(PART 437)


If police officers examined a security tape which captured a shooting in a convenience store, would you urge them to refrain from looking for reactions by the victims and bystanders in order to determine when shots were fired? Would you tell them not to "micro-analyze" the film, in order to corroborate the witnesses' statements?? Answer honestly, David.


In such a "convenience store" scenario, there would probably be no need to micro-analyze the store's security tape to determine when shots were fired. It's not the same situation that exists in the JFK case, where gunmen conceivably could have been hidden in tall buildings, etc.

Did the store's shooter(s) hide themselves from the view of every witness in the store during the shooting?

Was there a convenient 7-story building or a "grassy knoll" INSIDE the store that the gunmen could use to hide from view?

Was there a major controversy as to the directionality of the shots fired inside the store?

Was there a major controversy as to the inshoot/outshoot wounds of any of the victims who might have been struck by the bullets inside the store?

Did any witness in the store say they saw more than just ONE person firing a gun inside the store? (And in the Kennedy case, there are ZERO witnesses who fall into the category of "I Saw Two People Firing Weapons At JFK". In fact, there's only one witness, period, who saw anyone firing a weapon at JFK--and that weapon was being fired from the TSBD's 6th Floor.)

Unless some of those above questions can be answered with a "Yes", then I can't think of a good enough reason for the police to scour the videotape for signs of the gunshots. But I imagine you can think of a few, Bob.

But, Robert, in the instance of the Kennedy assassination, the Zapruder Film that you rely on so heavily to prop up your double-bill of CT nonsense (1. a missed shot occurred at Z285 and 2. JFK was hit in the head by two bullets) HAS been micro-analyzed to death by people who were looking for signs of potential extra gunmen.

And the end result of such analysis by the experts (such as Luis Alvarez) is that there were three shots fired, with those shots coming at intervals which are perfectly consistent with the one-assassin-in-the-TSBD scenario.

You, Bob, on the other hand, just simply do not like the "3 Shot" findings that others have found in the Z-Film. And that's because you desperately WANT a multi-gun conspiracy to exist in this case.

You do want a conspiracy to exist, don't you Robert Harris? Answer honestly.


You don't even have to tell us you did it, but for your own benefit, put a little independent effort into learning what happened.


I have done that, Robert (whether you wish to believe it or not).

IMO, it's conspiracists such as yourself who are fooling themselves (badly) into thinking that their "independent effort into learning what happened" to JFK has led to some kind of conclusive PROOF that the official version of the event (i.e., Oswald was the only gunman to hit any victims with any bullets in Dealey Plaza) is dead wrong.

That's called WISHFUL THINKING, Robert. And nothing else but that.

David Von Pein
February 3, 2009