(PART 310)


I only heard him [Dale Myers] insulting me and claim that people who watch YouTube have short attention spans. But maybe I overlooked something. Could you cite the part where he dealt with the fact that the HSCA produced a drastically different drawing, showing the two victims much further apart? And could you tell me what his answer was to the fact that his own trajectory line, which he chopped off after returning to an accurate image, was much too steep and would have struck the back of Connally's car seat--exactly as the shot from the Discovery Channel simulation was??


Bob, you're incredible. Just incredible. It's as if Dale Myers' words in his rebuttal to you were never even written! They've sailed right past Mr. Harris, with no hint of their existence resonating with Mr. Harris at all! Amazing.

Here's a portion of what Mr. Myers wrote on his website concerning the unwarranted allegations made by Mr. Harris (and, once again, these words will undoubtedly fly into Mr. Harris' left ear and then zoom straight out the right one, with nothing sinking into the gray matter that resides in-between those two locations):

[Quoting Dale Myers:]

"Apparently Mr. Harris never heard of (or understands) the underlying principle of photogrammetry, which in essence shows that it is impossible to project three dimensional lines in space onto two dimensional photographs without taking into account the location and angle of both known vantage points. By some wizardry unknown to human science, Mr. Harris is able to do both.


What is the evidence for the charge that I manipulated the dimensions of the limousine to better serve the single bullet theory? Mr. Harris offers nothing more that his own self-proclaimed expertise at visually aligning two different photographs made from two completely different angles in three dimensional space--a virtual impossibility--along with an unsupported declarative statement: 'There is no way JFK's legs could have been up against the back of Connally's car seat.'


What Mr. Harris doesn't know is that the two renderings (wireframe and solid form) depict the SAME MODEL. That's right folks, the wireframe model that he claims has been "jammed together" in order to mislead the American public and perpetuate the cover-up, is the EXACT SAME MODEL (and in the same position) as the solid form model which Mr. Harris says depicts Kennedy and Connally correctly."
-- DALE MYERS; 08/18/2008

In addition to the above remarks by Myers in his main article/rebuttal, Dale wrote these lengthy follow-up comments two days later:

[Quoting Dale Myers:]

"Mr. Harris cannot seem to let well enough alone, posting a response to my article on one of the newsgroups dedicated to assassination discussion, in an effort to redeem his false and poorly conceived charge that I manipulated geometry in my computer reconstruction of the Kennedy murder in order to hide the truth about the trajectory of the single bullet theory.

Normally I wouldn't respond to Mr. Harris' retort because he has proven in the past (and again in his latest response) to be incapable of grasping even the simplest of scientific concepts. I'm going to make an exception this time in order to demonstrate in living color why I don't bother to spend any valuable time debating such nincompoopery.

Since Mr. Harris has deemed it necessary to serve up his rosey bottom for a thorough spanking on this issue, I will be happy to oblige him -- this one time. I promise this will not be a habit.

In a newsgroup thread titled "Myers Responds!", Mr. Harris repeats his unfounded and false contention that I "reduced the distance between JFK and Connally, in the first part of his presentation, using what was obviously a hastily thrown together wireframe of the limousine, and that he switched back to an accurate rendering of the two victims after finishing his 'analysis'."

This charge was made after Mr. Harris was informed that the wireframe version of the limousine and the solid form version (which Mr. Harris refers to as "an accurate rendering") were one and the same model rendered with two different rendering shaders -- a fact Mr. Harris fails to even mention in his response, and with good reason: it shows him to be completely ignorant of the process involved in constructing the model and destroys the foundation of his entire argument.

What evidence of deception does Mr. Harris offer in the face of the true facts about my work that show his claims to be false at their very core? Get this -- Mr. Harris writes: "...my argument was that he shrunk the distance between the two men, a fact which is quite obvious, and requires no extrapolation whatsoever..." Mr. Harris explains that "...But what is really great about debates on graphics is that you don't have to rely on the *words* of either Mr. Myers or myself. Look at the images, pause the video, and hold a ruler up to your screen. Decide for yourself, who is full of crap here..." [End Harris quote.]

For Mr. Harris, proof of deception is as simple as holding a ruler up to a computer monitor. Even a child of five could accomplish this task, right? Yet, Mr. Harris has conveniently and methodically avoided the central scientific principle pointed out in my original response -- the principle of photogrammetry -- which effectively proves (to anyone of even the simplest mindset) the fallacy of "holding a ruler up to your screen" to prove anything.

I pointed out that Jack White, a leading conspiracy advocate, made the same mistake thirty years ago (as revealed in testimony before the House Select Committee on Assassinations). Mr. Harris not only ignores this fact, but continues to make false and malicious statements about my work base[d] on the same false methodology used [by] White three decades ago.

I don't know how many ways to say it, but let me try it this way -- no one can deduce a three dimensional angle in space by holding a ruler or protractor against a two dimensional photograph or computer monitor. The principles of photogrammetry explain why this methodology leads to false results.

Mr. Harris claims to be able to do what is scientifically impossible using images of my computer work as broadcast on the Discovery Channel. It has already been pointed out to Mr. Harris and others that the Discovery Channel sequences were filmed from a computer monitor that was situated at a considerable angle to the camera (this can clearly [be] seen by looking at the images themselves).

These filmed sequences were mixed with other sequences which originated directly from the computer renderings. Consequently, there are multiple compound angles present in the broadcast sequences which prevent anyone -- especially Mr. Harris -- from holding a ruler or protractor up to a computer monitor and gleening [sic] anything that remotely resembles the truth.

Mr. Harris has proven in this latest outrage to be incapable of dealing with the truth. The best he can hope to do is play the martyr to an audience largely ignorant of basic scientific principles. None of this is new.


Finally, Mr. Harris is wrong about the trajectory line in the original rendering terminating at the inshoot point of Kennedy's back wound. The line does extend through Kennedy and into Connally's back. Mr. Harris makes the mistake of using compressed imagery from secondary sources which effectively hides the rendered trajectory line to draw his fatally flawed conclusions.

One final note, in a thread entitled "Dale Myers", Mr. Harris writes: "...Dale and I go way back, to when I emailed him in 1995 in response to his article in Toaster magazine. To this day, I am still waiting for him to reveal the angles he used to conclude that a line through the known wounds in JFK and Connally pointed directly back at Oswald...."

The angles that Mr. Harris is "still waiting for" were published long ago on my website detailing the results of my computer work (see, www.jfkfiles.com). The relevant passage reads: "The result shows the bullet moving at a 10 degree angle, right to left, relative to the midline of the limousine. The angle of declination is about 20.5 degrees below true horizontal. Accounting for the three degree slope in the road, the bullet is moving downward at an angle of about 17.5 degrees relative to the limousine. These figures are comparable to those determined in previous trajectory analysis conducted by the FBI in 1964 (WR106) and the HSCA's Photographic Panel in 1978. (6HSCA46)"

I don't for a minute believe that Mr. Harris will stop his malicious and disparaging remarks about myself or my work on this case. His record of ad hominem attacks and personal insults is long and easily accessible to anyone willing to indulge in a search of the newsgroups.

My refusal to engage him and his ilk over the years has, I'm sure, emboldened him to some degree. However, I believe that most people are smart enough to realize that the loudest voices aren't necessarily the ones worth listening to.

Frankly, if Mr. Harris had any bullocks, he'd yank his latest video voodoo off YouTube and apologize for being such a dope for so many years."
-- DALE MYERS; 08/20/2008

Full article by Myers linked here:


I have no doubt whatsoever that a single bullet passed through both victims.


But you just can't take that extra small (and logical) step toward believing the only "official SBT" that's on the table right now (i.e., the one involving bullet CE399 from Lee Oswald's gun going through the two victims). Right, Bob?

In other words, folks, Mr. Harris can get to within shouting distance of the Warren Commission's version of the SBT, but he just can't quite bring himself to endorse it entirely. So, he'll place a non-existent gunman in a different building and he'll invent a new version of the "SBT" -- the "Harris Version".

The only problem for Mr. Harris' version, however, is that it's not really supported by ANY evidence at all! None. Nothing. It's only supported by the mind of Robert Harris himself! And nothing more than that.


And if I had to place a bet, I would say that Oswald was involved in the attack and very likely fired the fatal shot at 312-313.


Gee, I wonder how Bob could ever come to a wild and fantastic conclusion like that one?

Could it be the fact that every scrap of evidence in the whole case points to ONLY OSWALD as the culprit?



The truth is, David, that I believe a great deal of what Myers and you believe. In fact, I agree with you on everything that is properly supported by the evidence. But the difference between you and I is, that I form my conclusions on that evidence while you and Mr. Myers do exactly the opposite.


~LOL Break~

Yeah, Myers and I (AND the Warren Commission AND the House Select Committee) formed our opinions about the Single-Bullet Theory on nothing but pure 100% guesswork and conjecture and NON-evidence....right?

Such as:

1.) CE399 being the ONLY bullet connected to this murder case that was found inside Parkland Hospital (and on a stretcher that was most certainly occupied by Governor Connally, NOT President Kennedy's stretcher, which is a key and critical fact that many CTers want to ignore, mangle, or misrepresent).

2.) CE399 was positively a bullet fired from Lee Oswald's rifle.

3.) The gun which fired CE399 was found on the 6th Floor of the Book Depository.

4.) Governor John B. Connally was struck by just ONE BULLET on November 22, 1963.

5.) The wound on Connally's back was almost certainly caused by a bullet that HIT SOMETHING ELSE BEFORE IT STRUCK THE GOVERNOR OF TEXAS (per almost all of the expert witnesses who testified about this particular matter). And the ONLY object that that "something else" could have possibly been was the body of President John F. Kennedy.

Also -- For the benefit of other anti-SBT CTers, I'll offer up the following audio clip featuring Warren Commission assistant counsel member Albert Jenner. This clip, which relates directly to my #5 point above, isn't really meant for Robert Harris' benefit, however, since Bob does believe that one bullet did travel through both Kennedy and Connally via his unique (but totally evidence-empty) alternate version of the SBT:


"At that angle, no matter WHERE [the bullet] came from [that hit Connally], it HAD TO PASS THROUGH THE PRESIDENT'S BODY FIRST!" -- ALBERT E. JENNER, JR.; 02/11/1967

6.) JFK had no bullets remaining inside his body when he was autopsied on the night of 11/22/63.

7.) JFK's upper-back wound and throat wound line up very nicely to form a DOWNWARD (back-to-front) path, perfectly consistent with the WC's version of the SBT. And this is true even if JFK had been sitting RAMROD STRAIGHT in his limo seat at the time when Oswald's CE399 bullet struck him in the upper back, as we can easily see via the turned-sideways autopsy photo shown below (the crazy HSCA determination about an "11-degree upward bullet trajectory" through Kennedy's body notwithstanding):

Addendum: Commission Exhibit 903 is also worth another look at this time too (and take notice of the "SBT"-like perfection of everything exhibited in this photograph, right down to Arlen Specter's pointer being placed in the bullet hole in John Connally's jacket; and yes, the man portraying JBC in CE903 was, indeed, wearing the same jacket that Connally was wearing when he was shot on 11/22/63):

The above seven points of fact provide a good short lesson as to the main reasons why the Single-Bullet Theory is an ironclad fact, instead of just a mere possibility (or a mere "theory" that isn't based on any "evidence" at all, as many conspiracy theorists seem to want to believe).

Fact #8 (for good measure):

Both the Warren Commission in 1964 and the HSCA in 1978 concluded that ONE BULLET (bullet #CE399 from Lee Harvey Oswald's C2766 Mannlicher-Carcano bolt-action rifle to be specific) passed through both victims in Dallas' Dealey Plaza on 11/22/63, with that bullet entering President Kennedy's upper back and exiting the front of his throat, and then proceeding to cause all of Governor Connally's injuries.

In short -- The official record in the JFK murder case TWICE fully supports the validity and workability of the Single-Bullet Theory (via the conclusions of both U.S. Government investigative bodies who looked into the assassination -- the WC and the HSCA).

And yet Mr. Harris has the Kong-sized gonads to utter these words to me about the SBT:

"I agree with you on everything that is properly supported by the evidence. ... I form my conclusions on that evidence while you and Mr. Myers do exactly the opposite." -- Robert Harris; 08/24/2008

Unbelievable, Bob.

So, apparently then, Robert Harris is of the odd opinion that BOTH the Warren Commission and the House Select Committee on Assassinations (which were separate Government entities entirely, and were formed 14 years apart) actually reached their conclusions regarding the validity of the SBT based NOT on the evidence in the case, but based on something else entirely.

Maybe a voice from heaven was heard by ALL of those members of BOTH the WC and the HSCA who favored the likelihood of the SBT being the correct explanation for the double-man wounding on Elm Street in '63. And this voice said the following to both Government entities -- "Believe The SBT! Believe The SBT! Don't Follow The Real Evidence In The Case To Where It Leads You! Believe The SBT Instead!"

Because if BOTH the WC and the HSCA based their pro-SBT conclusions on something OTHER than the actual "evidence" in the JFK case....what was this "other" thing that the SBT was being based on?? A gut feeling? A hunch? Tea leaves? Tarot cards? What?

What was it that persuaded TWO Government panels to endorse a theory that almost all conspiracy theorists say is a pack of lies? And what kind of arm-twisting devices could have possibly been used on so many different investigators who looked into this matter in '64 and '78, so that virtually all of these people would be willing to swallow WHOLE a theory that the conspiracy community thinks belongs in a book written by Aesop?

You're amazing, Bob Harris. A work of conspiracy art.

David Von Pein
August 25, 2008