected.
Things sure haven't changed around here in the last 13 months:-)
Robert Harris
David Von Pein
There's no "ring" (i.e., abrasion "collar") around that lower defect.
That's your imagination (plus the fact that the photo in that video of
yours is positively different-looking than this picture of
JFK...without a doubt):
http://www.jfklancer.com/photos/autopsy_slideshow/images/BE5_HI.jpg
I guess Bob Harris must think JFK was shot TWICE in the back, since
it's as obvious as obvious can be that the HIGHER defect on Kennedy's
back is a bullet hole which definitely has an ABRASION COLLAR AROUND
IT.
How is this possible, Bob, if JFK was shot just once in the back (like
everybody knows is true)?
Plus -- I wonder, via Bob's theory, why on Earth the slick and ever-
efficient plotters and photo-fakers decided to not phony-up and alter
this picture of JFK's back? IOW: Why didn't "they" simply eliminate
the lower defect in this photo, so that Bob could never have
discovered this make-believe "bullet hole" below the real bullet hole
on Kennedy's back?
http://www.jfklancer.com/photos/autopsy_slideshow/images/BE5_HI.jpg
Sloppy plotters. They couldn't frame the Mona Lisa.
>>> "And why don't you explain to us, why the ruler is clearly angled, to measure that "dried blood" rather than your hole?" <<<
Oh goodie! Bob has now decided that the ruler in the photo has been
placed there to specifically measure his imaginary bullet hole.
Lovely.
I wonder how Bob knows that the ruler was placed there to measure the
lower defect on JFK's back, vs. the real bullet hole two inches above
it? (Probably just because he says so, huh?)
The ruler in that picture, btw, is totally useless/worthless, as
everybody knows. It's being placed up against JFK's back probably to
provide some degree of "scale" to the photograph, but since the
markings on the ruler are completely invisible (i.e., impossible to
discern), the ruler being in the picture is a total waste.
But since the entire 12-inch ruler is visible in the picture (I assume
it's a standard 12-inch ruler), I suppose a computer-savvy person
could find a way to shrink down another ruler (with visible hash
marks) onto the top of the ruler in the autopsy picture, which would
provide a measurable device for determining how far down from
Kennedy's neck crimp the bullet hole is located.
Although, even with that measuring tool in place, it would still be a
guessing game of sorts when trying to determine the exact distance
between the end of the ruler and where the neck crimp begins, since
the ruler in the picture has seemingly been placed there by the
doctors with no discernible "body landmark" in mind to measure from.
It's certainly not being placed up against JFK's "right mastoid
process", which is the landmark that the wound was measured from.
Strange indeed.
Probably a dastardly "cover-up" of some ilk. Right, Bob?
~shrug~
David Von Pein
>>> "There is the image, abrasion ring and all, straight out of my con artist partner's website!" <<<
When comparing the darker image from McAdams' site with the Lancer
picture below it, there appears to be a difference in the outline of
the lower defect (which is, of course, positively NOT a bullet hole;
the HSCA confirmed that via the Dox drawing).....
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/back.jpg
http://www.jfklancer.com/photos/autopsy_slideshow/images/BE5_HI.jpg
The difference I'm seeing in the margins of the defect (i.e., blood
splotch) is probably merely a photo anomaly, possibly due to the top
photo being zoomed in a little more than the Lancer (lighter) version
of the picture.
If it seemed like I was accusing Bob (Harris) of playing fast and
loose with the autopsy photo, I apologize to you Bob. I'm now thinking
it's most probably just photo anomalies of some kind between the two
images which are showing the same thing. And this is possibly how
CTers like Bob can theorize about the blood spot looking more like a
bullet "hole", because the darker, zoomed-in image shows a splotch
that could easily be mistaken for a "hole" in Kennedy's back.
But, as mentioned before....where does this argument take a CTer -- to
the notion that JFK was shot TWO times in the back instead of just
once?
We know that JFK wasn't shot twice in the back....and since the UPPER-
most defect on his back most certainly was determined to have the
undeniable characteristics of a bullet hole, we can be certain that
the upper defect IS, in fact, a bullet hole. Which, obviously, has to
mean that any lower "defect" seen on the President's back cannot
possibly ALSO be a bullet hole.
~Mark VII~
Robert Harris
<1e233224-6900-4554...@x69g2000hsx.googlegroups.com>,
yeuhd <wal...@mailbag.com> wrote:
> On Jan 11, 11:43 pm, Robert Harris <reharr...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > The first two shots were fired from a silenced weapon, yeuhd. That is
> > not a theory. You can take it to the bank. The first shot misfired and
> > the bullet hit the pavement. The second shot did not, so it was unheard
> > by anyone on the ground.
>
> Yet 76.7% of earwitnesses who gave testimony about the number of shots
> said that they heard three shots, not two. Yes, this 76.7% supermajority
> of earwitnesses could be wrong, but then, so could they be wrong about the
> spacing of the shots.
That's correct. But please do not make presumptions.
I said the *first two* shots were silenced. There is really no other
explanation for them.
But as the limo pulled out of range of the relatively small, silenced
weapon in the Daltex, high powered rifles were used - one of them, very
likely was fired by Oswald. That would have to have been the shot at
312-313.
>
> As for your theory (yes, I say theory) about a silencer on a rifle, does
> your theory require one rifle or two? One shooter or two? One location or
> two? Because 99 of 104 earwitnesses who gave testimony as to the direction
> of the shots said that all shots came from one location. Yes, this
> supermajority could be wrong ... well, you know the rest.
Yeuhd, you have been a victim of Mr. Posner, from whom that silly
argument originated.
Roughly half (give or take 10%) of the witnesses reported shots from the
East and half, from the west.
Your conclusion: they all came from the East.
Do you see a minor flaw in that reasoning:-)
In any other crime in history, the natural conclusion would be that some
came from both directions. BTW, the HSCA concluded in their investigation,
that the question was phrased in such a way, that it tended to force a
singular reply by witnesses.
In fact, if you talk to people who are knowledgeable in statistics and
polling, they will tell you, that there is an inherent problem with the
conclusions by witnesses that day, since a division of opinion like that,
SHOULD have produced a fair number of "both direction" witnesses.
I think that suggests that the questioning tended to squelch such
witnesses, exactly as the HSCA concluded.
Robert Harris
curtjester1
> yeuhd wrote:
> >On Jan 10, 11:05 pm, Robert Harris <reharr...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> >>But there are problems with the govt's position too. In addition to the
> >>fact, that no-one heard the shot at 223, and despite the best efforts of
> >>Dale Myer, the angles really don't work very well, for a shot from the
> >>6th floor.
>
> >Can you explain what you mean by "no one heard the shot at [frame]
> >223"?
>
> Simple: An overwhelming number (48 by my last count) of witnesses heard
> a shot pattern with the last two shots closer together. Although about 6
> people thought the first two were closer together, no one said there was
> a long pause between the last two shots. Even among the 9 witnesses who
> thought the shots were about equally spaced, no one reported hearing a
> five second lapse between the shots. Conclusion: no one heard a shot at
> z223.
>
> Andrew Mason
>
>
>
> >Dale Myers (with an "s") isn't the only one to find the alignment
> >pointing to the 6th floor window. The HSCA also conducted a trajectory
> >analysis:
>
> - Show quoted text -
Of course not, the sound of the rifle would be much later than the
hit.
How much? I don't know.
CJ
Walt
> I've taken note of a clever (but rather blatant) deception within
> Robert Harris' YouTube video of 12/25/07, linked below.....
You couldn't detect a bumble bee on the end of yer nose..... On the other
hand if there was gnat on yer nose and some "expert" told you there was a
bumble bee you'd take his word without question.
Robert Harris
<d3ec265b-6937-4045...@l32g2000hse.googlegroups.com>,
thali...@hotmail.com wrote:
Well actually, I have always believed there was a conspiracy, although I
did have my doubts back in the days when I first came to believe that
one bullet really did pass through both victims.
In the "final shots" video I state that I thought LHO was involved, but
I didn't say he wasn't a shooter. In fact, I suspect that the shot at
312 was fired by Oswald, but it could have come from the Daltex, or from
someone else in the TSBD.
The main problem is, that the head explosion terminated the straight
line trajectory, so it isn't possible to do the same kind of analysis
that can be done at 223. There has to be at least two known points, to
get a useful line, leading back to the source.
I do hope to have a video out soon, that will be almost entirely about
Oswald. Thanks for the excellent questions.
Bob
Andrew Mason
It depends on how far one is from the muzzle. Sound travels at 1127
feet/second. The bullet traveled at around 2000 feet/second. So if someone
is 200 feet from the muzzle and the limo was 200 feet from the muzzle, the
bullet would strike .1 sec (100 milliseconds) after firing and the sound
would be heard .17 seconds (170 ms) after firing. So the bullet would
strike 70 milliseconds before the sound arrived, or a little more than a
zframe (55 ms) before the sound. Such a small delay (7 hundredths of a
second) would be hard to notice.
Andrew Mason
yeuhd
> Yeuhd, you have been a victim of Mr. Posner, from whom that silly
> argument originated.
>
> Roughly half (give or take 10%) of the witnesses reported shots from the
> East and half, from the west.
>
> Your conclusion: they all came from the East.
No, I did *not* make any such conclusion from the fact that 99 of 104
earwitnesses who made a statement about the direction of the shots
said all shots came from one direction. What I *do* conclude from that
is that there was very, very likely only one shooter. Shots coming
from two different directions should sound different to earwitnesses.
If shots coming from two or more directions sounded the *same* to 99
of 104 earwitnesses (due to reverberations, for instance), that tends
to impeach any further testimony from those 99 about the specific
direction of the shots -- including the earwitnesses who said that all
the shots came from the direction of the grassy knoll.
I make the conclusion that all the shots came from the direction of
the TSBD because, among many other things, the majority of
earwitnesses who had an opinion about the direction of the shots said
that all came from the direction of the TSBD:
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/earwitnesses.htm
Walt
So you suspect that Oswald was one of the gunman..... but he was in
the Daltex building.
That's good thinking Robert....... After he fired the shot did he
then fly over to the TSBD lunchroom??
Walt
>
> The main problem is, that the head explosion terminated the straight
> line trajectory, so it isn't possible to do the same kind of analysis
> that can be done at 223. There has to be at least two known points, to
> get a useful line, leading back to the source.
>
> I do hope to have a video out soon, that will be almost entirely about
> Oswald. Thanks for the excellent questions.
>
> Bob- Hide quoted text -
Walt
>
> >>>from the President. The bullet was descending at an angle of 16ÿ below
>
> >>>horizontal as it approached him. This trajectory intercepted the plane
> >>>of the Texas School Book Depository approximately 11 feet west of the
> >>>southeast corner of the building at a point 15 feet above the sixth
> >>>floor windowsills.
>
> >>>Kennedy's back and neck wounds. -- The bullet that caused President
> >>>true north from the President. It was descending at an angle of 21ÿ
Have you ever been down range from a rifle firing bullets over your
head?? Depending on the distance from the rifle muzzle and the
distance to the target one shot can sound like three. You'll hear the
bang of the bullet breaking the sound barrier as it passes over your
head and then you'll hear either the bang of the muzzle blast or the
bang of the bullet hitting the target ( depending on which is closer
to your position.) Some of those witnesses in Dealey plaza probably
heard all three bangs. Which accounts for some of them saying they
heard up to eight shots.
I believe at least one silencer equipped weapon was employed that day,
so there would have been no muzzle blast, and probably no bang of the
subsonic bullet breaking the sound barrier.
>
> Andrew Mason- Hide quoted text -
jas
> In article
> <9e9018ec-0b57-4400-8fed-f9bbde273...@l6g2000prm.googlegroups.com>,
>
> - Show quoted text -
I didn't list evidence of the shots originating from 6th floor TSBD
because most people studying the assassination already know it. It's
been listed so many times ad nauseum.
1) 3 spent MC rifle hulls found in the sniper's nest.
2) Oswald's MC rifle found hidden on the 6th floor with a chambered
cartridge.
3) Howard Brennan's eyewitnessing a man resembling Oswald standing on
the 6th floor.
4) Oswald's palm print on the MC.
5) Oswald being the only TSBD employee leaving the scene of the crime,
showing presumption of guilt.
6) Oswald seen entering the TSBD that morning with a long bag, the
same bag found at the sniper's nest.
7) Bullet trajectories that line up to JFK's and JBC's wounds from the
easternmost window 6th floor TSBD, proved by Dale Meyers, the HSCA,
and the Australian shooting team in Discovery channel's
presentation.
8) Oswald, whose alias was A. Hidell and proved to be such, using this
alias to order the MC from Klein's Sporting goods.
9) CE399, the bullet that passed through JFK and JBC, proved to be
from Oswald's rifle.
10) Fragments and minute splinters of a shattered bullet spread
throughout JFK's head that showed up on X-rays taken at Bethesda
proving to be similar to the bullets used in Oswald's MC.
11) If Oswald brought curtain rods into the TSDB as he said, where
were they? Nowhere.
12) Oswald's rifle found gone from Ruth Paine's garage.
13) Employees watching the motorcade from the 5th floor TSBD saying
they heard loud shots from right above them.
14) Need I list all of it...?
All the evidence points to Lee Harvey Oswald being the person firing 3
shots from the easternmost window 6th floor TSBD. Now, tell me, what
evidence points to an assassin on the 3rd floor Dal-Tex?
jas
> On Jan 10, 11:05 pm, Robert Harris <reharr...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > I have long believed that the main reason this case has been so
> > controversial, is that the arguments of both conspiracy deniers and
> > supporters, contain flaws that are so obvious, that they are each
> > infuriated by the others apparent stupidity.
>
> > The SBT is a classic example of that. CT's try to claim Connally was
> > wounded at a point well after JFK. But visually, there seems to be
> > little doubt that they were hit simultaneously.
>
> > But there are problems with the govt's position too. In addition to the
> > fact, that no-one heard the shot at 223, and despite the best efforts of
> > Dale Myer, the angles really don't work very well, for a shot from the
> > 6th floor.
>
> > These two videos offer another explanation which I believe, make
> > infinitely more sense, especially, if you have some sense of geometry
> > and probability. See if you don't agree:
>
> >http://youtube.com/watch?v=qa1C_gwSFMY
>
> > and this addendum:
>
> >http://youtube.com/watch?v=zXYvZ_--ZFA&watch_response
>
> > Robert Harris
>
> problems with your arguments. Let's start with your diagram of Connally's
> position at Z223 in order for him to be alligned for a bullet from the
> TSBD. I can't put a lot of faith in a two dimensional overhead view of
> is a liitle more complicated than that. It can twist, turn, and lean and
> any small movement can radically change the angles in question. Whereas
> your diagram shows JBC would have to have been sitting off the left side
> of the seat, in fact his lower body could have remained centered while his
> upper body leaned slightly to his left as he was looking over his right
> shoulder. Myers 3-D recreation represents JBC's complete body and shows
> that the wounds will line up for a shot from the TSBD without putting JBC
> in any unusual position (i.e. sitting off the left side of the seat).
>
> Secondly, I can't imagine a professional shooter chooing a 3rd floor
> window of the Dal-Tex building as you hypothesize. You overlook the fact
> that shooting from there would require firing through the railings of the
> no shooter would want. A shooter wants a clear line of fire so he can
> squeeze the shot off when he chooses and not be force to fire while his
> target is free from the obstructions.
>
> Lastly, have you bothered to check as to who the tenant was of the 3rd
> floor of the Dal-Tex building and whether a shooter could have known ahead
> not clear of bystanders and the shooter could not have known ahead of time
>
> - Show quoted text -
Also, the Secret Service follow-up car is practically kissing the rear
bumper of JFK's limo at the time of the shot, (see early frames of
Zapruder) and with the SS men standing there and its windshield in the
way, a shot from 3rd floor Dal-Tex to JFK's upper back appears nearly
impossible.
Andrew Mason
Robert Harris wrote:
>I have long believed that the main reason this case has been so
>controversial, is that the arguments of both conspiracy deniers and
>supporters, contain flaws that are so obvious, that they are each
>infuriated by the others apparent stupidity.
>
>The SBT is a classic example of that. CT's try to claim Connally was
>wounded at a point well after JFK. But visually, there seems to be
>little doubt that they were hit simultaneously.
>
>
Visually? What about the evidence? Overwhelming witness evidence puts
JFK reacting visibily to the first shot. NO ONE said he turned and
smiled and waved after the first shot. Besides, all the witnesses put
the first shot well after z186. Nellie saw JFK reacting to the first
shot before she heard the second and saw it had hit her husband.
They are reacting more or less simultaneously (although we really can't
tell because we can't see when they begin reacting because of the sign).
But that doesn't mean that JBC is hit. He said he reacted first to the
sound of the first shot and then was hit. So his reaction has to begin
BEFORE the second shot.
Andrew Mason
Robert Harris
<832d101a-64a6-4874...@c4g2000hsg.googlegroups.com>,
cdddraftsman <cdddra...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> On Jan 10, 8:05 pm, Robert Harris <reharr...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > I have long believed that the main reason this case has been so
> > controversial, is that the arguments of both conspiracy deniers and
> > supporters, contain flaws that are so obvious, that they are each
> > infuriated by the others apparent stupidity.
> >
> > The SBT is a classic example of that. CT's try to claim Connally was
> > wounded at a point well after JFK. But visually, there seems to be
> > little doubt that they were hit simultaneously.
> >
> > But there are problems with the govt's position too. In addition to the
> > fact, that no-one heard the shot at 223, and despite the best efforts of
> > Dale Myer, the angles really don't work very well, for a shot from the
> > 6th floor.
> >
> > These two videos offer another explanation which I believe, make
> > infinitely more sense, especially, if you have some sense of geometry
> > and probability. See if you don't agree:
> >
> > http://youtube.com/watch?v=qa1C_gwSFMY
> >
> > and this addendum:
> >
> > http://youtube.com/watch?v=zXYvZ_--ZFA&watch_response
> >
> > Robert Harris
>
> When a bullet just like Commission Exhibit 399 is fired
> through a human wrist bone at 2,000 feed per second, it is almost
> certain to be badly mangled. But when CE 399 hit Connally's wrist it
> had been slowed by transiting Kennedy's torso and tumbling through
> Connally's chest. When it finally hit the hard radius bone, it was
> traveling about 1,000 feet per second.
>
> Dr. Martin Fackler, President of the International Wound Ballistics
> Association, fired a round identical to Oswald's bullet through a
> human wrist at 1,100 feet per second. Here is the resulting bullet :
> http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/bullet1.jpg
Ernest, you seem to be totally missing the point here.
We have NO idea what the condition of that bullet was. It was retrieved
by a nurse in the room where JBC was being examined, and was probably
turned over to the FBI, or discarded.
You proved that yourself, when you posted the citation from Connally's
autobiography:-)
Robert Harris
> lie. The pictures below show one of their test bullets fired through a
Robert Harris
Andrew Mason <a.m...@dufourlaw.com> wrote:
> >>>at Zapruder frame 312 came from a point 29? to the right of true north
> >>
> >>>from the President. The bullet was descending at an angle of 16? below
> >>
> >>>horizontal as it approached him. This trajectory intercepted the plane
> >>>of the Texas School Book Depository approximately 11 feet west of the
> >>>southeast corner of the building at a point 15 feet above the sixth
> >>>floor windowsills.
> >>
> >>>Kennedy's back and neck wounds. -- The bullet that caused President
> >>>Kennedy's back and neck wounds came from a point 26? to the right of
> >>>true north from the President. It was descending at an angle of 21?
The shock wave, which was measured at 130 decibels within a 10 foot
radius of the bullet, would have been heard simultaneously with the
bullet's arrival. There would have been no delay at all.
Robert Harris
Robert Harris
<2aeb2b80-aeaf-4134...@k39g2000hsf.googlegroups.com>,
David Von Pein <davev...@aol.com> wrote:
> >>> "There is the image, abrasion ring and all, straight out of my con
> artist partner's website!" <<<
>
> When comparing the darker image from McAdams' site with the Lancer picture
> below it, there appears to be a difference in the outline of the lower
> defect (which is, of course, positively NOT a bullet hole; the HSCA
> confirmed that via the Dox drawing).....
>
> http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/back.jpg
>
> http://www.jfklancer.com/photos/autopsy_slideshow/images/BE5_HI.jpg
>
> The difference I'm seeing in the margins of the defect (i.e., blood
> splotch) is probably merely a photo anomaly, possibly due to the top photo
> being zoomed in a little more than the Lancer (lighter) version of the
> picture.
No sir.
The "problem" is, that mcadams photo is much higher resolution and more
detailed than the lancer photo.
BTW, I would greatly appreciate a highly visible retraction of your
accusation that I deliberately altered the image in order to fool
everyone.
Robert Harris
Walt
I Hope you don't mind if I put the word "UNTRUE" behind the statements
that you have listed as facts
>
> 1) Untrue
> 2) Oswald's MC rifle found hidden on the 6th floor with a chambered
> cartridge. ......UNTRUE
> 3) Howard Brennan's eyewitnessing a man resembling Oswald standing on
> the 6th floor...... RESEMBLING ( superficially.)
> 4) Oswald's palm print on the MC..... UNTRUE
> 5) Oswald being the only TSBD employee leaving the scene of the crime,
> showing presumption of guilt. UNTRUE
> 6) Oswald seen entering the TSBD that morning with a long bag, the
> same bag found at the sniper's nest. UNTRUE
> 7) Bullet trajectories that line up to JFK's and JBC's wounds from the
> easternmost window 6th floor TSBD, proved by Dale Meyers, the HSCA, UNTRUE (gogo)
> and the Australian shooting team in Discovery channel's
> presentation.
> 8) Oswald, whose alias was A. Hidell and proved to be such, using this
> alias to order the MC from Klein's Sporting goods.
> 9) CE399, the bullet that passed through JFK and JBC, proved to be
> from Oswald's rifle. UNTRUE
> 10) Fragments and minute splinters of a shattered bullet spread
> throughout JFK's head that showed up on X-rays taken at Bethesda
> proving to be similar to the bullets used in Oswald's MC. UNTRUE
> 11) If Oswald brought curtain rods into the TSDB as he said, where
> were they? Nowhere.
> 12) Oswald's rifle found gone from Ruth Paine's garage. WHEN WAS IT REMOVED??
> 13) Employees watching the motorcade from the 5th floor TSBD saying
> they heard loud shots from right above them.
> 14) Need I list all of it...?
You've only listed one FACT.... #13 Williams, Jarman and Normal
did hear a bang above their heads.
>
> All the evidence points to Lee Harvey Oswald being the person firing 3
> shots from the easternmost window 6th floor TSBD. Now, tell me, what
> evidence points to an assassin on the 3rd floor Dal-Tex?
NONE of the items you listed are 100% accurate and factual...
Walt
Walt
> Robert Harris wrote:
> >I have long believed that the main reason this case has been so
> >controversial, is that the arguments of both conspiracy deniers and
> >supporters, contain flaws that are so obvious, that they are each
> >infuriated by the others apparent stupidity.
>
> >The SBT is a classic example of that. CT's try to claim Connally was
> >wounded at a point well after JFK. But visually, there seems to be
> >little doubt that they were hit simultaneously.
>
> Visually? What about the evidence? Overwhelming witness evidence puts
> JFK reacting visibily to the first shot. NO ONE said he turned and
> smiled and waved after the first shot. Besides, all the witnesses put
> the first shot well after z186. Nellie saw JFK reacting to the first
> shot before she heard the second and saw it had hit her husband.
>
"Nellie saw JFK reacting to the first shot before she heard the
second and saw it had hit her husband."
Bullets travel faster than the speed of sound.........
A) Nellie saw JFK reacting to being shot.
B) Nellie heard SECOND shot.
C) Nellie saw her husband reacting to SECOND shot.
Clearly you are saying that Nallie observed that the non fatal shot
that struck JFK and the shot that struck that struck JBC were two
separate shots...
Walt
> They are reacting more or less simultaneously (although we really can't
> tell because we can't see when they begin reacting because of the sign).
> But that doesn't mean that JBC is hit. He said he reacted first to the
> sound of the first shot and then was hit. So his reaction has to begin
> BEFORE the second shot.
>
> Andrew Mason
>
>
>
> >But there are problems with the govt's position too. In addition to the
> >fact, that no-one heard the shot at 223, and despite the best efforts of
> >Dale Myer, the angles really don't work very well, for a shot from the
> >6th floor.
>
> >These two videos offer another explanation which I believe, make
> >infinitely more sense, especially, if you have some sense of geometry
> >and probability. See if you don't agree:
>
> >http://youtube.com/watch?v=qa1C_gwSFMY
>
> >and this addendum:
>
> >http://youtube.com/watch?v=zXYvZ_--ZFA&watch_response
>
Robert Harris
In article
<66145a24-854a-48ca...@f47g2000hsd.googlegroups.com>,
yeuhd <wal...@mailbag.com> wrote:
> On Jan 12, 9:28 pm, Robert Harris <reharr...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > Yeuhd, you have been a victim of Mr. Posner, from whom that silly
> > argument originated.
> >
> > Roughly half (give or take 10%) of the witnesses reported shots from the
> > East and half, from the west.
> >
> > Your conclusion: they all came from the East.
>
> No, I did *not* make any such conclusion from the fact that 99 of 104
> earwitnesses who made a statement about the direction of the shots
> said all shots came from one direction. What I *do* conclude from that
> is that there was very, very likely only one shooter.
Tell me, Yeuhd, would you have concluded that some shots came from the
west, if everybody said they came from the east:-)
When a substantial number claim to have heard shots from each direction,
the ONLY logical conclusion is that some came from east and some from
the west.
There is simply no logical justification for concluding that all the
shots they heard, came from where you want them to..
Another way to prove that, is to examine the evidence for a second
headshot, which could not have been fired by Oswald.
http://youtube.com/watch?v=IVfIh-8nXyQ
Watch it if you dare:-)
Robert Harris
Andrew Mason
First of all, to hear the shock wave crack before the muzzle blast you
have to be near the bullet path. The further you are from the bullet
path, the quieter the crack will be and the closer in time to the muzzle
blast it will be. The greatest the separation can be at 200 feet from
the muzzle is 70 ms.
Second, if your explanation was correct, many more people should have
heard multiple shots. Only one person said there were 8 shots, A.J.
Millican. He said they occurred five minutes after the first. That
doesn't sound like confusion from the crack and muzzle blast.
Third, the sounds of the shock wave crack and the muzzle blast are quite
different. A few people heard more than three shots, but not many. They
did not describe them as a crack followed by a loud blast.
Fourth, the separation in time of 70 ms is not enough for normal human
beings to distinguish between the sounds. Any separation of less than
100 ms sounds like revererbation. You can test this using a reel to reel
tape recorder with separate play and record heads. The head separation
is usually about an inch or a little less. If you feed the output of the
playback head back to the record head with volume reduced, it sounds
like echo when you record - provided you use 15 or 7.5 ips. The brain
interprets the sound arriving within about 100 ms as the same sound. If
you use 3.75 ips it does not sound at all like echo.
>
> I believe at least one silencer equipped weapon was employed that day,
> so there would have been no muzzle blast, and probably no bang of the
> subsonic bullet breaking the sound barrier.
A silencer - if such a thing for a rifle existed - would only suppress
the muzzle blast. You can't eliminate the shock wave of the bullet.
Andrew Mason
Robert Harris
<b1a7f4e8-3fd2-4de8...@f47g2000hsd.googlegroups.com>,
Walt <papakoc...@evertek.net> wrote:
C'mon Walt - didn't you ever watch Spiderman??
The first three shots came from the Daltex. The 312 shot came from
Oswald - unless of course, it didn't.
The last shot came from the knoll or storm drain. I prefer the storm
drain, based on the angles and timing.
Could anything be clearer than that??
Robert Harris
yeuhd
> When a substantial number claim to have heard shots from each direction,
> the ONLY logical conclusion is that some came from east and some from
> the west.
No, that is the illogical conclusion, because it does not explain why
the people who heard all of the shots coming from the direction of the
grassy knoll did not hear the shots coming from the direction of the
depository, and it does not explain why the people who heard all of
the shots coming from the direction of the TSBD did not hear the shots
coming from the direction of the grassy knoll. If your answer is along
the lines of "reverberation confusion", then that impeaches *all*
direction-of-shots testimony from those 99 earwitnesses.
Andrew Mason
> In article
> <66145a24-854a-48ca...@f47g2000hsd.googlegroups.com>,
> yeuhd <wal...@mailbag.com> wrote:
>
>
>>On Jan 12, 9:28 pm, Robert Harris <reharr...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>
>>>Yeuhd, you have been a victim of Mr. Posner, from whom that silly
>>>argument originated.
>>>
>>>Roughly half (give or take 10%) of the witnesses reported shots from the
>>>East and half, from the west.
>>>
>>>Your conclusion: they all came from the East.
>>
>>No, I did *not* make any such conclusion from the fact that 99 of 104
>>earwitnesses who made a statement about the direction of the shots
>>said all shots came from one direction. What I *do* conclude from that
>>is that there was very, very likely only one shooter.
>
>
> Tell me, Yeuhd, would you have concluded that some shots came from the
> west, if everybody said they came from the east:-)
>
> When a substantial number claim to have heard shots from each direction,
> the ONLY logical conclusion is that some came from east and some from
> the west.
>
> There is simply no logical justification for concluding that all the
> shots they heard, came from where you want them to..
You seem to be overlooking that fact that a human's ability to accurately
determine sound direction is not always reliable. We use time difference
between the arrival of a sound front at the ears. Reflections off nearby
surfaces can easily change that time difference or the perception of such
time difference. Visual clues are also used - ventriloquists show us very
easily how we can be fooled as to the source of the sound.
Although people disagreed on where the first shot came from, some people
saw the shooter - in the SN. So we have evidence that those who thought
the first shot came from the GN were wrong.
Andrew Mason
Andrew Mason
Yes. That is what Nellie and JBC both said.
(to be clear: I am saying that the shot that passed through JFK was not
the shot that JBC felt strike him in the back. This does not mean that
the shot that passed through JFK did not strike JBC - just that it did
not strike him in the back).
Andrew Mason
Robert Harris
<b78cd7aa-6927-411a...@k39g2000hsf.googlegroups.com>,
jas <lle...@gmail.com> wrote:
Nonsense.
You just posted evidence which suggests that Oswald was involved in the
attack. But nothing that proves that he acted alone.
Nor does it prove that he fired the shot at frame 223. Your original
claim was, "Given all the hard evidence put together, CE399 had to have
come from 6th floor TSBD per the WC."
The simple fact is, that CE399 could NOT have come from the 6th floor.
It was fired by someone at the FBI.
Robert Harris
tomnln
"yeuhd" <wal...@mailbag.com> wrote in message
news:a35299bd-522b-465b...@q39g2000hsf.googlegroups.com...
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
John & Nellie Connally BOTH testified that there was NO echoes on Elm
Street.
It was Lee J. Bowers Way back behind the grassy knoll, behind the fence,
behind the parking lot, up in a 14 ft. R R Tower who mentioned
"reverberations from Elm Street in his testimony.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
Robert Harris
<a35299bd-522b-465b...@q39g2000hsf.googlegroups.com>,
yeuhd <wal...@mailbag.com> wrote:
Yeuhd, the only logical explanation for why some witnesses heard shots
from one direction and some, the other, is that they came from both
directions.
If you refuse to accept the conclusions by experts, that the interviewers
provoked a singular response from witnesses, then you need to explain why
there was not unanimous or near unanimous agreement that all shots came
from the East.
In listening tests, HSCA experts had no difficulty at all, in recognizing
the general direction that test shots fired in DP, came from.
BTW, did you look at the vid I linked?
If so, I am curious as to when you think the damage we see in frame 337
occurred.
Robert Harris
tomnln
"Andrew Mason" <a.m...@dufourlaw.com> wrote in message
news:13ol4ud...@corp.supernews.com...
I advise you to learn the evidence/testimony>>>
http://whokilledjfk.net/single_bullet.htm
http://whokilledjfk.net/john_connally.htm
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Andrew Mason
I think it is more reliable to read the evidence itself. See:
http://www.dufourlaw.com/jfk/shot_pattern_evidence.pdf
http://www.dufourlaw.com/jfk/first_shot_hit_witnesses.pdf
This establishes that JFK was hit by the first shot and the second shot
was closer to the third.
Andrew Mason
tomnln
Andrew Mason wrote;
> I think it is more reliable to read the evidence itself. See:
>
> http://www.dufourlaw.com/jfk/shot_pattern_evidence.pdf
> http://www.dufourlaw.com/jfk/first_shot_hit_witnesses.pdf
>
> This establishes that JFK was hit by the first shot and the second shot
> was closer to the third.
>
> Andrew Mason
I write;
Those two pages ARE the Official Records Sir.
http://whokilledjfk.net/single_bullet.htm
http://whokilledjfk.net/john_connally.htm
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
curtjester1
>
> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
All I know is if I hit a golf ball on the range and it happens to hit the
200 yard sign, I usually see the ball richocheting and coming back at
least 30 feet before I hear the sound of the target being hit.
One sophisticated test with sound waves had 4 shots being for sure, and 2
very probable with another one as what they called a tossup. That was
evidenced in the Groden book.
CJ
curtjester1
>
> - Show quoted text -
Most all the people that were witnesses in the TSBD and just right
outside the building stated that they heard two shots or less from the
TSBD.
CJ
Robert Harris
Andrew Mason <a.m...@dufourlaw.com> wrote:
The HSCA people carried out firing tests using an identical rifle, in DP
and they had no problem at all in determining the general direction of
shots fired from the TSBD and from the knoll area.
>
> Although people disagreed on where the first shot came from, some people
> saw the shooter
Oops - horrible, presumptive error.
They saw "A" shooter, not "the" shooter.
BTW, are you STILL claiming that Connally was hit circa Z275??
> - in the SN. So we have evidence that those who thought
> the first shot came from the GN were wrong.
Nonsense. They found evidence of one of the shooters.
Sadly, the authorities never searched the Daltex or most other possible
sniper locations that day. If you want to know where the SBT shot came
from, look at this vid.
http://youtube.com/watch?v=qa1C_gwSFMY
and the addendum
http://youtube.com/watch?v=zXYvZ_--ZFA&watch_response
Robert Harris
>
> Andrew Mason
Andrew Mason
Robert Harris wrote:
>>>There is simply no logical justification for concluding that all the
>>>shots they heard, came from where you want them to..
>>>
>>>
>>You seem to be overlooking that fact that a human's ability to accurately
>>determine sound direction is not always reliable. We use time difference
>>between the arrival of a sound front at the ears. Reflections off nearby
>>surfaces can easily change that time difference or the perception of such
>>time difference. Visual clues are also used - ventriloquists show us very
>>easily how we can be fooled as to the source of the sound.
>>
>>
>
>The HSCA people carried out firing tests using an identical rifle, in DP
>and they had no problem at all in determining the general direction of
>shots fired from the TSBD and from the knoll area.
>
>
>
>>Although people disagreed on where the first shot came from, some people
>>saw the shooter
>>
>>
>
>Oops - horrible, presumptive error.
>
>They saw "A" shooter, not "the" shooter.
>
>BTW, are you STILL claiming that Connally was hit circa Z275??
>
>
Z271 to be exact. It can be pinpointed to between z271 and 272. And it
fits perfectly with Oswald firing all the shots. It also fits with the
last two shots being close together (and closer than 1 and 2), the first
shot being after z186, JFK being hit by the first shot, JBC being hit by
the second, Nellie seeing JFK react before the first shot, Altgens saying
his z255 photo was before the second shot, Hickey seeing JFK's hair fly up
at the time of the second shot, Greer turning back in response to the
second shot (he turns from z279- z280), Tague being hit on the second
shot, Nellie observing JBC being hit while turned around to the right,
Nellie hearing "oh, no, no, no" before the second shot, etc. etc....
Andrew Mason
Andrew Mason
> In article <13ol45q...@corp.supernews.com>,
> Andrew Mason <a.m...@dufourlaw.com> wrote:
>
>
>>Robert Harris wrote:
>>
>>
...
>>>There is simply no logical justification for concluding that all the
>>>shots they heard, came from where you want them to..
>>
>>You seem to be overlooking that fact that a human's ability to accurately
>>determine sound direction is not always reliable. We use time difference
>>between the arrival of a sound front at the ears. Reflections off nearby
>>surfaces can easily change that time difference or the perception of such
>>time difference. Visual clues are also used - ventriloquists show us very
>>easily how we can be fooled as to the source of the sound.
>
>
> The HSCA people carried out firing tests using an identical rifle, in DP
> and they had no problem at all in determining the general direction of
> shots fired from the TSBD and from the knoll area.
They used experts who were trying to determine the source as one of two
known locations (Knoll and TSBD). Even at that, one was correct only 82%
of the time. HSCA Volume VIII: Acoustics Study - Analysis of Earwitness
Reports Relating to the Assassination of President John F. Kennedy
>
>
>>Although people disagreed on where the first shot came from, some people
>>saw the shooter
>
>
> Oops - horrible, presumptive error.
>
> They saw "A" shooter, not "the" shooter.
Are you suggesting there was more than one shooter of the first shot?
Brennan, Euins, Mrs. Cabell and Robert Jackson immediately looked up at
the SN after the first shot and saw a rifle. Norman, Jarman and Williams
said the noise came from the floor above them. That was the first shot
so it is not really hard to figure out where it came from.
Andrew Mason
tomnln
"yeuhd" <wal...@mailbag.com> wrote in message
news:a35299bd-522b-465b...@q39g2000hsf.googlegroups.com...
BALONEY! ! !
People from Every Direction raced to the Grassy Knoll.
SEE>>> http://whokilledjfk.net/RACE%20TO%20TSBD.htm
yeuhd
> "yeuhd" <wall...@mailbag.com> wrote in message
This isn't a question about whether people raced to the grassy knoll. Of
course people raced to the grassy knoll. The presidential limousine was
passing the grassy knoll when JFK was hit by the fatal head shot.
But the fact remains that of the 104 earwitnesses in Dealey Plaza who gave
an opinion of the direction of the shots, only 5 said that they heard
shots come from more than one direction. If shots really came from two
directions, the earwitnesses should not have just *collectively* heard
shots from two directions, they should have each *individually* heard
shots from two directions. It's not like the grassy knoll and the TSBD
were close together. They were nearly opposite directions, the stockade
fence and the sniper's lair being about 135 degrees apart in relation to
JFK at the fatal head shot.
If for the sake of argument we say that at least one shot came from the
grassy knoll, and at least one shot came from the TSBD, then any
earwitness who said that *all* of the shots came from direction of the
grassy knoll apparently cannot distinguish what direction the shots came
from. And indeed almost all earwitnesses who said shots came from the
direction of the grassy knoll said that *all* of the shots came from that
direction.
Ben Holmes
yeuhd says...
>
>On Feb 2, 10:47=A0am, "tomnln" <tom...@cox.net> wrote:
>> "yeuhd" <wall...@mailbag.com> wrote in message
>>
>> news:a35299bd-522b-465b...@q39g2000hsf.googlegroups.com...
>> On Jan 13, 3:00 pm, Robert Harris <reharr...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>
>
>> > the ONLY logical conclusion is that some came from east and some from
>> > the west.
>>
>> No, that is the illogical conclusion, because it does not explain why
>> the people who heard all of the shots coming from the direction of the
>> grassy knoll did not hear the shots coming from the direction of the
>> depository, and it does not explain why the people who heard all of
>> the shots coming from the direction of the TSBD did not hear the shots
>> coming from the direction of the grassy knoll. If your answer is along
>> the lines of "reverberation confusion", then that impeaches *all*
>> direction-of-shots testimony from those 99 earwitnesses.
>>
>> BALONEY! ! !
>>
>> People from Every Direction raced to the Grassy Knoll.
>>
>
>This isn't a question about whether people raced to the grassy knoll. Of
>course people raced to the grassy knoll. The presidential limousine was
>passing the grassy knoll when JFK was hit by the fatal head shot.
>
>But the fact remains that of the 104 earwitnesses in Dealey Plaza who gave
>an opinion of the direction of the shots, only 5 said that they heard
>shots come from more than one direction. If shots really came from two
>directions, the earwitnesses should not have just *collectively* heard
>shots from two directions, they should have each *individually* heard
>shots from two directions. It's not like the grassy knoll and the TSBD
>were close together. They were nearly opposite directions, the stockade
>fence and the sniper's lair being about 135 degrees apart in relation to
>JFK at the fatal head shot.
>
>If for the sake of argument we say that at least one shot came from the
>grassy knoll, and at least one shot came from the TSBD, then any
>earwitness who said that *all* of the shots came from direction of the
>grassy knoll apparently cannot distinguish what direction the shots came
>from. And indeed almost all earwitnesses who said shots came from the
>direction of the grassy knoll said that *all* of the shots came from that
>direction.
Bugs you that the witnesses don't support your faith, doesn't it?
David Emerling
And all those people did that for what reason - to chase down an armed
assassin? Even the women?
The people who were running up the grassy knoll were simply panicking
and running AWAY from the street, which was clearly the "killing zone"
for the sniper.
You think they were chasing a perceived gunman?
David Emerling
Memphis, TN
tomnln
I suggest you read the WCR;
Many people said one shot sounded DIFFERENT (firecracker)
btw;
Here's proof you asked for that Oswald was "5' 3"/Blond & 119 pounds" in
Mexico City>>>
http://whokilledjfk.net/catch_of_the_day.htm
yeuhd
>
> btw;
> Here's proof you asked for that Oswald was "5' 3"/Blond & 119 pounds" in
> Mexico City>>>
>
> http://whokilledjfk.net/catch_of_the_day.htm
You're confused -- I'm not the person who asked for that.
tomnln
"David Emerling" <davidemer...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:dN6dnWbvN8tQdDna...@comcast.com...
I said from "EVERY DIRECTION".
The photos bear me out.
They even CROSSED THE STREET.
tomnln
> On Feb 2, 10:16 pm, "tomnln" <tom...@cox.net> wrote:
>>
>> btw;
>> Here's proof you asked for that Oswald was "5' 3"/Blond & 119 pounds" in
>> Mexico City>>>
>>
>> http://whokilledjfk.net/catch_of_the_day.htm
> You're confused -- I'm not the person who asked for that.
You denied that Duran said Oswald was 5' 3"
I Proved you WRONG>>> http://whokilledjfk.net/catch_of_the_day.htm
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
David Emerling
Undoubtedly, there were varying temperaments amongst the bystanders. For
instance, many of the reporters ran around fearlessly, while many people
cowered in fear, looking for a good photo or any kind of information for a
scoop. Then media members were much less concerned with getting hit by a
bullet and were much more concerned with the news story.
And, there were some people who just stood there, oblivious or just frozen
with shock.
Some ran toward the action - like those you mentioned who crossed the
street.
But those who were running up the hill (and there were many) are clearly
in the group that was panicking.
You are inferring that they were in pursuit of the assassin. All of them?
The testimony of some of those who ran up the hill did NOT indicate that
they thought the shots came from the grassy knoll, nor did they indicate
that they ran up the hill with the intent of chasing or finding the gunman
- although some came up with that brave (and much improved) story many
years later.
They're simply panicking - and I think you know it.
David Emerling
Memphis, TN
yeuhd
> "yeuhd" <wall...@mailbag.com> wrote in message
>
> > You're confused -- I'm not the person who asked for that.
>
> You denied that Duran said Oswald was 5' 3"
>
> I Proved you WRONG>>> http://whokilledjfk.net/catch_of_the_day.htm
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
No, you are wrong. You are confusing me with Tim Brennan. I said
nothing about that topic. Go back and look.
lazu...@webtv.net
of the Assassination of a shot or shots from the knoll..
Ben Holmes
says...
My! You have a lower opinion of the DPD than even *I* do.
A number of those "running up the hill" were cops.