Robert Harris's Broken 3rd Floor Daltex Window Theory Blown Out Of The Water

[John Dolva]

Robert, I don't think those are breaks. I think the blind stops at where you see a break and that there are boxes or something like that standing further inside that give you the visual cues to make what I think is a faulty interpretation.

edit typo

Edited October 17, 2010 by John Dolva

[Robert Harris]

Robert, I don't think those are breaks. I think the blind stops at where you see a break and that there are boxes or something like that standing further inside that give you the visual cues to make what I think is a faulty interpretation.

edit typo

Thank you for the civil and reasonable argument John. Believe me, it's like a breath of fresh air

But I would urge you to consider two things. First, if the cords ended at the darkened area, then how could the cord on the right side have extended all the way to the bottom of the window?

And second, do you see a small, light colored line on the left side, where the arrow is pointing?

[John Dolva]

You're welcome Robert.

Re the right cord. It is a three paned window above which indicates the right cord is in shadow, What the wide stripe is I can't say except it's wide, ie not cord. Again perhaps a feature of something inside the room.

I see the light line. I can't say what it is. It looks to me not to line up with the left cord and strikes me as likely being a feature, again, inside the room.

[Robert Harris]

You're welcome Robert.

Re the right cord. It is a three paned window above which indicates the right cord is in shadow, What the wide stripe is I can't say except it's wide, ie not cord. Again perhaps a feature of something inside the room.

I see the light line. I can't say what it is. It looks to me not to line up with the left cord and strikes me as likely being a feature, again, inside the room.

If you look closely, I think you will see that there are no decorative wooden slats in the lower window as there are in the upper. We see the same thing in the second floor windows. This was a very old building, even in 1963. Undoubtedly, it was less expensive to replace broken windows with plain glass.

But yes, you are correct that the top and bottom sections of the left cord do not line up. Doesn't it make sense that when the cord was cut, along with some of the slats there, that the top and bottom might not remain aligned with each other?

And what about the rightmost cord? Why would it extend all the way to the bottom of the window, if the leftmost did not?

Also, I am not clear on what kind of "feature" you think that bottom-left segment might be.

[John Dolva]

Firstly I don't know if it is a wooden slat blind. Either way, if the cord was cut then the lower section should concertina collapse. I can't, as said, say what the light line is. The whole thing is open to speculation with indicators that imo veers away from your interpretation.

afa the right cord, it is too thick to be a cord and it is in the wrong place to be one. imo the right cord is in the shadows and not visible. What the light wide stripe IS i can't say..

[Bill Miller]

Thank you for the civil and reasonable argument John. Believe me, it's like a breath of fresh air

But I would urge you to consider two things. First, if the cords ended at the darkened area, then how could the cord on the right side have extended all the way to the bottom of the window?

And second, do you see a small, light colored line on the left side, where the arrow is pointing?

Some logical and responsible cross referencing of images taken immediately following the assassination on your part would be a breath of fresh air to us. If you'd take the time to look at windows that are open, then you'd be forced to see that the opening is darker in open windows than windows that are closed and have glare on them. You might see the horizontal frame across the bottom of the pane.

Bill

[Robert Harris]

Thank you for the civil and reasonable argument John. Believe me, it's like a breath of fresh air

But I would urge you to consider two things. First, if the cords ended at the darkened area, then how could the cord on the right side have extended all the way to the bottom of the window?

And second, do you see a small, light colored line on the left side, where the arrow is pointing?

Some logical and responsible cross referencing of images taken immediately following the assassination on your part would be a breath of fresh air to us. If you'd take the time to look at windows that are open, then you'd be forced to see that the opening is darker in open windows than windows that are closed and have glare on them. You might see the horizontal frame across the bottom of the pane.

Bill

Yes Bill. That window was closed, as I have stated very clearly in the past. Your inability to understand what is going on here, just amazes me.

BTW Bill, did Duncan ask you to help him attack me?

[Duke Lane]

... What we see on the third floor is unique. It is unlike any of the other windows. And the ONLY explanation for it is that the third floor windows were damaged.

Pardon my jumping in here, but everything else said here aside, can you truly say that the "ONLY possible explanation" is the one you've apparently decided that IS the explanation, that absolutely nothing else can possibly explain it?

Without commenting on the veracity of the claim of a broken window, I'm curious what other explanations have been considered and rejected, and why. Not knowing that, I have deep reservations about any claim of anything being the "ONLY possible explanation" (even without the all-caps!).

Such an all-encompassing claim tends to weaken an argument rather than strengthen it. What happens when even one other explanation is possible?!?

[Robert Harris]

Firstly I don't know if it is a wooden slat blind. Either way, if the cord was cut then the lower section should concertina collapse. I can't, as said, say what the light line is. The whole thing is open to speculation with indicators that imo veers away from your interpretation.

afa the right cord, it is too thick to be a cord and it is in the wrong place to be one. imo the right cord is in the shadows and not visible. What the light wide stripe IS i can't say..

John, it sounds like you've had some experience with this. Are there not commercial blinds which use both relatively thin cords as well as wider straps for support?

And as I mentioned in another thread, isn't it reasonable to consider that the blinds on that floor, which was used mostly for storage, might not have been exactly the right size for those windows, or that they might have been wide enough to span both of the adjoining windows?

Also, I think I have to disagree with you about the "concertina collapse" of the blinds. If there were only two cords or straps then you might be correct but if there were three or more, as there must have been in these, then the two remaining, uncut cords should have kept the slats from collapsing. At worst, they would have sagged a bit.

[Robert Harris]

... What we see on the third floor is unique. It is unlike any of the other windows. And the ONLY explanation for it is that the third floor windows were damaged.

Pardon my jumping in here, but everything else said here aside, can you truly say that the "ONLY possible explanation" is the one you've apparently decided that IS the explanation, that absolutely nothing else can possibly explain it?

Without commenting on the veracity of the claim of a broken window, I'm curious what other explanations have been considered and rejected, and why. Not knowing that, I have deep reservations about any claim of anything being the "ONLY possible explanation" (even without the all-caps!).

Such an all-encompassing claim tends to weaken an argument rather than strengthen it. What happens when even one other explanation is possible?!?

How are you doing Duke? I could be wrong about this, but didn't you post in the old CompuServe, JFK forum, back in the early '90's? I think you do a commendable service for all of us, practically making a career out of debunking conspiracy arguments, except for those rare cases like this one where you wind up trying to throw the proverbial baby out with the bath water

I usually temper my statements on that particular issue by stating that there is no plausible, alternative explanation. If I omitted that, then it was due to oversight and perhaps, creeping old age.

Anyway, it would seem that your task as a debunker should be a simple one. To prove me wrong, you only need to present an alternative explanation which differs from mine, but is consistent with what we see in the photos and films.

If you cannot do that, then it would seem that you are corroborating the certainty I have expressed, rather than disproving it; are you not?

[Duke Lane]

You're welcome Robert.

Re the right cord. It is a three paned window above which indicates the right cord is in shadow, What the wide stripe is I can't say except it's wide, ie not cord. Again perhaps a feature of something inside the room.

I see the light line. I can't say what it is. It looks to me not to line up with the left cord and strikes me as likely being a feature, again, inside the room.

If you look closely, I think you will see that there are no decorative wooden slats in the lower window as there are in the upper. We see the same thing in the second floor windows. This was a very old building, even in 1963. Undoubtedly, it was less expensive to replace broken windows with plain glass.

But yes, you are correct that the top and bottom sections of the left cord do not line up. Doesn't it make sense that when the cord was cut, along with some of the slats there, that the top and bottom might not remain aligned with each other?

And what about the rightmost cord? Why would it extend all the way to the bottom of the window, if the leftmost did not?

Also, I am not clear on what kind of "feature" you think that bottom-left segment might be.

Firstly I don't know if it is a wooden slat blind. Either way, if the cord was cut then the lower section should concertina collapse. I can't, as said, say what the light line is. The whole thing is open to speculation with indicators that imo veers away from your interpretation.

afa the right cord, it is too thick to be a cord and it is in the wrong place to be one. imo the right cord is in the shadows and not visible. What the light wide stripe IS i can't say...

As to my own observations, they're pretty limited and I'll need either a larger, higher-resolution image or much better glasses; an actual photo and a lupe rather than a bunch of pixels would be even better!

I'm therefore not entirely certain what "lines" are being referred to as the "left-most cord" and the "right-most cord," and based on what I can see, can only conjecture that the references are to the thinner line that extends vertically below the left-most panel of the upper window, and the the thicker line that extends vertically below the center panel of the upper window; is that correct?

I cannot see a vertical line or cord at the far right of the lower window that might correspond to the cord that tilts the blinds and acts as a "lift" to raise the blinds upward, which (what I think is meant by) the "left-most cord" could be. If that is what that is, I don't know what the center line would be since blinds only that wide tend not to have another, similar cord in the middle as wider blinds might well.

Pending clarifications, let me toss out an idea or two.

First on the question, "... the top and bottom sections of the left cord do not line up. Doesn't it make sense that when the cord was cut, along with some of the slats there, that the top and bottom might not remain aligned with each other? And what about the rightmost cord? Why would it extend all the way to the bottom of the window, if the leftmost did not?"

As to the first part of the question, the answer seems to be yes, that if the cord was cut, then its lower portion might not remain aligned with the upper: since they're presumably no longer held together, there is nothing that keeps them in line. Fair enough.

But let's presume for a moment that the "irregular shaped pattern" is not a defect, but an object; for the sake of argument, let's say it's a hand, or a head; an object inside the window and between the window and the blinds. In such a case, the blinds would "bend" out, away from the window, to accomodate the introduction of whatever the object is. The "cord" would curve outward and around the object, and continue down vertically from a point farther from the window than the upper portion, behind the object.

In such a case, at an angle, the lower portion of the cord would appear to be (in this case) to the right of the upper portion, the distance appearing greater the more acute an angle the viewer was seeing it from, since they would be able to see the depth of the "curve" more greatly as they moved toward the building, and less of it the more perpendicular they were to the view; at some point, the lower portion might even appear to the left of the upper portion.

Such a possibility might be supported by the lower portion of the blinds - if even that is what the lighter portion is in the window, for certain - appear to be darker to the left of what I think is the "left-most cord" that's being referred to, such as might occur if either or both the room behind the blinds was dark, and/or a shadow was being cast downward by whatever might have been attached to the object in the window (e.g., a body attached to a head or hand), or other possibilities that don't come right to mind.

All of this, of course, is null and void if I'm not even talking about the same things y'all are.

So what's the likelihood of getting a high-res blow-up of just that area in a size that doesn't pixelate when you try to look more closely at it? If upload space is an issue, email the image to me: I've got lots of room, more than three times what I've already uploaded in five years!

[Duke Lane]

How are you doing Duke? I could be wrong about this, but didn't you post in the old CompuServe, JFK forum, back in the early '90's? I think you do a commendable service for all of us, practically making a career out of debunking conspiracy arguments, except for those rare cases like this one where you wind up trying to throw the proverbial baby out with the bath water.

I usually temper my statements on that particular issue by stating that there is no plausible, alternative explanation. If I omitted that, then it was due to oversight and perhaps, creeping old age.

Anyway, it would seem that your task as a debunker should be a simple one. To prove me wrong, you only need to present an alternative explanation which differs from mine, but is consistent with what we see in the photos and films.

If you cannot do that, then it would seem that you are corroborating the certainty I have expressed, rather than disproving it; are you not?

One and the same, tho' I differ somewhat with your characterization of my "career," which serves only to bias any of my replies. As you might recall, and as I believe applies even today, all I do is start with a premise - usually someone else's - and test it. The cards fall where they may. I do not start out to "debunk" anything.

I disagree, also, with the perspectives that any theory "must" be correct until and unless someone posits an "alternative explanation" (or "alternative scenario," as Jean Davison used to like to say) that's universally acceptable, or that, failing to achieve such a loft goal, that failure "proves" the first theory correct. Were that the case, the sun might still be rotating around the earth (or might be "sliding by" on a linear plane given, after all, that the world was also flat at the time!).

You'll also see, if you read my considerable posts here, that my writings are not oriented toward debunking, and that I'm not without a few theories of my own. None of them - none! - conclude that "Oswald did it on his own," BTW.

The fact is, in any case, that it is not up to a "debunker" disprove an argument, but rather for the theorist to prove it in the first place, and to substantiate those proofs. Although this wasn't in any of the posts I responded to (I don't think), the idea that it's "reasonable to presume" or "it's possible that" (something) does not constitute "proof."

For example, you cannot say "isn't it reasonable to consider that the blinds on that floor, which was used mostly for storage, might not have been exactly the right size for those windows, or that they might have been wide enough to span both of the adjoining windows," and expect others to prove that your "maybe's" are not the case. Whether they "could have been" or whether they were are two different issues.

Most people who posit "might've beens" aren't as accommodating when it comes to "what might not have beens," saying in effect, "I can conjecture that maybe the blinds were two windows wide, but you have to prove that they weren't." That is essentially what you're saying when it comes to a supposed "alternative explanation."

I did not set out in my above to do any such thing; I merely asked questions. I didn't take your word for anything, any more than I took Bill Miller's or Duncan McRae's. I also made some observations which, based on the limited data (my vision and/or an insufficient-quality image), have as much validity as the conjectures (which you admit as such) that you put forth.

In either case, regarding the blinds, it seems to me that some people either weren't alive in the '60s or have a poor memory as to how Venetian blinds were constructed, versus how they're constructed today. A little research into that area might answer some questions about the "cords" and what is actually being seen here, including whether you're looking at blinds or shades (i.e., is the placement of the "cords" consistent with the way blinds were constructed back then?). What I remember of them - and I was but a lad back then - explains the "wide cord," but doesn't explain its apparent placement ... if that's what it is.

Again, I'm only asking questions at this point. I'm hoping you're not going to avoid them by telling me you're "right" till you've been proven wrong. Surely there must be other photos during the same week or so that show this blind to be in one condition or the other; for as much as you know about this floor - it "was used mostly for storage" - surely there must be someone alive today who worked in that building or on that floor who can comment on the types of blinds used, even if not their condition on November 22, no?

I usually temper my statements on that particular issue by stating that there is no plausible, alternative explanation.

Who shall determine "plausible?"

In my observations, for example, do I have to tell you whose hand or head might've been there - or absolutely was there - to be a "plausible alternative explanation" compared to what, to this point, seems to only be conjecture on your part? Not a very level playing field, if so.

[Robert Harris]

I do hope that no offense was taken to my statement that you have done a great deal of debunking over the years. In dealing with text responses to my Youtube presentations I spend far more time trying to educate conspiracy buffs on what not to believe than in trying to persuade nutters to believe.

And in fact I have spent a lot of time trying to come up with a reasonable alternative explanation for what we see in that window. But something such as a human head would have pushed the bottom of the blinds back and probably, out of view. Something thinner, such as a piece of cardboard, should not have caused the two sections to appear misaligned.

Perhaps more importantly, there is much more to this than just an apparently, broken window and blinds. There are the reactions by JFK, which began just as the limo moved into a position where it would have been exposed to that window, and the fact that the only professional criminal to be arrested that day, was apparently, somewhere behind that window. If this were any other crime, those facts alone, would make Mr. Braden a prime suspect. The fact that he was in the same hotel the night before, where Jack Ruby was, should have put him in the same category as Oswald.

I have never been a fan of outrageously unlikely coincidences. And now, we must add to the already long string of damning facts about Braden, which include his connections to people who were to be indicted for the crime, and who confessed to setting it up, the fact that there at least appears to be evidence which suggests that the best positioned window on the same floor where he was discovered, was used as a sniper location.

That is one helluva lot of coincidence, even by LN standards

[Robert Harris]

I do hope that no offense was taken to my statement that you have done a great deal of debunking over the years. In dealing with text responses to my Youtube presentations I spend far more time trying to educate conspiracy buffs on what not to believe than in trying to persuade nutters to believe.

And in fact I have spent a lot of time trying to come up with a reasonable alternative explanation for what we see in that window. But something such as a human head would have pushed the bottom of the blinds back and probably, out of view. Something thinner, such as a piece of cardboard, should not have caused the two sections to appear misaligned.

Perhaps more importantly, there is much more to this than just an apparently, broken window and blinds. There are the reactions by JFK, which began just as the limo moved into a position where it would have been exposed to that window, and the fact that the only professional criminal to be arrested that day, was apparently, somewhere behind that window. If this were any other crime, those facts alone, would make Mr. Braden a prime suspect. The fact that he was in the same hotel the night before, where Jack Ruby was, should have put him in the same category as Oswald.

I have never been a fan of outrageously unlikely coincidences. And now, we must add to the already long string of damning facts about Braden, which include his connections to people who were to be indicted for the crime, and who confessed to setting it up, the fact that there at least appears to be evidence which suggests that the best positioned window on the same floor where he was discovered, was used as a sniper location.

That is one helluva lot of coincidence, even by LN standards

[Bill Miller]

Robert,

Yes Bill. That window was closed, as I have stated very clearly in the past. Your inability to understand what is going on here, just amazes me.

BTW Bill, did Duncan ask you to help him attack me?

Get this straight .... I offer you details beyond what is needed so you have my thoughts ahead of time, so yes I wanted to point out that the window was closed. I also added that the damn window has that haze look to it and if it was open or broken out ... the parts void of glass would appear dark with no cloudy haze appearance, which can be applied to other known open windows that show just what I have just previously said.

And no, I did not have Duncan ask me to attack you, nor am I attacking you. I responded to this topic because I have seen better views than what you have provided concerning possible shooters from the Dal-tex building in the past.

I grow weary of people who make claims without at least checking out the basics before moaning how it is they who are being attacked when it is their claim that has been addressed. It is fanatic low-brow individuals that I notice who will choose to respond with name calling instead of taking heed of the advice offered to them so to bolster their opinions if for no other reason. This has been in the past and will continue to be a hindrance to this field in the future. I have found that an honest researcher searching for truth will want to do all they can to test their conclusion. The archiving of these threads will let future researchers see who is who.

Bill Miller