Re: A Question For Robert Harris
Robert Harris
<83ba42cf-ecbd-4b55...@q26g2000prq.googlegroups.com>,
Bud <sirs...@fast.net> wrote:
> In a recent discussion, Robert Harris made much of the idea that his
> theory hasn`t been refuted. In that thread, he provided a link to an
> article he had written, outlining his theory, and the evidence he feels
> supports it. That can be found here...
>
> http://www.jfkhistory.com/k/answers.html
>
> I made a cursory examination of it, enough to gather ammunition for a
> few loaded questions. I should be able to judge by his replies whether his
> work is worth a more thorough examination.
>
> The first question is in regards to a caption under a blown-up portion
> of the Zapruder film. The caption reads "By Zapruder frame 335 the back of
> the head has been devastated." I looked at the frame, and thought the
> frame was too blurred to be conclusive. I think if I watched the z-film
> frame by frame for 10 lifetimes, I would never once have drawn the
> conclusion you have from that frame. So, my question for the world`s last
> remaining honest man is this...
>
> "How do I go about refuting what you think you see in that z-film
> frame?"
Well, you might show me higher resolution copies of 335 and 337. The
best I have seen so far, were taken from a second generation copy of the
film that the HSCA had, by Groden. You can see a scan of 337, here.
http://www.jfkhistory.com/pix/backofhead.jpg
You can also see copies of those frames in these videos:
http://www.jfkhistory.com/pix/backofhead.jpg
and
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rYaoBB1rwkc&watch_response
In the second of those videos, is a much better copy of 335 than in my
old article.
But perhaps the simplest way you could convince me would be to simply
draw an outline around the head in the captioned image you mentioned and
show me how the shape of the BOH is no different than before he was
wounded.
Robert Harris
Bud
> In article
> <83ba42cf-ecbd-4b55-9480-ce984f778...@q26g2000prq.googlegroups.com>,
>
>
>
> Bud <sirsl...@fast.net> wrote:
> > In a recent discussion, Robert Harris made much of the idea that his
> > theory hasn`t been refuted. In that thread, he provided a link to an
> > article he had written, outlining his theory, and the evidence he feels
> > supports it. That can be found here...
>
> > http://www.jfkhistory.com/k/answers.html
>
> > I made a cursory examination of it, enough to gather ammunition for a
> > few loaded questions. I should be able to judge by his replies whether his
> > work is worth a more thorough examination.
>
> > The first question is in regards to a caption under a blown-up portion
> > of the Zapruder film. The caption reads "By Zapruder frame 335 the back of
> > the head has been devastated." I looked at the frame, and thought the
> > frame was too blurred to be conclusive. I think if I watched the z-film
> > frame by frame for 10 lifetimes, I would never once have drawn the
> > conclusion you have from that frame. So, my question for the world`s last
> > remaining honest man is this...
>
> > "How do I go about refuting what you think you see in that z-film
> > frame?"
>
> Well, you might show me higher resolution copies of 335 and 337. The
> best I have seen so far, were taken from a second generation copy of the
> film that the HSCA had, by Groden. You can see a scan of 337, here.
>
> http://www.jfkhistory.com/pix/backofhead.jpg
This is best you have seen, and it`s impossible to recognize Jackie as
Jackie even though her full face is seen. She could be any one of millions
of women, and a number of men. The image is poor, and you are using it to
perform an autopsy with. You have hair to take into consideration. Torn
skin is a possibility. Distance and angles add to the difficulty of
determining the extent of the wounds, or when they were caused. It is way
too subjective to say "there isn`t visible damage here", and "there is
visible damage here" in a poor image.
> You can also see copies of those frames in these videos:
>
> http://www.jfkhistory.com/pix/backofhead.jpg
>
> and
>
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rYaoBB1rwkc&watch_response
>
> In the second of those videos, is a much better copy of 335 than in my
> old article.
>
> But perhaps the simplest way you could convince me would be to simply
> draw an outline around the head in the captioned image you mentioned and
> show me how the shape of the BOH is no different than before he was
> wounded.
Why wouldn`t it appear different if Kennedy`s head was positioned
differently in the two frames? If you view an egg from the end, it appears
round. At a different angle, the true shape becomes clear. In 335, you
can`t see Kennedy`s face, so it is hard to determine exactly how his head
is positioned.
Also, my understanding is that integrity of the skull was destroyed. I
remember reading Jerrol Custer saying when he helped to lift Kennedy onto
the autopsy table, his head was a shifting mass of skull shards being held
together by skin. This makes me think it was like broken pottery inside a
wet cloth sack. Put that on top of a spring, like a neck that has lost
it`s muscle control, and the contents could shift all around, bulging out
here and there. That they are not bulging out at one point, but are in
another cannot be used fix the time when the initial damage occurred.
> Robert Harris
Robert Harris
<1bfb68a2-b74e-45bd...@y1g2000pra.googlegroups.com>,
Bud <sirs...@fast.net> wrote:
We aren't talking about Jackie, Bud. We are talking about the condition
of JFK's head, in one of the clearest and sharpest images in the film.
Why don't you just draw an outline around the back of JFK's head and
show us that it hasn't changed?
You can also state your opinion about the orientation of the head, which
is easily determined by the position of his right ear.
> She could be any one of millions
> of women, and a number of men. The image is poor, and you are using it to
> perform an autopsy with. You have hair to take into consideration. Torn
> skin is a possibility. Distance and angles add to the difficulty of
> determining the extent of the wounds, or when they were caused. It is way
> too subjective to say "there isn`t visible damage here", and "there is
> visible damage here" in a poor image.
>
> > You can also see copies of those frames in these videos:
> >
> > http://www.jfkhistory.com/pix/backofhead.jpg
Well, Bud. What do you think?
Surely, a responsible guy like you would never make these proclamations
before you had examined all the evidence that is put before you.
> >
> > and
> >
> > http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rYaoBB1rwkc&watch_response
Yoohoo! Anybody home Bud?
> >
> > In the second of those videos, is a much better copy of 335 than in my
> > old article.
> >
> > But perhaps the simplest way you could convince me would be to simply
> > draw an outline around the head in the captioned image you mentioned and
> > show me how the shape of the BOH is no different than before he was
> > wounded.
>
> Why wouldn`t it appear different if Kennedy`s head was positioned
> differently in the two frames?
It probably would but fortunately, you have the right ear to keep
yourself oriented.
But feel free to describe whatever changes in orientation you think are
relevant.
See how easy it is to "refute" me Bud!
You just have to post a little evidence instead of a lot of excuses:-)
> If you view an egg from the end, it appears
> round. At a different angle, the true shape becomes clear. In 335, you
> can`t see Kennedy`s face, so it is hard to determine exactly how his head
> is positioned.
>
> Also, my understanding is that integrity of the skull was destroyed.
You got that right Bud:-)
But let's take it one step at a time.
Let's see if we can't come to some conclusions about the damage to the
BOH, first. And then we can talk about how and when that damage was
inflicted.
Would you like me to point you to a freeware program that will let you
outline the perimeter of JFK's BOH in those frames?
Robert Harris
David Von Pein
It's really quite simple.....
If this Z-Film frame really shows a big hole at the back of JFK's
head:
http://www.jfkhistory.com/pix/backofhead.jpg
....then the scalp at the back of that very same head couldn't
possibly look anything like this a few hours later:
....and the back of JFK's skull wouldn't look like this either:
William of Occam wins again.
And CTers who want desperately to put a great-big hole in the back
part of President Kennedy's head lose (as always).
Bud
You don`t think the inability to recognize Jackie in that z-frame
speaks to the overall quality of that image?
> Why don't you just draw an outline around the back of JFK's head and
> show us that it hasn't changed?
One, it`s a two dimensional image, and two, the positioning of
JFK`s head changes between the two frames (313 and 335).
> You can also state your opinion about the orientation of the head, which
> is easily determined by the position of his right ear.
No, it isn`t easily determined from the right ear. The ear is only
useful in determining that it is the side of his head, not the angle
of the head. Is the head exactly the same silhouette in both 313 and
335? If not, why would any outlining done be the same?
> > She could be any one of millions
> > of women, and a number of men. The image is poor, and you are using it to
> > perform an autopsy with. You have hair to take into consideration. Torn
> > skin is a possibility. Distance and angles add to the difficulty of
> > determining the extent of the wounds, or when they were caused. It is way
> > too subjective to say "there isn`t visible damage here", and "there is
> > visible damage here" in a poor image.
>
> > > You can also see copies of those frames in these videos:
>
> > >http://www.jfkhistory.com/pix/backofhead.jpg
>
> Well, Bud. What do you think?
>
> Surely, a responsible guy like you would never make these proclamations
> before you had examined all the evidence that is put before you.
I looked at the stills you used to make you initial claim. You send
"here it is undamaged", and "here it is devastated". I am questioning your
claim that the still you used shows what you claimed it does.
> > > and
>
> > >http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rYaoBB1rwkc&watch_response
>
> Yoohoo! Anybody home Bud?
I don`t do homework assignments, Robert. I have a limited amount of time
and energy, I don`t want to get bogged down chasing down your whole
theory. You directed me to that article. I saw a piece of evidence you
claimed showed something. I`m questioning whether the conclusions you`ve
drawn from the two z-frame stills you produced in that article are valid.
If they need more than what you produced in that article to make the
point, you should have included it there.
> > > In the second of those videos, is a much better copy of 335 than in my
> > > old article.
>
> > > But perhaps the simplest way you could convince me would be to simply
> > > draw an outline around the head in the captioned image you mentioned and
> > > show me how the shape of the BOH is no different than before he was
> > > wounded.
>
> > Why wouldn`t it appear different if Kennedy`s head was positioned
> > differently in the two frames?
>
> It probably would but fortunately, you have the right ear to keep
> yourself oriented.
This shows you to be a two dimensional thinker. I can look at the statue
of a bust from the side, and someone could turn that statue quite a ways
in either direction before I would lose sight of the ear. Now, lets say I
stick a large wad of gum on the back of the head of the bust, just out of
sight from the side I am viewing from. Now, I turn the head until that wad
is visible. Does the outline of the head change when the gum wad comes
into sight? Yes. Would the ear still be visible? Yes. Has anything changed
on the bust except the positioning of the bust? No.
> But feel free to describe whatever changes in orientation you think are
> relevant.
>
> See how easy it is to "refute" me Bud!
>
> You just have to post a little evidence instead of a lot of excuses:-)
I don`t need to post any evidence, you provided everything I need. You
posted the image you claimed showed devastation. I`m only pointing out the
claim you made is not really supported by the evidence you produced. What
you seem to want to do is put me in the position where I have to show the
opposite of what you claim, or your claim is shown to be true. That isn`t
how it`s done.
> > If you view an egg from the end, it appears
> > round. At a different angle, the true shape becomes clear. In 335, you
> > can`t see Kennedy`s face, so it is hard to determine exactly how his head
> > is positioned.
>
> > Also, my understanding is that integrity of the skull was destroyed.
>
> You got that right Bud:-)
>
> But let's take it one step at a time.
>
> Let's see if we can't come to some conclusions about the damage to the
> BOH, first. And then we can talk about how and when that damage was
> inflicted.
Couldn`t be when Kennedy`s head practically exploded at 313?
Robert Harris
<5fbd2170-0aa1-4fd4...@w1g2000prm.googlegroups.com>,
Bud <sirs...@fast.net> wrote:
No, it "speaks" to the fact that the frame was greatly magnified.
And whether you can identify Jackie or not, is unimportant. What matters
is, the massive protrusion on the back of JFK's head.
>
> > Why don't you just draw an outline around the back of JFK's head and
> > show us that it hasn't changed?
>
> One, it`s a two dimensional image, and two, the positioning of
> JFK`s head changes between the two frames (313 and 335).
That's not a problem Bud. You can use a two dimensional drawing program.
And you can explain to us, what changes in orientation, you believe are
relevant.
Give us something of substance, Bud. Your endless excuses just don't get
it.
Robert Harris
Bud
No, Jackie not being able to be identified speaks to the clarity of the
image.
> And whether you can identify Jackie or not, is unimportant. What matters
> is, the massive protrusion on the back of JFK's head.
The only way you could show that JFK`s head changed markedly between
z-313 and z-335 would be if you could show the head was in the exact sane
position in both frames. Can you do that?
> > > Why don't you just draw an outline around the back of JFK's head and
> > > show us that it hasn't changed?
>
> > One, it`s a two dimensional image, and two, the positioning of
> > JFK`s head changes between the two frames (313 and 335).
>
> That's not a problem Bud. You can use a two dimensional drawing program.
I don`t have to do anything. I don`t have a theory that uses these
images as a component.
> And you can explain to us, what changes in orientation, you believe are
> relevant.
No, you have to show that the heads are positioned the same in the
two z-frames you are comparing to one another. That is what you need
for your observations to be valid.
> Give us something of substance, Bud. Your endless excuses just don't get
> it.
Again, you are asking me to "unprove" your claims, which isn`t how
it works.
> Robert Harris
Robert Harris
"How do I go about refuting what you think you see in that z-film frame?"
Outline the BOH for us Bud. That is the answer to your question.
Of course, you will quickly discover that the massive protrusion is not
consistent with ANY orientation, unless you include the damage that I
and Dr. Boswell described.
With the possible exception of Fiorentino, I have never seen anyone post
as many excuses as you do.
Robert Harris
In article
<c5e43a4e-f418-4a39...@k36g2000pri.googlegroups.com>,
Bud
> "How do I go about refuting what you think you see in that z-film frame?"
>
> Outline the BOH for us Bud. That is the answer to your question.
No, this isn`t meaningful to the question. It might establish any
differences in the outlines between the two heads shown in the difference
frames( if the images were clear enough to get a true outline), but
wouldn`t establish when the damage occurred.
> Of course, you will quickly discover that the massive protrusion is not
> consistent with ANY orientation, unless you include the damage that I
> and Dr. Boswell described.
Did Boswell say the damage he noted occurred at z-frame 335?
> With the possible exception of Fiorentino, I have never seen anyone post
> as many excuses as you do.
I don`t need excuses, it isn`t my theory. I will say that with the
possible exception of Tony Marsh, I`ve never seen anyone skirt so many
issues raised to them.
> Robert Harris
>
> In article
> <c5e43a4e-f418-4a39-90f4-849adc620...@k36g2000pri.googlegroups.com>,