The JFK case - another approach

Who else knows what we know, Jerry?
Robert Harris
Poster
Posts: 96
Joined: Mon Oct 12, 2015 5:45 pm

The JFK case - another approach

Postby Robert Harris » Fri Oct 23, 2015 5:55 pm

What I have found most amazing about the JFK case, is that the way people on both sides of the conspiracy debate have dealt with it, is at least as interesting as the crime itself. Conspiracy advocates have presented a long list of assertions, most of which, range from unproven to ridiculous. "lone nut" advocates have claimed that "all the evidence" proves that Oswald acted alone, when in fact, there is no evidence whatsoever, which proves that he was the only shooter.

My own conclusion, which I believe, really can be proved, is that while Oswald probably took part in the attack, he could not have fired all of the shots. There is nothing particularly complicated about this proof, but it does require a basic understanding of several important facts.

Most of the witnesses that day heard three gunshots, or as I would put it, three of the gunshots. No one seems to dispute that, but what is rarely mentioned, is the spacing of those shots, which as we will see, is at least equally important.

The Warren Commission, in it's final report stated,

"..a substantial majority of the witnesses stated that the shots were not evenly spaced. Most witnesses recalled that the second and third shots were bunched together."

At one point during the hearings, Warren Commissioner Allen Dulles noted the overwhelming consistency of those witnesses, when he described the ratio of those confirming that shooting scenario in comparison with others,

"There has been a certain amount of testimony indicating there was a longer pause between the report of the first shot... and the second and third shots, that is not absolutely unanimous but I would say it is something like 5 to 1 or something of that kind.."

Of course, it is also a well known fact that witnesses are prone to error. But it is hard to imagine that such a large consensus would be so consistent in making exactly the same error. Fortunately, we will find corroborations from a Nobel prize winning physicist as well as the empirical evidence of visible reactions to those two shots, by the people who were closest to the President.

Why is this important?

It is important, because the Mannlicher Carcano rifle that Oswald used, had limitations in terms of how fast it could be operated. The FBI tested Oswald's weapon thoroughly, and in their original tests, each of their experts required three or more seconds to reload, acquire their target, and fire. Months later, FBI expert Robert Frazier returned to the firing range and after repeated attempts, was able to bring his time down to 2.3 seconds, stating in his Warren Commission testimony, that he was, "firing this weapon as fast as the bolt can be operated..".

In 1978, the House Select Committee on Assassinations, recruited expert sharpshooters from the Washington D.C. police department, who along with two committee staffers, repeatedly attempted to corroborate their theory that Oswald fired shots 1.66 second apart. After numerous attempts, they failed every time. To the best of my knowledge, and after more than fifty years, no one has beaten Frazier's 2.3 second time.

In 1976, the Nobel prize winning physicist, Dr. Luis Alvarez, wrote a paper on the Zapruder film, describing his analysis of the shots, based on a study of the startle reactions of Abraham Zapruder. Alvarez was particularly well qualified on this subject, since he had previously studied the reactions to gunshots by camera operators in Africa. He was also a consultant to the Bell & Howell company which manufactured Zapruder's camera. His paper can be seen here:

http://jfkhistory.com/alvarez.pdf

Alvarez suggested that Zapruder was startled by a loud noise at frame 285, based on the two heavily blurred frames at 290 and 291. The FBI confirmed that the Zapruder film ran at 18.3 fps, so he was estimating a reaction time of 5-6 frames or roughly one third of a second, between the shot and the reaction. He also suggested that the driver, Bill Greer, reacted to that same noise by inadvertently, lifting his foot from the gas and causing the limo to slow down.

At the time he wrote his paper, there were no copies of the Zapruder film publicly available, so Alvarez had to work with stills from Life magazine. That is unfortunate, because if he had been able to study the film in motion, he probably would have noticed that Zapruder and Greer were not the only ones to react to that noise. As you watch this, also notice that Greer spins around from rear to front, at enormous speed, so fast that some alterationists claimed (incorrectly, as I was able to confirm) that his turns were not humanly possible.

http://jfkhistory.com/285again.gif

With only the exception of JFK, every person in the limousine simultaneously dropped their heads or spun around at great speed, all beginning at frames 290-292, in perfect unison with Zapruder's reaction at 290-291. To put it another way, all of the reactions began in the same 1/6 of one second.

http://jfkhistory.com/simultaneous.gif

As Alvarez and other experts have confirmed, involuntary reactions must begin within no more than a third of a second, or about 6 Zapruder frames. So, the startle reactions at 290-292, might have been caused by a noise later than 285, but no earlier.

Frame 285 was 1.5 seconds prior to the fatal head shot at 313. As Alvarez acknowledged, and tests by the FBI and the HSCA confirmed, that was too close for Oswald to have fired shots in both of those frames. So Alvarez, a staunch Warren Commission defender, speculated that the noise might have been a siren, rather than a shot, adding that the reactions to the 313 shot were more pronounced than those following 285. Of course, an alternative explanation would be that the two shots were fired from different rifles, one louder than the other.

Also, the people who heard that noise, were quite consistent that what they heard was a gunshot. None of the witnesses described hearing a siren until well after the shooting had ended, but as the Warren Commission confirmed, they were quite consistent that they heard closely spaced shots at the end.

In addition to the closely bunched shots at the end, the witnesses raised another critical question. How could they have only heard one of the early shots, prior to 285? Every legitimate expert to study the film has identified clear visual evidence of two early gunshots, so why did the witnesses only hear one of them?

And why do we see no one ducking or simultaneously reacting then, as we see in reactions following 285 and 313? Oswald's rifle was tested by acoustics experts for the HSCA (House Select Committee on Assassination) and proven to generate levels of 130 decibels within 10 feet of the bullet's path. This is from the HSCA testimony of Dr. James Barger Phd, who tested the rifle for the HSCA,

"..the shock wave was measured by a microphone 10 feet from the trajectory of the bullet and the muzzle blast was measured by the same microphone which was at the same time 30 feet from the muzzle... The shockwave has an intensity of 130 decibels."

90 decibels is the level at which involuntary startle reactions, as well as permanent hearing loss can be caused. 130 decibels is 16 times greater. So if Oswald fired even one early shot, we should see reactions at least as dramatic as the ones at the end and probably more so, since the distance back to the alleged sniper's nest would have been less then.

But although we see people looking around, we see no one ducking or spinning at enormous speed. And the reactions are spread out over 100 frames, rather than in near perfect unison with one another. You can examine those reactions as well as the ones at the end, in this Zapruder segment:

http://jfkhistory.com/fullzapruder.gif

This posting is the Cliff's notes on the shooting. I go into considerably more detail in the article I linked earlier, at

http://jfkhistory.com/WebArticle/article.html

and this brief presentation analyzes Alvarez's conclusions as well as the reports of other witnesses, including Mrs. Connally, who is probably the most important of the individual witnesses, since we can visually corroborate the most important parts of her testimony.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ql6VqZDiC6s

There is a general consensus among skeptics that Oswald acted alone and in fact, Michael Shermer has written articles denouncing conspiracy theories in the JFK case. But without exception, the only reason I have seen to justify that conclusion, is the alleged absence of verifiable evidence.

In the case of most theories, I would agree with that. But there are exceptions and this is one of them. I believe that anyone who examines this evidence objectively, must come to the conclusion that Oswald could not have fired both of the shots at the end of the attack or any of the earlier shots.

Thanks for your consideration.

bobbo_the_Pragmatist
True Skeptic
Posts: 10627
Joined: Wed Sep 09, 2015 9:39 am

Re: The JFK case - another approach

Postby bobbo_the_Pragmatist » Sat Oct 24, 2015 12:50 am

JFK was survived by many powerful well placed family members and close friends several of whom were in government positions. They were satisfied with the investigation and results.

Good enough for me.
Real Name: bobbo the existential pragmatic evangelical anti-theist and Class Warrior.
Asking: What is the most good for the most people?
Sample Issue: Should the Feds provide all babies with free diapers?

Matthew Ellard
Real Skeptic
Posts: 26571
Joined: Fri Jun 13, 2008 3:31 am

Re: The JFK case - another approach

Postby Matthew Ellard » Sat Oct 24, 2015 1:19 am

Robert Harris is performing a fringe wash reset on our forum, after having a bad time on the JREF/ISF forum.

So as to "cut to the chase" here is link to all those previous debunked arguments.
:D
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/fo ... 389&page=7

Robert Harris
Poster
Posts: 96
Joined: Mon Oct 12, 2015 5:45 pm

Re: The JFK case - another approach

Postby Robert Harris » Sat Oct 24, 2015 3:41 am

Matthew Ellard wrote:Robert Harris is performing a fringe wash reset on our forum, after having a bad time on the JREF/ISF forum.

So as to "cut to the chase" here is link to all those previous debunked arguments.
:D
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/fo ... 389&page=7

Would you mind being specific about what you feel is the best rebuttal those people posted? That little subforum is made up of some of the most fanatical "lone nut" advocates I have ever seen. In fact, after having to delete over 30 of their posts because they consisted of endless personal insults, the subforum was put in lockdown and all messages had to be approved by a moderator before it was posted.

There were no refutations - not even a serious attempt to refute my analysis. If you think otherwise, then please be specific. How did they answer the fact that reactions to the 285 shot began in the same 1/18th of a second that Alvarez identified Zapruder's reaction?

How did they refute the fact that only one of the early shots was audible to most witnesses and that none of the early shots were loud enough to provoke the kind of startle reactions we see following 285 and 313?

http://jfkhistory.com/285again.gif

How did they refute the fact that Secret Service agent Roy Kellerman exhibited classic startle reactions as defined by Hunt & Landis?

http://jfkhistory.com/kellerman2.gif

Matthew Ellard
Real Skeptic
Posts: 26571
Joined: Fri Jun 13, 2008 3:31 am

Re: The JFK case - another approach

Postby Matthew Ellard » Sat Oct 24, 2015 3:50 am

Robert Harris wrote: Would you mind being specific about what you feel is the best rebuttal those people posted?
No. Just read it, like I did.

Robert Harris wrote: That little subforum is made up of some of the most fanatical "lone nut" advocates I have ever seen.
It's a thread Robert, not a sub forum. Accuracy is important Robert. :D

Robert Harris
Poster
Posts: 96
Joined: Mon Oct 12, 2015 5:45 pm

Re: The JFK case - another approach

Postby Robert Harris » Sat Oct 24, 2015 4:54 am

Matthew Ellard wrote:
Robert Harris wrote: Would you mind being specific about what you feel is the best rebuttal those people posted?
No. Just read it, like I did.

I read it, and as you would have noticed if you actually read the messages, posted detailed replies. Did you even bother to read those messages?

Robert Harris wrote: That little subforum is made up of some of the most fanatical "lone nut" advocates I have ever seen.
It's a thread Robert, not a sub forum. Accuracy is important Robert. :D

The layout is different in that forum. It is made up of subforums, not threads. Or at least that's what they call them.

You claimed that they refuted my analysis. If you actually believe that and think you read their rebuttals, you should be able to answer my questions. Or is it possible that like me, you've never seen them refute anything? Here they are again:

How did they answer the fact that reactions to the 285 shot began in the same 1/18th of a second that Alvarez identified Zapruder's reaction?

How did they refute the fact that only one of the early shots was audible to most witnesses and that none of the early shots were loud enough to provoke the kind of startle reactions we see following 285 and 313?

http://jfkhistory.com/285again.gif

How did they refute the fact that Secret Service agent Roy Kellerman exhibited classic startle reactions as defined by Hunt & Landis?

http://jfkhistory.com/kellerman2.gif

If you never saw any refutations then why did you claim that you did?

Robert Harris
Poster
Posts: 96
Joined: Mon Oct 12, 2015 5:45 pm

Re: The JFK case - another approach

Postby Robert Harris » Sat Oct 24, 2015 5:15 am

bobbo_the_Pragmatist wrote:JFK was survived by many powerful well placed family members and close friends several of whom were in government positions. They were satisfied with the investigation and results.

Good enough for me.

I understand your point. But many of the people closest to JFK, including his brother Bobby, said things for the public record that were much different than what they said to their closest associates and aides.

Many people based their own beliefs on the Warren Commission report, which never attempted to analyze the facts and evidence I have presented. They simply blew off the large witness consensus, claiming that witnesses are not 100% reliable. Of course, they also didn't have the analysis of Drs. Alvarez and Stroscio, and apparently never noticed the reactions to the shot that was fired 1.5 seconds prior to the fatal head shot.

http://jfkhistory.com/285again.gif

Whatever their opinions, the friends and associates of JFK, did not to the best of my knowledge, ever research the case. As with any other controversial issue, I think we have to deal with the facts and evidence. That takes precedence over a thousand subjective opinions. It is ALL that matters.

Matthew Ellard
Real Skeptic
Posts: 26571
Joined: Fri Jun 13, 2008 3:31 am

Re: The JFK case - another approach

Postby Matthew Ellard » Sat Oct 24, 2015 6:00 am

Robert Harris wrote: The layout is different in that forum. It is made up of subforums, not threads. Or at least that's what they call them.
I have been a member of the JREF forum for almost a decade. You are the newbie on that forum and now on our forum. .

Robert Harris wrote: If you never saw any refutations then why did you claim that you did?
I did see the refutations and linked them here. :D

You are a lying conspiracy theorist who was debunked on one forum and trying to start again on another forum. We get a lot of "flow" from JREF. You are simply lying again.
:D

bobbo_the_Pragmatist
True Skeptic
Posts: 10627
Joined: Wed Sep 09, 2015 9:39 am

Re: The JFK case - another approach

Postby bobbo_the_Pragmatist » Sat Oct 24, 2015 6:09 am

Robert Harris wrote:I understand your point. But many of the people closest to JFK, including his brother Bobby, said things for the public record that were much different than what they said to their closest associates and aides.

I totally accept that. My point and your understanding remain. You know.....saving that brain power for more important issues ....... like .......has that beer I put in the freezer ready to turn to slush yet, or should I wait another 5 minutes. IE==things that are actually relevant TO ME....as I am the heartbeat of the universe. Not some other guy.
Real Name: bobbo the existential pragmatic evangelical anti-theist and Class Warrior.
Asking: What is the most good for the most people?
Sample Issue: Should the Feds provide all babies with free diapers?

Robert Harris
Poster
Posts: 96
Joined: Mon Oct 12, 2015 5:45 pm

Re: The JFK case - another approach

Postby Robert Harris » Sat Oct 24, 2015 5:09 pm

Matthew Ellard wrote:
Robert Harris wrote: The layout is different in that forum. It is made up of subforums, not threads. Or at least that's what they call them.
I have been a member of the JREF forum for almost a decade. You are the newbie on that forum and now on our forum. .

Robert Harris wrote: If you never saw any refutations then why did you claim that you did?
I did see the refutations and linked them here. :D

You are a lying conspiracy theorist who was debunked on one forum and trying to start again on another forum. We get a lot of "flow" from JREF. You are simply lying again.
:D


Mr. Ellard,

The fact that you cannot describe even a single debunking of my work, pretty much confirms who the liar really is. And the fact that you will not be able to cite me verbatim, ever telling even a single lie, will just add more confirmation.

Robert Harris
Poster
Posts: 96
Joined: Mon Oct 12, 2015 5:45 pm

Re: The JFK case - another approach

Postby Robert Harris » Sat Oct 24, 2015 5:29 pm

bobbo_the_Pragmatist wrote:
Robert Harris wrote:I understand your point. But many of the people closest to JFK, including his brother Bobby, said things for the public record that were much different than what they said to their closest associates and aides.

I totally accept that. My point and your understanding remain. You know.....saving that brain power for more important issues ....... like .......has that beer I put in the freezer ready to turn to slush yet, or should I wait another 5 minutes. IE==things that are actually relevant TO ME....as I am the heartbeat of the universe. Not some other guy.


Greater minds than mine have dedicated their adult lives to studying the Lincoln assassination, the deaths of Egyptian pharoahs, and a thousand other historical topics that have no apparent relevance to current events.

The JFK case should be much more important to us than any of them, because there are lessons to be learned from it that bear on recent American history and the way we dealt with this crime. In my own research, I found no solid evidence that members of government were directly involved in this murder, but I found absolute proof of coverup. Even today, important evidence is being withheld from the public.

Anyone with even a passing interest in American history, should want to understand this case, if for no other reason, than to understand how our government dealt with it.

bobbo_the_Pragmatist
True Skeptic
Posts: 10627
Joined: Wed Sep 09, 2015 9:39 am

Re: The JFK case - another approach

Postby bobbo_the_Pragmatist » Sat Oct 24, 2015 5:41 pm

If the evidence is withheld, how do you know its important.

People study Lincoln and the Pharoes because there is information that is discoverable. When those wells run dry, they move on to more profitable pursuits.

With the Kennedy family being satisfied with the results....the implication is there is nothing of import to learn.

I could be wrong. so indeed, it will take a greater mind than mine to make any such research worthwhile.
Real Name: bobbo the existential pragmatic evangelical anti-theist and Class Warrior.
Asking: What is the most good for the most people?
Sample Issue: Should the Feds provide all babies with free diapers?

Robert Harris
Poster
Posts: 96
Joined: Mon Oct 12, 2015 5:45 pm

Re: The JFK case - another approach

Postby Robert Harris » Sat Oct 24, 2015 5:45 pm

The Ruby Polygraph

This article, which I wrote back in 1999, looks at the polygraph of Jack Ruby, which was conducted by the FBI. The FBI reported to the Warren Commission, that Ruby was truthful when he denied knowing Oswald and taking part in a conspiracy.

But in 1978, the HSCA's panel of polygraph experts examined the printout and the questioning of Ruby. What they found were outrageous efforts by the FBI to hide evidence that Ruby lied when he answered those critical questions.

http://jfkhistory.com/Polygraph/polygraph.html

Robert Harris
Poster
Posts: 96
Joined: Mon Oct 12, 2015 5:45 pm

Re: The JFK case - another approach

Postby Robert Harris » Sat Oct 24, 2015 6:02 pm

bobbo_the_Pragmatist wrote:If the evidence is withheld, how do you know its important.

People study Lincoln and the Pharoes because there is information that is discoverable. When those wells run dry, they move on to more profitable pursuits.

With the Kennedy family being satisfied with the results....the implication is there is nothing of import to learn.

I could be wrong. so indeed, it will take a greater mind than mine to make any such research worthwhile.

It is not up to you to make this research worthwhile. The value of the research is determined by its discoveries.

You have every right to not care about this crime and your government's role in it. But why would you employ your apathy in a manner, obviously intended to persuade others to ignore the case? When subjects are discussed which I am not interested in, I tend to ignore them. I don't get into extended debates about how important the subject is.

Some of us think the assassination is historically important. And it is obvious, that our government was wrong in denying that this was a conspiracy. If that doesn't perk your interest, then why not look around for a thread that does?

User avatar
TJrandom
Has More Than 7K Posts
Posts: 7490
Joined: Sat Aug 23, 2014 10:55 am
Location: Pacific coast outside of Tokyo bay.
Contact:

Re: The JFK case - another approach

Postby TJrandom » Sat Oct 24, 2015 6:54 pm

Robert Harris wrote:The Ruby Polygraph

This article, which I wrote back in 1999, looks at the polygraph of Jack Ruby, which was conducted by the FBI. The FBI reported to the Warren Commission, that Ruby was truthful when he denied knowing Oswald and taking part in a conspiracy.

But in 1978, the HSCA's panel of polygraph experts examined the printout and the questioning of Ruby. What they found were outrageous efforts by the FBI to hide evidence that Ruby lied when he answered those critical questions.

http://jfkhistory.com/Polygraph/polygraph.html


Polygraph evidence is bunk, whether used by the FBI or the HSCA.

Robert Harris
Poster
Posts: 96
Joined: Mon Oct 12, 2015 5:45 pm

Re: The JFK case - another approach

Postby Robert Harris » Sat Oct 24, 2015 8:07 pm

TJrandom wrote:
Robert Harris wrote:The Ruby Polygraph

This article, which I wrote back in 1999, looks at the polygraph of Jack Ruby, which was conducted by the FBI. The FBI reported to the Warren Commission, that Ruby was truthful when he denied knowing Oswald and taking part in a conspiracy.

But in 1978, the HSCA's panel of polygraph experts examined the printout and the questioning of Ruby. What they found were outrageous efforts by the FBI to hide evidence that Ruby lied when he answered those critical questions.

http://jfkhistory.com/Polygraph/polygraph.html


Polygraph evidence is bunk, whether used by the FBI or the HSCA.

The FBI doesn't think so, nor do most police departments throughout the country.

Polygraphs are very dependent on the operator. Tests conducted with inexperienced operators will usually yield poor results, but tests conducted by skilled operators, have yielded results exceeding 90%.

But that really isn't the issue here. The issue is that the FBI deliberately tried to hide Ruby's deception by doing things like constantly reducing the machine's sensitivity when they should have been increasing it, and using deliberately provocative test questions in order to set the bar so high that Ruby's lies would appear to be truthful. Consider this, from the HSCA panel,

The main problem with the GSR in the first session (before the break) is a lack of sensitivity due to Herndon's setting the sensitivity at one-fourth of maximum. He decreased it to one-fifth for the third series of questions. The panel noted that it should have been tried at a maximum sensitivity prior to the first test, where probably it should have remained for the entire examination.

As to the question of whether Ruby really was lying, we know for a fact, that attributes which are normally associated with lying, immediately shot upward when he denied involvement in the assassination.

"In fact, the reactions to the preceding question--(Did you assist Oswald in the assassination?)--showed the largest valid GSR reaction in test series No. 1. In addition, there is a constant suppression of breathing and a rise in blood pressure at the time of this crucial relevant question. From this test, it appeared to the panel that Ruby was possibly lying when answering "no" to the question, 'Did you assist Oswald in the assassination ?' This is contrary to Herndon's opinion that Ruby was truthful when answering that question."

BTW, the Warren Commission claimed that Oswald was just walking around aimlessly, apparently waiting to get caught, when he was stopped by officer Tippit. Where do you think he was going?

Image

User avatar
TJrandom
Has More Than 7K Posts
Posts: 7490
Joined: Sat Aug 23, 2014 10:55 am
Location: Pacific coast outside of Tokyo bay.
Contact:

Re: The JFK case - another approach

Postby TJrandom » Sat Oct 24, 2015 10:25 pm

Robert Harris wrote:
TJrandom wrote:
Robert Harris wrote:The Ruby Polygraph

This article, which I wrote back in 1999, looks at the polygraph of Jack Ruby, which was conducted by the FBI. The FBI reported to the Warren Commission, that Ruby was truthful when he denied knowing Oswald and taking part in a conspiracy.

But in 1978, the HSCA's panel of polygraph experts examined the printout and the questioning of Ruby. What they found were outrageous efforts by the FBI to hide evidence that Ruby lied when he answered those critical questions.

http://jfkhistory.com/Polygraph/polygraph.html


Polygraph evidence is bunk, whether used by the FBI or the HSCA.


The FBI doesn't think so, nor do most police departments throughout the country.



The FBI and police departments are looking for confessions and any way they can improve their chances of making an arrest. They aren`t prevented from lying to you, or using psychological pressure to get you to confess. The polygraph is just a tool for them to use – much as is the bright light, cold metal chair, etc...

bobbo_the_Pragmatist
True Skeptic
Posts: 10627
Joined: Wed Sep 09, 2015 9:39 am

Re: The JFK case - another approach

Postby bobbo_the_Pragmatist » Sun Oct 25, 2015 2:38 am

Robert Harris:

1. "It is not up to you to make this research worthwhile. The value of the research is determined by its discoveries." //// Thats exactly what I said.

2. You have every right to not care about this crime and your government's role in it. //// I never said or implied I didn't care. I said I'm happy with the conclusions reached because the Kennedy Clan & friends have accepted the same thing. I thought you said the gubment was not involved?

3. But why would you employ your apathy in a manner, obviously intended to persuade others to ignore the case? //// There are no others, Just you as you posted here.

4. When subjects are discussed which I am not interested in, I tend to ignore them. /// Me too. I'm interested in History and new discoveries or reveals. JFK has been beat to death, dug up, and beaten again. As I stated: better subjects to go after. When you actually "HAVE SOMETHING" I would be interested. Unanswered questions don't hack it.

5. I don't get into extended debates about how important the subject is. /// Few people do.

6. Some of us think the assassination is historically important. /// Everybody thinks that.

7. And it is obvious, that our government was wrong in denying that this was a conspiracy. /// Gubment is wrong if you can prove/point to the conspiracy in detail sufficient to overcome the charge is likely valid as opposed to an unsupported charge. Whats obvious is that the Warren Report is the accepted History of what happened and that has spurred a 1000 conspiracy theories all not supported enough to create any interest in another study. Kinda like Bengazhi.

8..If that doesn't perk your interest, then why not look around for a thread that does? /// Anyones interest in History, conspiracy theories, has that minimal interest. To provide balance and an alternate view to give others not already of settled mind that there is a way to cut through the BS: The Kennedys accept it, and thats good enough for me.
Real Name: bobbo the existential pragmatic evangelical anti-theist and Class Warrior.
Asking: What is the most good for the most people?
Sample Issue: Should the Feds provide all babies with free diapers?

Robert Harris
Poster
Posts: 96
Joined: Mon Oct 12, 2015 5:45 pm

Re: The JFK case - another approach

Postby Robert Harris » Sun Oct 25, 2015 4:06 am

I'm glad to see your change in attitude, since you said,

You know.....saving that brain power for more important issues ....... like .......has that beer I put in the freezer ready to turn to slush yet, or should I wait another 5 minutes. IE==things that are actually relevant TO ME

If you have not changed your attitude, then perhaps you should focus on your beer.

I am here to present some rather important facts and evidence to those who care about this case. If you care, then you should consider them. If you do not, then don't.

The facts and evidence trump the subjective opinions of JFK's friends and the fact that the case has been "beat to death" with bad theories. I am here to present a good one. If you care enough and have sufficient attention span, you will come to agree with me.

Robert Harris
Poster
Posts: 96
Joined: Mon Oct 12, 2015 5:45 pm

Re: The JFK case - another approach

Postby Robert Harris » Sun Oct 25, 2015 4:12 am

TJrandom wrote:
Robert Harris wrote:
TJrandom wrote:
Robert Harris wrote:The Ruby Polygraph

This article, which I wrote back in 1999, looks at the polygraph of Jack Ruby, which was conducted by the FBI. The FBI reported to the Warren Commission, that Ruby was truthful when he denied knowing Oswald and taking part in a conspiracy.

But in 1978, the HSCA's panel of polygraph experts examined the printout and the questioning of Ruby. What they found were outrageous efforts by the FBI to hide evidence that Ruby lied when he answered those critical questions.

http://jfkhistory.com/Polygraph/polygraph.html


Polygraph evidence is bunk, whether used by the FBI or the HSCA.


The FBI doesn't think so, nor do most police departments throughout the country.



The FBI and police departments are looking for confessions and any way they can improve their chances of making an arrest. They aren`t prevented from lying to you, or using psychological pressure to get you to confess. The polygraph is just a tool for them to use – much as is the bright light, cold metal chair, etc...


That's an interesting theory. I hope you are wrong, since I don't want to believe that such a massive conspiracy by the FBI and a thousand PD's exists. Do you have evidence to support this notion?

And you are missing the point of the article, which is that the FBI went to great lengths to hide the fact that Ruby lied about his connections to Oswald and the conspiracy.

bobbo_the_Pragmatist
True Skeptic
Posts: 10627
Joined: Wed Sep 09, 2015 9:39 am

Re: The JFK case - another approach

Postby bobbo_the_Pragmatist » Sun Oct 25, 2015 4:25 am

Robert Harris: you could beat the odds and be correct. Or, you might profit more by having a beer.
Real Name: bobbo the existential pragmatic evangelical anti-theist and Class Warrior.
Asking: What is the most good for the most people?
Sample Issue: Should the Feds provide all babies with free diapers?

Robert Harris
Poster
Posts: 96
Joined: Mon Oct 12, 2015 5:45 pm

Re: The JFK case - another approach

Postby Robert Harris » Sun Oct 25, 2015 4:33 am

bobbo_the_Pragmatist wrote:If the evidence is withheld, how do you know its important.

People study Lincoln and the Pharoes because there is information that is discoverable. When those wells run dry, they move on to more profitable pursuits.

With the Kennedy family being satisfied with the results....the implication is there is nothing of import to learn.

I could be wrong. so indeed, it will take a greater mind than mine to make any such research worthwhile.

After rereading that post, I think it is important to address your claim that "there is nothing of import to learn" about the JFK case.

Did you read the entirety of my post at the top of this thread? Did you read the more detailed article that I linked?

Were you already aware of the facts and citations I presented? Or were they new to you?

Did you already know that Oswald couldn't possibly have fired both of the shots at the end of the attack, and any of the early shots, only one of which was even audible to most witnesses??

It is ludicrous to claim that we should not research this crime because you think there is nothing left to learn about it, especially after you have just been presented with facts that are both new to you and extremely important. Sometime, when you are waiting for your beer to get cold, spend a little time watching this admittedly long winded presentation (it should have been longer) and see if there aren't quite a few things to be learned about this crime.

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

bobbo_the_Pragmatist
True Skeptic
Posts: 10627
Joined: Wed Sep 09, 2015 9:39 am

Re: The JFK case - another approach

Postby bobbo_the_Pragmatist » Sun Oct 25, 2015 4:39 am

No I didn't read it....as stated, with the Kennedy's acquiesence, and having reviewed 5 or 6 other alternative constructions, I consider the issue settled.

History is "interesting" but rarely important. If your covered up but important fact would have an impact on CURRENT ISSUES....then and only then would any investigation be worth the effort.

Tell me/us: what difference would it make if Oswald had another shooter with him or was provided by someone else without his knowledge? Ha, ha.....I'm channeling Hilary here: "At this point in time, what difference does it make?" Will JFK be resurrected from the grave? Will the CIA be restructured? Will I have an extra dollar in my pocket??

What difference would any additional understanding of what took place make?
Real Name: bobbo the existential pragmatic evangelical anti-theist and Class Warrior.
Asking: What is the most good for the most people?
Sample Issue: Should the Feds provide all babies with free diapers?

Robert Harris
Poster
Posts: 96
Joined: Mon Oct 12, 2015 5:45 pm

Re: The JFK case - another approach

Postby Robert Harris » Sun Oct 25, 2015 4:48 am

If you don't think it's important, then why are you posting in this thread? You just admitted that it WAS historically important and denied being apathetic.

If you wish to continue this discussion, then you need to read the article, so that you will not continue to base your opinions on silly things like the opinions of JFK's friends, or your belief that there is nothing new to learn about this crime.

I started this thread for people who care about the assassination or are at least curious to know what happened. You seem to be neither, so why are trolling me?

bobbo_the_Pragmatist
True Skeptic
Posts: 10627
Joined: Wed Sep 09, 2015 9:39 am

Re: The JFK case - another approach

Postby bobbo_the_Pragmatist » Sun Oct 25, 2015 4:52 am

RH--do you know what a Snipe Hunt is?

I will read the post if the "what difference does it make" is identified by you making the effort worthwhile.
Real Name: bobbo the existential pragmatic evangelical anti-theist and Class Warrior.
Asking: What is the most good for the most people?
Sample Issue: Should the Feds provide all babies with free diapers?

Robert Harris
Poster
Posts: 96
Joined: Mon Oct 12, 2015 5:45 pm

Re: The JFK case - another approach

Postby Robert Harris » Sun Oct 25, 2015 5:40 am

There is a reason why polls re: the JFK case are conducted constantly and why most people think this was a conspiracy, and why I have gotten roughly 13 million views of my JFK presentations. It is that most people care about this crime. If you do not, then you are a very rare exception and the fact that you continue to post in this thread, suggests that you really do.

But if you are looking for something more pragmatic, then consider that Hans Lipschis, age 93, was arrested in 2013 for assisting in the murder of Jews during WW2, 20 years prior to the JFK assassination. It is not at all impossible that some of the people involved in the JFK assassination are still alive and can be prosecuted.

Read the article, if for no other reason than to realize that this is not what you expect it to be, and that it really does prove that Oswald did not fire all the shots. We shouldn't be arguing about whether this was a conspiracy. We should be arguing about who was behind it.

bobbo_the_Pragmatist
True Skeptic
Posts: 10627
Joined: Wed Sep 09, 2015 9:39 am

Re: The JFK case - another approach

Postby bobbo_the_Pragmatist » Sun Oct 25, 2015 5:51 am

Yeah but....if there was no conspiracy, then no one was behind it. I have already confirmed I do care...but care that the issue is settled.

In your presentation, do you present the facts and evidence amounting to probable cause that named people committed crimes?
Real Name: bobbo the existential pragmatic evangelical anti-theist and Class Warrior.
Asking: What is the most good for the most people?
Sample Issue: Should the Feds provide all babies with free diapers?

Robert Harris
Poster
Posts: 96
Joined: Mon Oct 12, 2015 5:45 pm

Re: The JFK case - another approach

Postby Robert Harris » Sun Oct 25, 2015 7:30 am

Read the article and watch the presentation.

Yes, I explain who was behind the assassination, but my opinion doesn't matter. What matters is the evidence I present.

User avatar
TJrandom
Has More Than 7K Posts
Posts: 7490
Joined: Sat Aug 23, 2014 10:55 am
Location: Pacific coast outside of Tokyo bay.
Contact:

Re: The JFK case - another approach

Postby TJrandom » Sun Oct 25, 2015 8:53 am

Robert Harris wrote:
TJrandom wrote:
Robert Harris wrote:
TJrandom wrote:
Robert Harris wrote:The Ruby Polygraph

This article, which I wrote back in 1999, looks at the polygraph of Jack Ruby, which was conducted by the FBI. The FBI reported to the Warren Commission, that Ruby was truthful when he denied knowing Oswald and taking part in a conspiracy.

But in 1978, the HSCA's panel of polygraph experts examined the printout and the questioning of Ruby. What they found were outrageous efforts by the FBI to hide evidence that Ruby lied when he answered those critical questions.

http://jfkhistory.com/Polygraph/polygraph.html


Polygraph evidence is bunk, whether used by the FBI or the HSCA.


The FBI doesn't think so, nor do most police departments throughout the country.



The FBI and police departments are looking for confessions and any way they can improve their chances of making an arrest. They aren`t prevented from lying to you, or using psychological pressure to get you to confess. The polygraph is just a tool for them to use – much as is the bright light, cold metal chair, etc...


That's an interesting theory. I hope you are wrong, since I don't want to believe that such a massive conspiracy by the FBI and a thousand PD's exists. Do you have evidence to support this notion?

And you are missing the point of the article, which is that the FBI went to great lengths to hide the fact that Ruby lied about his connections to Oswald and the conspiracy.



Here are just of a few confirmations that police can lie to obtain a confession – via google (police interrogation lies). It happens all of the time.


With a few exceptions, the police are allowed to lie to a suspect to get him to confess.

http://people.howstuffworks.com/police- ... ation1.htm


It's very legal. In fact, there are relatively few limits to what the police can say to suspects in an interrogation …

https://www.quora.com/Can-cops-lie-duri ... errogation


The police, however, can use lying, trickery, and other types of non-coercive methods to obtain a confession from a suspect.

http://criminal.findlaw.com/criminal-ri ... tions.html


Yes – I will ignore any story/argument where a polygraph is used as evidence in support. Build a case without any reference to pseudo-science, and I might be interested.

bobbo_the_Pragmatist
True Skeptic
Posts: 10627
Joined: Wed Sep 09, 2015 9:39 am

Re: The JFK case - another approach

Postby bobbo_the_Pragmatist » Sun Oct 25, 2015 9:16 am

Robert Harris: so, who killed JFK?
Real Name: bobbo the existential pragmatic evangelical anti-theist and Class Warrior.
Asking: What is the most good for the most people?
Sample Issue: Should the Feds provide all babies with free diapers?

Robert Harris
Poster
Posts: 96
Joined: Mon Oct 12, 2015 5:45 pm

Re: The JFK case - another approach

Postby Robert Harris » Sun Oct 25, 2015 4:20 pm

Let's first confirm that there was a conspiracy and then we can talk about who did it.

Did you read the article?

bobbo_the_Pragmatist
True Skeptic
Posts: 10627
Joined: Wed Sep 09, 2015 9:39 am

Re: The JFK case - another approach

Postby bobbo_the_Pragmatist » Sun Oct 25, 2015 4:52 pm

bobbo_the_Pragmatist wrote:RH--do you know what a Snipe Hunt is?

I will read the post if the "what difference does it make" is identified by you making the effort worthwhile.

Still nothing worthwhile has been offered.

Who killed JFK?
Real Name: bobbo the existential pragmatic evangelical anti-theist and Class Warrior.
Asking: What is the most good for the most people?
Sample Issue: Should the Feds provide all babies with free diapers?

Robert Harris
Poster
Posts: 96
Joined: Mon Oct 12, 2015 5:45 pm

Re: The JFK case - another approach

Postby Robert Harris » Sun Oct 25, 2015 7:32 pm

bobbo_the_Pragmatist wrote:
bobbo_the_Pragmatist wrote:RH--do you know what a Snipe Hunt is?

I will read the post if the "what difference does it make" is identified by you making the effort worthwhile.

Still nothing worthwhile has been offered.

Who killed JFK?


I believe I asked my question first. Did you read the article?

bobbo_the_Pragmatist
True Skeptic
Posts: 10627
Joined: Wed Sep 09, 2015 9:39 am

Re: The JFK case - another approach

Postby bobbo_the_Pragmatist » Sun Oct 25, 2015 7:45 pm

Robert Harris wrote:
bobbo_the_Pragmatist wrote:
bobbo_the_Pragmatist wrote:RH--do you know what a Snipe Hunt is?

I will read the post if the "what difference does it make" is identified by you making the effort worthwhile.

Still nothing worthwhile has been offered.

Who killed JFK?


I believe I asked my question first. Did you read the article?


Yes, you asked your question first, second, and third, and each time I answered "NO" and told you I would not engage in a Snipe Hunt. Gee....I do hope your conspiracy identification of relevant dots is more rational than making the WHOLLY irrelevant point you do here. Been up too long.....or is this your standard of first drafts? Always good to let anything of import rest overnight. ((No...I don't rest on my postings here either...... you have a ready excuse.))

TELL US what you have found out or have well founded suspicions such that a Federal Type Attorney would be motivated to look into the case. Otherwise....... you are just asking us to waste our time. Stop trying to edge us and stick it in.
Real Name: bobbo the existential pragmatic evangelical anti-theist and Class Warrior.
Asking: What is the most good for the most people?
Sample Issue: Should the Feds provide all babies with free diapers?

Robert Harris
Poster
Posts: 96
Joined: Mon Oct 12, 2015 5:45 pm

Re: The JFK case - another approach

Postby Robert Harris » Sun Oct 25, 2015 7:58 pm

I've been dealing with LN advocates for many years. I know that you have read the article and realized that you have no rebuttal, so you are hoping to change the subject to something that you think you have a fighting chance to win:-)

I already linked a presentation in which I named the person who was behind the crime. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cvqCtaBkyyE

But I prefer to first discuss the question of whether this was a conspiracy, before dealing with who was behind it. If you aren't up for that, then I will wait for someone who is.

bobbo_the_Pragmatist
True Skeptic
Posts: 10627
Joined: Wed Sep 09, 2015 9:39 am

Re: The JFK case - another approach

Postby bobbo_the_Pragmatist » Sun Oct 25, 2015 8:07 pm

Well again....you aren't making much sense. I mean this analytically as an objective evaluation anyone can do including yourself. My request for more information is totally reasonable, you don't want to give it, so you manufacture out of your pure imagination, or lack thereof, that I have actually read your report and therefore know who you suspect. Why wouldn't I go to that point and say I don't think XYZ did it for the following reasons.......or whatever??? You aren't even respecting YOURSELF to be so transparently vacuous.

Why would ANYBODY want to discuss "whether" this (sic) was a conspiracy when you already have the name of the guilty party? THAT makes NO SENSE at all.

From the devolution of the foregoing, I can only assume you are on your second six pack? What kind of beer do you drink?? We may have some common ground afterall. Ever make a slushy for yourself?
Real Name: bobbo the existential pragmatic evangelical anti-theist and Class Warrior.
Asking: What is the most good for the most people?
Sample Issue: Should the Feds provide all babies with free diapers?

Robert Harris
Poster
Posts: 96
Joined: Mon Oct 12, 2015 5:45 pm

Re: The JFK case - another approach

Postby Robert Harris » Sun Oct 25, 2015 9:31 pm

I'm sorry you have to resort to all the trashtalk.

Let me know if you are willing to discuss the subject of this thread and can do so, civilly.

Robert Harris
Poster
Posts: 96
Joined: Mon Oct 12, 2015 5:45 pm

Re: The JFK case - another approach

Postby Robert Harris » Mon Oct 26, 2015 5:54 am

Robert Harris wrote:What I have found most amazing about the JFK case, is that the way people on both sides of the conspiracy debate have dealt with it, is at least as interesting as the crime itself. Conspiracy advocates have presented a long list of assertions, most of which, range from unproven to ridiculous. "lone nut" advocates have claimed that "all the evidence" proves that Oswald acted alone, when in fact, there is no evidence whatsoever, which proves that he was the only shooter.

My own conclusion, which I believe, really can be proved, is that while Oswald probably took part in the attack, he could not have fired all of the shots. There is nothing particularly complicated about this proof, but it does require a basic understanding of several important facts.

Most of the witnesses that day heard three gunshots, or as I would put it, three of the gunshots. No one seems to dispute that, but what is rarely mentioned, is the spacing of those shots, which as we will see, is at least equally important.

The Warren Commission, in it's final report stated,

"..a substantial majority of the witnesses stated that the shots were not evenly spaced. Most witnesses recalled that the second and third shots were bunched together."

At one point during the hearings, Warren Commissioner Allen Dulles noted the overwhelming consistency of those witnesses, when he described the ratio of those confirming that shooting scenario in comparison with others,

"There has been a certain amount of testimony indicating there was a longer pause between the report of the first shot... and the second and third shots, that is not absolutely unanimous but I would say it is something like 5 to 1 or something of that kind.."

Of course, it is also a well known fact that witnesses are prone to error. But it is hard to imagine that such a large consensus would be so consistent in making exactly the same error. Fortunately, we will find corroborations from a Nobel prize winning physicist as well as the empirical evidence of visible reactions to those two shots, by the people who were closest to the President.

Why is this important?

It is important, because the Mannlicher Carcano rifle that Oswald used, had limitations in terms of how fast it could be operated. The FBI tested Oswald's weapon thoroughly, and in their original tests, each of their experts required three or more seconds to reload, acquire their target, and fire. Months later, FBI expert Robert Frazier returned to the firing range and after repeated attempts, was able to bring his time down to 2.3 seconds, stating in his Warren Commission testimony, that he was, "firing this weapon as fast as the bolt can be operated..".

In 1978, the House Select Committee on Assassinations, recruited expert sharpshooters from the Washington D.C. police department, who along with two committee staffers, repeatedly attempted to corroborate their theory that Oswald fired shots 1.66 second apart. After numerous attempts, they failed every time. To the best of my knowledge, and after more than fifty years, no one has beaten Frazier's 2.3 second time.

In 1976, the Nobel prize winning physicist, Dr. Luis Alvarez, wrote a paper on the Zapruder film, describing his analysis of the shots, based on a study of the startle reactions of Abraham Zapruder. Alvarez was particularly well qualified on this subject, since he had previously studied the reactions to gunshots by camera operators in Africa. He was also a consultant to the Bell & Howell company which manufactured Zapruder's camera. His paper can be seen here:

http://jfkhistory.com/alvarez.pdf

Alvarez suggested that Zapruder was startled by a loud noise at frame 285, based on the two heavily blurred frames at 290 and 291. The FBI confirmed that the Zapruder film ran at 18.3 fps, so he was estimating a reaction time of 5-6 frames or roughly one third of a second, between the shot and the reaction. He also suggested that the driver, Bill Greer, reacted to that same noise by inadvertently, lifting his foot from the gas and causing the limo to slow down.

At the time he wrote his paper, there were no copies of the Zapruder film publicly available, so Alvarez had to work with stills from Life magazine. That is unfortunate, because if he had been able to study the film in motion, he probably would have noticed that Zapruder and Greer were not the only ones to react to that noise. As you watch this, also notice that Greer spins around from rear to front, at enormous speed, so fast that some alterationists claimed (incorrectly, as I was able to confirm) that his turns were not humanly possible.

http://jfkhistory.com/285again.gif

With only the exception of JFK, every person in the limousine simultaneously dropped their heads or spun around at great speed, all beginning at frames 290-292, in perfect unison with Zapruder's reaction at 290-291. To put it another way, all of the reactions began in the same 1/6 of one second.

http://jfkhistory.com/simultaneous.gif

As Alvarez and other experts have confirmed, involuntary reactions must begin within no more than a third of a second, or about 6 Zapruder frames. So, the startle reactions at 290-292, might have been caused by a noise later than 285, but no earlier.

Frame 285 was 1.5 seconds prior to the fatal head shot at 313. As Alvarez acknowledged, and tests by the FBI and the HSCA confirmed, that was too close for Oswald to have fired shots in both of those frames. So Alvarez, a staunch Warren Commission defender, speculated that the noise might have been a siren, rather than a shot, adding that the reactions to the 313 shot were more pronounced than those following 285. Of course, an alternative explanation would be that the two shots were fired from different rifles, one louder than the other.

Also, the people who heard that noise, were quite consistent that what they heard was a gunshot. None of the witnesses described hearing a siren until well after the shooting had ended, but as the Warren Commission confirmed, they were quite consistent that they heard closely spaced shots at the end.

In addition to the closely bunched shots at the end, the witnesses raised another critical question. How could they have only heard one of the early shots, prior to 285? Every legitimate expert to study the film has identified clear visual evidence of two early gunshots, so why did the witnesses only hear one of them?

And why do we see no one ducking or simultaneously reacting then, as we see in reactions following 285 and 313? Oswald's rifle was tested by acoustics experts for the HSCA (House Select Committee on Assassination) and proven to generate levels of 130 decibels within 10 feet of the bullet's path. This is from the HSCA testimony of Dr. James Barger Phd, who tested the rifle for the HSCA,

"..the shock wave was measured by a microphone 10 feet from the trajectory of the bullet and the muzzle blast was measured by the same microphone which was at the same time 30 feet from the muzzle... The shockwave has an intensity of 130 decibels."

90 decibels is the level at which involuntary startle reactions, as well as permanent hearing loss can be caused. 130 decibels is 16 times greater. So if Oswald fired even one early shot, we should see reactions at least as dramatic as the ones at the end and probably more so, since the distance back to the alleged sniper's nest would have been less then.

But although we see people looking around, we see no one ducking or spinning at enormous speed. And the reactions are spread out over 100 frames, rather than in near perfect unison with one another. You can examine those reactions as well as the ones at the end, in this Zapruder segment:

http://jfkhistory.com/fullzapruder.gif

This posting is the Cliff's notes on the shooting. I go into considerably more detail in the article I linked earlier, at

http://jfkhistory.com/WebArticle/article.html

and this brief presentation analyzes Alvarez's conclusions as well as the reports of other witnesses, including Mrs. Connally, who is probably the most important of the individual witnesses, since we can visually corroborate the most important parts of her testimony.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ql6VqZDiC6s

There is a general consensus among skeptics that Oswald acted alone and in fact, Michael Shermer has written articles denouncing conspiracy theories in the JFK case. But without exception, the only reason I have seen to justify that conclusion, is the alleged absence of verifiable evidence.

In the case of most theories, I would agree with that. But there are exceptions and this is one of them. I believe that anyone who examines this evidence objectively, must come to the conclusion that Oswald could not have fired both of the shots at the end of the attack or any of the earlier shots.

Thanks for your consideration.

I hope that at least some of you are getting the message. Think of it this way. Without any help from me, you can decide for yourself if the reactions of the people closest to Kennedy suggest that they were exposed to the same kind of gunshots at the beginning of the attack, that they were at the end.

Like all high powered rifles, Oswald's was ungodly loud. It produced sound levels that were 16 times greater than the level at which involuntary startle reactions are known to occur. Look for reactions (excluding the victims) to the early shots which were similar to those around 290 and 315.

http://jfkhistory.com/fullzapruder.gif

Matthew Ellard
Real Skeptic
Posts: 26571
Joined: Fri Jun 13, 2008 3:31 am

Re: The JFK case - another approach

Postby Matthew Ellard » Mon Oct 26, 2015 6:30 am

Robert Harris wrote: I hope that at least some of you are getting the message.
I don't think anyone is reading your posts, other than two people and myself. JFK conspiracies are more of a "JREF thing", like Bigfoot discussions. It's not very interesting to non-Americans.

Anyhow, we have already "cut to the chase".

His (Robert Harris) basic theory is that Kennedy, and Connally were indeed hit by the same bullet fired from the depository at frame Z-185, That a second shot was fired from the Dal-Tex building at frame Z-285 and missed the limousine completely and landed in the street, causing the wound to James Tague. He claims the third shot was the shot that hit Kennedy in the head at Z-312. I'm assuming that he believes that shot was also fired from the depository. He also believes there was a fourth shot fired from a sewer on the north side of Elm street at frame Z-323. This fourth shot is the shot that he seems to have backed off on, but the shot at Z-285 would be proof in of itself of a conspiracy.
http://jfkassassination.net/russ/m_j_russ/comp.htm

Robert Harris
Poster
Posts: 96
Joined: Mon Oct 12, 2015 5:45 pm

Re: The JFK case - another approach

Postby Robert Harris » Mon Oct 26, 2015 11:18 am

Matthew Ellard wrote:
Robert Harris wrote: I hope that at least some of you are getting the message.
I don't think anyone is reading your posts, other than two people and myself. JFK conspiracies are more of a "JREF thing", like Bigfoot discussions. It's not very interesting to non-Americans.

Anyhow, we have already "cut to the chase".

His (Robert Harris) basic theory is that Kennedy, and Connally were indeed hit by the same bullet fired from the depository at frame Z-185, That a second shot was fired from the Dal-Tex building at frame Z-285 and missed the limousine completely and landed in the street, causing the wound to James Tague. He claims the third shot was the shot that hit Kennedy in the head at Z-312. I'm assuming that he believes that shot was also fired from the depository. He also believes there was a fourth shot fired from a sewer on the north side of Elm street at frame Z-323. This fourth shot is the shot that he seems to have backed off on, but the shot at Z-285 would be proof in of itself of a conspiracy.
http://jfkassassination.net/russ/m_j_russ/comp.htm

There have been well over 200 views so far and as we approach 11/22, there will be many more.
And the description you posted totally butchers my analysis. The guy who wrote it is a lone nut fanatic who doesn't seem to always be sober when he writes :mrgreen:

If you have read the article at the top of the thread, you should know that my conclusions are not the issue. The issue is determining whether it was possible for Oswald to have fired all the shots. I don't believe anyone who is aware of the facts could possibly believe that it was.

A fairly complete version of my analysis on the shooting can be see in this presentation. It describes not just when and where shots came from, but the evidence which supports my conclusions, which are infinitely more important.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cvqCtaBkyyE


Return to “Conspiracies”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest