Duke Lane

[Moved]

THe question also entails this: what paper are they talking about? As Pat has shown, there is not a photo taken on the 22nd of any paper bag supposedly taken from the TSBD that matches Frazier's description.

ANd as David points out it is strange that the FBI then had to prepare a "replica" bag to take the place of the original one.

Question: What was the replica bag based upon?

The last one is easy: it was based on the bag that DPD said was found on the sixth floor of the TSBD which they held out as evidence.

The part about the need for a replica was suggested in my previous post.

As to the first, well, there we leave the well-marked path, no? What bag indeed.

One would think that people who feel so much of this stuff constitutes a real case against Oswald would be able to trace things with the same exactitude as they undoubtedly hope the cops and prosecutors would against them if they were accused of something. Instead they're ready to convict on what they probably pray the prosecution would have against them - nothing - if they were in the dock, and call it rock-solid.

It's actually amazing how low the threshold is to have a "legally sufficient" case, and to that extent there's no question that there is, indeed, a "legally sufficient" case against Oswald, one that, with ineffective counsel, he might well be convicted in. Henry Wade could probably have done it ... but then, we've seen of late the real quality of the evidence he had in very many cases: many of them were guilty merely because he said they were. Like them, we all wish we cold spend 20 years in the slammer so we can be exonerated by future technology, too. (Guess it beats Death Row, tho'.)

So what about that bag?

• Nobody saw Oswald take the paper or tape or construct the bag
• The person who had custody of it said that it was virtuall impossible for Oswald (or anyone) to have taken it during work hours
• As best as may be determined, Oswald had no access to the building other than during working hours
• The materials were not seen by his landlady or, presumably, any of the residents at 1026, including the owners
• They were not seen or noticed (e.g., as a bulge beneath Oswald's jacket) by Buell Frazier on the way out to Irving
• Neither Marina nor Ruth Pain saw or noticed the materials when Oswald arrived or during the course of the evening
• Neither of them saw him doing anything in the garage (not to mention anything about a gun)
• Buell Frazier saw a package, but stated it was not like the bag in evidence
• Ditto his sister Linnie Mae Randle
• Frazier described Oswald carrying the package he did have in a way inconsistent with one containing an MC rifle
• Frazier did not observe Oswald to bring the package into the TSBD
• The only person who observed Oswald entering the building was "sure" he did not see anything in Oswald's hands on entry
• Nobody else saw anything (other than a clipboard and book stock) in Oswald's possession all day
• Nobody saw a package similar to the evidence bag in the TSBD prior to the shooting
• Nobody saw a package similar to the evidence bag in Oswald's possession
• The bag was not photographed in any location within the TSBD, especially not at the supposed site of the shooting

These facts do not add up to the conclusion that Oswald was in any way connected with the bag in evidence, much less that he actually possessed it at any time; additional facts - a lack of any gun-oil residue from the "well-oiled" Mannlicher-Carcano rifle being chief - do not establish that the supposed murder weapon was associated with that bag, wherever it was found or whatever its origin.

Wherever someone may claim that all of these considerations do not amount to a "reasonable doubt" about Oswald's possession of said bag, clearly the "preponderance of evidence" - a lesser standard of proof - argues clearly against it, and there is no verifiable evidence to refute any of that preponderance.

Lacking a means for Oswald to secret a weapon from where it was supposedly kept hidden in a garage in Irving, either on Friday the 22nd of November or on any other date, and into the TSBD, we are left to prove that he got it into the building and up to the sixth floor some other way on perhaps some other day. There is no evidence, however, to support any such inference.

Only by accepting the unsupportable as true and incontroverible fact - that Oswald did, some how, some way, some day, get that rifle into that building and onto that floor - can we accept as fact that the paper sack was used by him to do so on that date and time to accomplish what he "must" have done. That must be supported by some evidence leading up to the fact, and not merely by a presumed fait accompli, i.e., "he got the gun there, so that 'must' have been how he did it."

American jurisprudence - and yes, even Texas jurisprudence - dictates that a defendant is innocent until proven guilty, not the other way around. Without such proof that he did as has been claimed - got the gun into the building in that sack - then the sack must be excluded as evidence since it has no established connection to the crime or to the defendant.

Without a means to get the weapon inside, there remains to be proven that he did bring the weapon inside which, lacking the "accepted" means, is a difficult proposition. Then, of course, there is the question of his possession of the weapon which, even if one accepts the supposition of his wife (who could not be compelled to testify against him in an actual trial, and must be therefore excluded as a witness) and Ruth Paine that it was in Ruth's garage (which was not directly observed by anyone, ever, including by Michael Paine), another difficult task.

Only if the conclusion is accepted before the proof is made - only if we accept that the deed was done before we try to establish how and when it was done - can we "convict" Oswald of murder. And if we accept that conclusion before the proof is offered, well, does it really matter what the "proof" is when we already "know" it was done? Any proof will do as long as some sense can be made of it, enough that we can sleep at night and tell our kids to "always be true" in the morning.

All this rigarmarole with paper bags and replicas and lab tests and reports only shows two things: (1) how necessary proof was and the extent to which some people went to establish what they offered as valid and acceptable, and (2) that the proof was so weak that they had to go to that extent.

Why else would they?

Without it, you can't make Oswald a murderer. Or at least, you can't make him a lone and unaided murderer.

David, that test was for the replica sack...the OFFICIAL replica sack. The sack found in the building was sent to Washington along with a paper sample from the roll in the building on 11-22. These supposedly matched. A week or so later, however, the FBI tried to get Buell Frazier to say the bag he saw Oswald carry into the building could have been the bag in Washington. To do this, they showed him a replica sack made from materials taken from the building. Now this, on the surface was a bit odd, since Frazier had been shown what was supposedly the actual bag on the night of the 22nd, and refused to ID the bag. But it's excusable, I suppose, in that they also showed this replica sack to Randle, Truly, and Ruth Paine, as I recall. Anyhow, none of them would ID the sack. This sack was then sent back to Washington and tested. It was found then that the paper didn't match the sample taken from the building, as the roll of paper had been changed between 11-22 and the date the Dallas FBI created the replica sack..

Pat, great essay! I wish I could write as succinctly, but everyone knows I'm an airbag! Never accused of using a paragraph when a page was available....

What I have always found intriguing is how a bunch of desk jockeys in DC were so able to make "field" determinations remotely, often improving upon facts actually gathered in the field. We can start with JEH determining which shots hit whom and when, and segue into how anyone at HQ was able to determine both that the lab had made an error and Day an incorrect statement.

The issue of the replica bag is innocent enough as far as it goes: how can you ask someone to identify something that doesn't any longer look like it did when it was first seen (whenever that was)? Presuming a blackish discoloration from fingerprinting dusts, how can someone who saw a brown bag be expected to identify it? As long as it was identified as a replica, I'd think it would hold up as an exhibit, tho' probably provided that the original was also shown. Of course, it might otherwise require an objection from opposing counsel, of which there was none.

(Why don't "fact finding panels" have Devil's Advocates? Even the Catholic Church has that in the beatification process - created the concept, MOF! - which seems redundant in light of the pope's infallibility in matters of faith ... which is probably not unlike JEH, come to think of it.)

I've also always found it intriguing how when the only people who could identify a fact, thing, or event, didn't identify it, and were deemed to be mistaken. Some things, I guess, were simply self-evidently obvious such that the true facts could be discerned without asking. Which makes me wonder why they bothered.

I'm sure, in any case, that the lack of identification of a replica bag had nothing to do with the quantity or quality of "observable characteristics" since, to most people, the only such "observable characteristics," besides shape and size, are typically color and material. Was it paper in both cases? Was the paper brown? I'm guessing that nobody was wondering about whether the thread count or mil weight was within specs.

But finding that it was .001 mil thicker and the weave slightly different at the lab must have put someone's mind at ease: "well, that explains why they couldn't identify it!"

Hence, they were merely "mistaken." No harm, no foul.

One wonders, too, why they didn't just take all of what was left of the roll of paper on the bench on 11/22 (or over the weekend: it's not like any more was used after the shooting!) instead of a mere sample, or try to head off some of the shipments that had been made earlier in the week before they were delivered or opened. But alas ....

The trouble with making changes to things is that once the process is begun, where does it stop? How can one be sure? From the sounds of it, it is as if the Feebs expected that when an "error" was found and "corrected," people would simply remove the offending page and replace it with the amendment, like a misprint in a textbook. In this case, it is a summary report presumably authored by SA Drain (but neither recalled or authenticated by him, apparently), which must(?) have been based upon something other than a lab tech simply turning to him and saying "yup, all observable characteristics are the same," end of story. If so, what and where are the original laboratory source documents? Surely they would clear the matter up, wouldn't they?

(Ah, here they are: filed right beside "analysis, spectrographic, bullets, results of" where they're supposed to be!)

Such a convoluted trip is difficult to follow for me; can we put it into some sort of chronological/evidentiary order that'll clear it up some? Something like (with made-up data here):

Did I say that right?

Or was I thinking of the other guy's point of view, the one that's not in the courtroom?

Gosh, I'm so easily confused ....

That's my thought as well: the shirt was either mistaken as or merely described as a jacket (there's a name for those heavy shirts that are worn as jackets, tho' for the life of me I can't remember what it is) because it was worn as "outerwear."

Without looking, I recall that Whaley also said in his testimony that Oswald was wearing a jacket (of whatever description, but not the brown shirt he originally said). So, depending upon the source of the information, calling something a "different, lighter jacket" isn't altogether in error.

I really don't think Earlene Roberts paid any attention to Oswald beyond a glance to recognize him, and to satisfy herself that he didn't recognize her and wasn't going to approach her.

What I'd said about Bledsoe was that, had Whaley not also identified or described a shirt similar to what she had said Oswald was wearing, I would not have believed anything she'd said.

Baker's erroneous description of a "jacket" also begs the question of where and when he got it, and what he did with it between seeing Baker and getting on the bus — since, as I recall, Geraldean what's-her-name said that he was wearing a tee shirt when he came through her office after the lunchroom encounter, no? — or if Baker is also mistaken, but that's best left for another thread some other time.

... In my opinion, David L. Wolper's 1964 documentary film "Four Days In November" is easily the very best and most accurate movie (or TV documentary) ever produced about the events surrounding President Kennedy's assassination.

... And what is even more remarkable, in my view, is the fact that Wolper and company made the film months BEFORE the Warren Commission even completed its investigation into JFK's death -- and yet Wolper, director Mel Stuart, and writer Theodore Strauss were still able to get virtually every fact correct in the movie.

Each time I watch the film I'm always amazed by how accurate it is, right down to even some of the very small details ...

As far as I can recall, I think there is only one factual error in the movie (and even this error isn't a major one), and that's when narrator Richard Basehart says that Lee Oswald exited his roominghouse at 1026 North Beckley Avenue wearing "a different, lighter jacket", which implies, of course, that Oswald entered the roominghouse wearing a jacket.

... However, in fairness to David Wolper and his crew, it's quite likely that Wolper and company got the additional "jacket" information from William Whaley himself, because Whaley's Warren Commission testimony indicates that Whaley thought that Oswald was wearing "a work jacket that almost matched [his] pants".

Therefore, it's very likely that Whaley would have told the "Four Days" filmmakers the very same story about Oswald wearing a jacket, with Wolper having no real reason for doubting Whaley's account. (And I assume the Wolper people did not interview Mary Bledsoe or Earlene Roberts during the making of the film. Had they done so, of course, a different story concerning Oswald's jackets would have emerged.) ....

Tsk, David!

Do you have the dates of when the movie was filmed or produced? I'm curious whether it was before or after Whaley testified before the Commission (3/12/64) or was deposed (4/8/64), because either way, his testimony is irrelevent and inaccurate as to the jacket.

Spare me the groans about his claim to Oswald wearing, in effect, two jackets - blue and grey - or any such nonsense. The fact of the matter is that he described Oswald wearing the same shirt/jacket as Mary Bledsoe did, even despite her otherwise less than vivid (lucid?) testimony.

In fact, had he not, I'd have very much doubted that Bledsoe actually saw Oswald on the bus, putting it off instead to an active imagination and/or her "fifteen seconds of fame."

Earlene Roberts has to be taken with something of a grain of salt simply because when she says Oswald walked in, she was preoccupied with both a telephone call and a television (that wasn't receiving well), as well as the shocking news of the president being wounded. She was also blind in one eye, to say nothing at all about her age or education, or predilection toward fabrication.

But anyway, given Whaley's varied accounts, what makes you so certain that this detail about a "different, lighter" jacket was an error?

The only question is: was it white?

Sorry Bill. Duncan made the same claim and his copy of the Altgens photo was crap.

If anybody actually believes you then I have some property down here in the Everglades they should buy

QED.

That's all, folks. This thread has reached its end.

Duke, How is it possible that the head of the Secret Service "has no axe to grind?" Expecially when his agency is under fire?

The Official Mythology is that JFK is responsible for his own death.

Damn it, man, read what I wrote!

I said that "in this context the author has no axe to grind or points to prove about the Kennedy assassination," the "context" being (I thought I'd explained this, no?) reportage on the Whitewater/Lewinsky mess and the impeachment of Bill Clinton, and the "author" being Ken Gormley, writing about those series of events, and not Lew Merletti writing about the USSS in 1963.

If anyone wants to think that Gormley really just wanted to get in a zinger about JFK's assassination in five pages out of a 700+ page book disguised as something else, I suppose they're welcome to do that. To me, given the lengthy and detailed subject matter of the book (The Death of American Virtue: Clinton vs. Starr, New York: Crown Books/Random House, 2010, 1st printing), this came almost from left field.

Save the exasperation for when it's called for. I know what the official mythology is; my question is "what's the deal behind Hill's cooperation in all this?"

The question is for Vince.

While the book was published this year, it describes events that took place more than a decade ago. The question of subpoenaing PPDs' testimony about protectees' (or the protectee's) conversations heard or overheard in connection with their duties was but a microcosm of the overall investigation and proceedings; it was by no means the focus of the book, but very nearly an "aside" to the primary topic, tho' clearly at or near the top of USSS's - and Merletti's - concerns at the time.

None of the "callouts" that I bolded were direct quotes of Hill's, and may well be "details" provided by Merletti or others of Gormley's interviewees, or even USSS documents pertaining to this action. Still, the question remains why or whether Hill, those many years ago, would have come forth after so many years of "seclusion" in support of an initiative to prevent USSS agents' testimony from being subpoenaed based on a premise that Hill knew to be false - i.e., that JFK did not order his detail away from the limousine - no matter how lofty the actual, ultimate goal.

Hill was, after all, on PPD and in Dallas, and would have been made privy to any such "order" of JFK's, even if JFK didn't actually make it. After all, we do not expect that POTUS holds a "roll call" meeting before the start of each day to brief his guard on what to expect each day or to outline his current directives; if someone else wanted JFK to be left out in the open, all that would be necessary would be to claim that JFK made such a demand through whatever intermediaries a president uses to relay his wishes to his charges.

The point is, when these discussions were taking place during the Clinton administration, did Clint Hill believe that JFK had issued such an edict? Was he co-opted to say as much "for the good of the Service?" Or was this merely the "spin" put on it by Merletti for Gormley's sake, even despite it being such a small part of the story? Or did Merletti believe that to be the case himself, and if so, why? Has the lie been so often told that it is now the official position of the USSS, not only for public consumption, but as a part of its overall outlook, or an effort to arrive at the maxim that "even the boss can't tell us to back off?"

And, I suppose, there must be the question whether JFK did issue such an edict, that went against all of PDD's instincts but which they obeyed nevertheless and in retrospect wish either or both that they hadn't obeyed or that JFK hadn't issued? That is, is it simply "denial" on their part, that the boss did, in fact, tell them what to do that was inimical to their instincts and training, and like good soldiers, they obeyed despite their instincts and training, much to their ultimate chagrin?

(Did presidents think of the White House and the presidency as much a "prison" as they do today, or is it the result of an over-eager PPD hell-bent on a mission of "never again?")

That all of this was related innocently - that is, without a specific intent to make JFK responsible for his own death, or to further a public agenda exonerating PPD from responsibility; it wasn't an "assassination book" or even vaguely related - is suggested by other italicized callouts from Death, which I also emphasized and which are direct Hill quotes, to wit:

"It was a bloody mess," he recalled decades later, his voice cracking. "I mean - the president's head, the third shot hit him in the head just above the right ear, kind of. Took out a piece of his skull about the size of my palm and scooped out a whole mass of brain matter. ...." [emphases added]

Was there anyone else besides Jackie in that car who was so close as to be able to dispassionately examine and evaluate JFK's wounds (and in truth, would Jackie have really been able to), and do so in such a manner that is so contrary to the WC's conclusions (and still garner no apparent attention)?

So what should be made of this out-of-the-blue discussion by and about Clint Hill and JFK's supposed "directive?" What's the real deal: other agents' denials or Hill's apparent corroboration? If he's lying, why?

... Breaking news: Author Helen O'Donnell, the daughter of the late Ken O'Donnell, told me in October 2010, based on her memory AND her father's many audio tapes, that JFK did not order the agents off the car and neither did her father!

The official mythology maintained?

Author Ken Gormley, writing about the decision by Special Prosecutor Kenneth Starr to compel the testimony of agents assigned to the Presidential Protection Detail in the Monica Lewinsky/Whitewater matter and the Secret Service's opposition to it, describes meetings initiated by the then-new director of the USSS, Lew Marletti, concerned in part that presidents might exclude USSS agents from their proximity if they felt that their private discussions might be subpoenaed. In this context, the author had no axes to grind or points to prove about the Kennedy assassination, and may be considered to be presenting facts as presented to him, and not toward advancing an agenda vis-a-vis JFK, and should be forgiven himself for any errors in fact presented:

Merletti gave a highly classified PowerPoint presentation about the dangers presented if Secret Service agents were pushed away from a president for any reason - including lack of trust. ... The most powerful aspect of Merletti's presentation was rarely seen footage regarding the assassination of President Kennedy in Dallas, and Kennedy's trip the previous week to Tampa. In photos of the Florida trip, dated November 18, 1963, one could observe sharp images of Secret Service agents kneeling on the rear bumper of the president's limousine, scanning the crowd and buildings, maintaining a location within an arm's length of President Kennedy's position in the back seat.

In the haunting film clips that Merletti now showed of President Kennedy being shot in Dallas, the Secret Service agents were missing from the car's bumper. Only Agent Clint Hill knew all of the tragic details, and he since had gone into seclusion and did not speak publicly about that day.

Yet the story was well known within the Secret Service. Lew Merletti took a chance and reached out to Hill, who had settled in Northern Virginia, seeking Hill's guidance on the Starr matter. Agent Hill, a handsome man with deep furrows of mental stress on his face, had retired early from the service as a result of neurological and psychological problems. The former agent did not hesitate to share his views with the director; he still remembered those events of November 1963 too vividly.

Hill technically had been assigned to protect First Lady Jacqueline Kennedy, who was riding in thhe left rear seat of the presidential limousine. The crowds were so large that spectators were "swarming up on top of the car." To deal with the cluster around the motorcade, the driver "ran the [limo] closer to the left-hand side of the street ... to keep the people away from the president." Agent Hill's sixth sense was telegraphing that something was wrong. Yet just after the Tampa trip, President Kennedy had directed all Secret Service agents to stay off the running board on the rear bumper, complaining that it created the appearance to the public that there was "somebody or something between them and him."

Disobeying the president's orders, Agent Hill had climbed onto the left side of the bumper, scanning the crowds and buildings, and then jumped off, returning to the follow-up car. The motorcade turned left. In an instant that would forever haunt him, Hill heard a shot ring out from behind, followed by the echo of two more gunshots.

By the time Agent Hill could scramble onto the back of the limousine, Mrs. Kennedy was crawling onto the trunk in her pink suit. Even as she hoisted Hill up [!], the agent knew it was too late. "It was a bloody mess," he recalled decades later, his voice cracking. "I mean - the president's head, the third shot hit him in the head just above the right ear, kind of. Took out a piece of his skull about the size of my palm and scooped out a whole mass of brain matter. Now, that stuff was all over the car, inside the car. Blood, white brain matter, portions of bone and skull. And everybody was covered with it." The former agent, becoming unglued as he recounted the story even forty years later, took a deep breath and continued: "What I meant by telling Lew [Merletti] about the scene ... Here was the president of the United States, who we were sworn to protect. And we failed. At least those of us who were assigned that day to that mission were not able to fulfill our responsibility."

What continued to torment Agent Hill as he replayed these images in his head, decades later, was the fact that he'd been pushed away. "if we had been inproximity, where we should have been," he explained, "... the event would not have happened as it did." Had hill been allowed to do his job, a human shield would have been formed between the unseen shooter and President Kennedy, creating a near-impossible shot. ....

With the lights in the converence room still dimmed, Merletti cut to a rarely seen television interview with Clint Hill by Mike Wallace, filmed in the 1970s, after Hill's premature retirement from the Secret Service. The forty-three-year-old Hill chain-smoked cigarettes and choked up with emotion as he spoke of failing to protect the president that day in Dallas and of allowing himself to be pushed away by the president. "It was my fault," said Hill, crying as he stared into the camera. "I'll live with that till my grave."

Describing another meeting on the same subject, attended by all former USSS directors and AICs of the PPD at Merletti's behest, Gormley wrote:

... When the next hand rose, the room fell silent; all eyes were focused on former special agent Clint Hill. A rugged, tough-looking man with a deep look of sadness and concern in his eyes, Hill had experienced many personal difficulties after that fateful day in Dallas, when he had been instructed to protect the First Family and watched President Kennedy murdered in cold blood just feet away from him. "He was only recently coming back into the family of the Secret Service, coming back into the fold," Merletti recalled, "because he had felt for years that he failed." Merletti quickly added: "He didn't realize that we held him as a hero. But we did. He did everything right that day in Dallas. He was prevented from doing his job by the president."

So the question would seem to be: is JFK's "order" fact or myth? Here we have a director of the Service, 40 years after the fact, describing something that one would presume that he, as director, would have cause to know and be fully aware of. Gormley's book is not about Kennedy, but about Clinton; the excerpts above are but a very small part of this 700-plus page book, related to a relatively small portion of its subject.

While the events described were probably gleaned from Merletti by the author, rather than either from personal experience having been at these briefings or directly from Hill, in the context of Clinton's impeachment, what purpose would Merletti have in forwarding an agenda, a mythology, that had no basis in fact, if he knew that to be the case? Is the mythology - the self-exoneration, if you will - so ingrained that one director fed it to another and so on down the line until everyone believes it as Gospel Truth? One man's ass-covering made good, as it were?

In truth, would Hill have been directly privy to a president's directive - that is, how unlikely is it that there was a shift meeting at which JFK outlined his preferences to the men as they "suited up" for the job on a particular day, a la police departments - as opposed to his having heard of such new directives indirectly, though the AIC/PPD or an assistant, whether or not it was based on JFK's factual directive or some other source or consideration?

I'm sorry Bill, but with your track record you need to show us the goods if you expect any sane person to believe you have a better copy than I do.

Case in point.

"I have only the best. I don't believe you have anything better than me. Nobody with any intelligence would disagree with me. If you can't or won't prove it, by default, I am right. If you do prove it, I don't consider it valid, will ignore it, will deny seeing it, and will claim you lied about it. Everything that I disagree with is a lie because I know only truth. I am the best. I am right. I am infallible. Heed my words."

I'm in complete awe. Swooning, in fact, the breath ripped from my very breast.

Think of all the trees that would've been saved if Bob had only gotten interested in this stuff in, say, late November 1963.

(To Robert Harris:) Your post where you used obscene language again, after being warned not to, has been pinked out and you'll be placed on moderation for 7 days.

I realize that I am promoting ideas which are new and different from what you have heard over the decades. But what I am saying just happens to be correct. And so my "critics" have been forced to deliberately misrepresent the events during the attack on President Kennedy and have had to resort to endless personal attacks and smears.

Faced with unerring verisimilitude and unyielding superciliousness, the hoi polloi, failing capitulate to his manifest intellect with seemly and deserved veneration, preciptated Bob's fundamental exigency to authenticate his eminent ascendancy with apposite opprobrium appropriate only to the extent unavoidably imperative to ensure capitulation and recognition. One need not entertain vague notions of noblesse oblige in the face of vulgar mendacity, the last resort of the simple, witless fools who comprise his audience and dare to disregard and deride the patently obvious and axiomatic validity of his observations and thesis.

It is, in sum, wholly understandable and nothing for which he should be castigated or upbraided. At least he acknowledges we've got sentience if not actual intelligence, for which, I suppose, we should be thankful.

Bob, Bob, Bob---do you even bother to READ my many articles and free online book? I talk at length (obsessive length) about these 5 reports you are claiming I am avoiding; geez (I have also made several VIDEOS regarding these same reports..if you even bothered to check them out, that is). Also, a minor point: quit calling me Vincent LOL

Vince, save your breath. Bobby is right on all counts. He always is. Just ask him. Facts merely get in the way. Dissembling won't help.

BTW, I recently came across an interesting several passages attributed to Clint Hill during, as I recall, the Clinton impeachment. I've sort of been hunting for it, and when I find it, I'll post it for Bobby's comments, which I greatly hope you'll misinterpret and obfuscate for me.

Ray: No need to apologize for being a dupe.

As the late GREAT Jackie Gleason used to say, Harr, Harr, Hardee Harr Harr!

I may have posted dupes, David, but I am not duped by your claim that Lee Oswald smiled in recognition of Jack Ruby!

You will never post a film or photo proving that, because it happened only in your imagination!

It's a matter of time before I run it down. I've already posted two clips that demonstrate Oswald glancing to his left. Several re-edited films in documentary clips have suspicious edits or film breaks, thus not showing full perp walk or the smile - which, BTW, occurs within three seconds before Ruby lunges forward.

Y'know, the degree and amount of alteration that's been done to the photo/videographic record of that weekend is simply astounding! The original had thought bubbles over his head so we knew what Oswald was thinking. They've obviously been removed to allow for greater conjecture. (Ruby's read: "I said it was your turn to buy breakfast at the diner the other day!")

It has been mentioned before that bad language should not be used, as young & curious eyes will sometimes read these Forums. Additionally, there were two reports about the language.

A revised set of Forum rules have been under consideration for some time, and will be published when all moderators agree to them.

Whether action is taken with respect to a post depends on a couple of factors: it being reported to moderators, and / or the moderator's judgement.

Jeez, Evan, if it's not printed in the rules, how and why exactly does anyone expect people to use common decency?

Perhaps it's how he taught his children to speak, as his parents taught him. We can't just presume he's a boor, and we can't hold his environment against him. God knows he doesn't look like an auto mechanic, tho'.

I think he just doesn't play well with others. Or perhaps that nobody would play with him at all during those formative years, and it's maybe just a little beyond his ken.

Outside of that, he doesn't a fairly good job of keeping his ad hominem oblique: "No one could possibly be this stupid and still be able to operate a computer" isn't quite the same as "you're stupid," is it?

I think he should be nominated for an award, not reprimanded. How's about a revived version of Rowan & Martin's "Fickle Finger of Fate?" They'd be so proud ...!

... No one could possibly be this stupid and still be able to operate a computer. ....

Well, I see I haven't missed much, and the conversation has gone far afield of the topic at hand.

Guys, you'll just have to bow to Robert's superiority, here. Just look at his photo and you'll see all that you need to see. He ain't often right, but he's never been wrong. He wasn't always this right as a kid, and "manning up" is something he can only do as an intellectual exercise, but in this and everything else he thinks now, he's clearly right: just ask him, he'll tell ya. You just don't get it.

Enough of that. Big sigh.

On the original topic, the broken window, I just happened across a photo that was published by the Dallas News on Tuesday morning, November 26, 1963, identified as having been taken the day before, which we'll note for the record was after three days of national mourning (on most people's parts, anyway), when glaziers were probably a little hard to come by to fix a busted window.

It was taken about noon, with the sun coming from the south, depicts a man, identified as a Secret Service agent, standing in the right-hand portion of the middle lane in front of the TSBD, "check[ing] the trajectory of the bullets that killed President Kennedy." There are placards of some sort lining the south side of the street at regular intervals, definitely not taken on Friday. Some enterprising editor or someone drew arrows on it using typewriter correction fluid, one apparently pointing to the man in the street, the other presumably at the so-called Sniper's Nest. It shows the west wall of the Dal-Tex building clearly.

It can probably be obtained from the News archives for a reasonable fee, and was most recently published in Hugh Aynesworth's JFK: Breaking the News on page 30.

If it doesn't show a broken window at this point, then I think most reasonable people will have to presume that it wasn't broken on Friday afternoon either.

Reasonable people, that is, who don't prove something by the fact that nobody saw or heard anything except the people who never said they heard it, and by pointing out how, in effect, the folks from Mission: Impossible could've done it with a brief case and a pair of scissors. So, I guess, why couldn't they have had a glazier as part of the assassination crew? Geez, these guys were smart, but not too smart!

Sorry, there's no driver for my scanner under Win7 - how stupid is that? clearly too stupid to operate a computer (or vice-versa)! - so I can't upload a copy.

Bob hasn't a clue.

His so called high resolution image is cropped from a low resolution jpeg and then turned in to a high resolution image.

What Bob doesn't understand, is that this will not improve and remove any jpeg artifacts that are already there.

The large amount of jpeg compression artifacts are clear for everyone to see.

There's more grain in Robert's image than in a box of Corn Flakes.

My Thomson copy image on the other hand is untouched, no enhancement done, only an enlargement, and all done in lossless png format.

Bob Scissorhands loses again.

Hush now! Bobby's not interested in further analysis from any of us low-lifes, he's come here to display his obviously superior intellect and understanding of the case from start to finish. Haven't you noticed how everything you, Bill and I have said is absolute nonsense, lies, distortions, misdirection and evasion? We would be much better off simply reading this thread rather than responding to it: God gave us two ears and one mouth, and we should use them proportionately to learn from Sage Bob.

It's unfortunate that he didn't have a chance to look at all of this back in 1964 when he could've told the WC what muck-ups they were, called them together, and showed them how it really happened, right down to suppressed gunfire and disappearing window panes. Then, we wouldn't have to be having this stupid discussion, "stupid" only because we don't realize how stupid we are and aren't recognizing the truth when it's trying to slap us in the face!

It's wonderful that you and I have done so much work, and maybe advanced others' understanding a mote, but it's all been a mistake and ultimately meaningless. I for one wonder how he treats his children when they don't grasp "obvious truths" as understood by Dad. On the other hand, this may be an abject lesson on why he might not have any if he treated his girlfriends or ex-wife with such utter disdain.

I don't know why I didn't just wait for his book before delving into this subject. Craig Watkins, if he wins this year's election, would undoubtedly want to hear from Uncle Bob to finally wind this thing down, make a few arrests, and return Dallas' reputation to halcyon pre-1963 days.

Has he ever said what kind of suppressed-fire rifle was used? Or is it sufficient to know that there were such things in the world, and one of 'em musta done it? And what of the tests of the metallic residue left by the bullet that made that firecracker "pop!" behind the limo that set everyone on edge?

'Ay! 'Ere! Smoke some of Bob's stuff. I'm outta here.

Duke, I'm sorry that you refuse to answer my very simple questions. In fact, the one I asked you about where you believe the shots came from, is highly relevant to this conversation, as is the question about whether you believe other shooters were involved.

The only thing that matters here is whether I can believe, based on the evidence you've presented, whether a shot could have come from that particular window of the Dal-Tex building. It doesn't matter one whit - and is totally irrelevent to this conversation - if I think someone took a shot from the top of the County Records building or the manhole cover. You can change the focus to JFK or JBC or anywhere else as much as you'd like, you still have to return to that window. Even if everything you say about JFK and JBC are absolutely true, it still does not suggest, much less show, that any shot did or even could have originated from that spot.

But I am not about to waste my time, endlessly dealing with goofy claims about either people or boxes being piled up in that window. I cannot prove that we are not seeing Santa Claus, a herd of buffalo or a leprachaun in that window either, but I trust my readers to be bright enough to see for themselves that such things are just not present there.

And it is disingenuous to argue that since I cannot prove that various things were not there, that I must be wrong. Where do we draw the line? How do we "prove" that Oswald was holding a rifle in the backyard photos? Maybe I think it's just a tree branch and you can't prove I'm wrong.

My argument is that there is no plausible alternative explanation to the blinds being damaged and the top and bottom of the leftmost cord being disrupted. How the term, "plausible" is defined, is the subjective choice of each reader. I can only say that anyone who thinks he is seeing people or boxes in that window is probably not going to be interested in anything else I have to say, anyway.

Now, it strikes me that the only thing anyone's said is that the "irregular pattern" you've defined as only "one plausible thing" could be any number of other things; I don't believe that anyone here posited that it actually was any of the things that it could be. It probably could be any of a number of things since it is an area less than 0.3% - that's zero-point-three-percent - of the original image, .2175x.2960" of a 4x5" print, even smaller on the negative, the detail limited even with ISO100 film. What that "irregular shape" actually was is necessarily limited to interpretation since it can probably never be discerned with absolute certainty even under very high magnification.

Could it be what you interpret it as? Maybe. But since it ties in with your interpretation of JFK & JBC's "reactions" (or, more accurately, "actions"), it is ultimately up to you to show that the probability of it being what you interpret it as is greater than the probability of it being something or anything else.

That requires, in a case as this, that you show at least means and opportunity: state unequivocably that there was not an office behind those blinds (if that's in fact what they were, which seems apparent to me, at least at the upper part); that whether or not there was or was not, it was an unoccupied space (or that whoever occupied it was or at least might have been complicit); and that, of course, the window really was broken.

To fail to do so is to watch your theory go down in flames the moment someone else discovers that it was an office and that the person who normally occupied the office was there in it.

When and if that occurs, I would suspect that you'd be the first to demand absolute proof, which you so conveniently pussyfoot around now: your interpretation is so "obvious," so "irrefutable," so "absolute" that it requires none.

But for now, it requires all sorts of things that can have no proof - which you assert as proof that it "must" have been the way you think - such as nobody being seen, no weapon being in evidence ever, no glass falling or on the ground, nobody hearing anyone upstairs, nobody hearing a shot or seeing a rifle, "reactions" to a noise from a "suppressed" rifle, speculations all that nevertheless somehow are the "proof" of your theory.

You must accept the image of Badgeman absolutely on the same bases.

We are not all as omniscient and insightful and as infallible as you, so please forgive us mere mortals for the faults and foibles you are incapable of. Maybe you will find those informed readers who are as bright as you are, who see things as clearly and faultlessly as you, and recognize your clear superiority to the rest of the human race: finding 400 people - or even 4000 - who believe there was a conspiracy but have no idea of its nature is no more difficult to do than holding an uneducated gathering in thrall as you regale them with things they knew nothing about and accept as absolute truth from an "expert" who clearly knows more than they do.

Why does this seem so much like trying to "convince" someone who thinks Oswald did it alone and unaided that it wasn't like that at all? So certain that the facts back them 100%, there is no room for consideration of any other data.

Why didn't you answer the question about your conspiracy theories?? I've always found that when I asked other CT's about theirs, my biggest problem was how to shut them up. Why are you being so bashful?

I'm not being sarcastic here. I really want to hear why you are convinced that others were involved in the attack and perhaps, who you think they were. Also, where do you think the shots were fired from? I presume you're ruling out the Daltex? One of the storm drains maybe? The knoll?

I didn't answer for two reasons: first, this is not a thread about my theories, but about Robert Harris's Dal-Tex Broken Window Theory (not even about JFK's reactions to anything, despite its wending its way into it); and second, there are enough other of my posts outlining my thoughts on this forum that I have neither the time, inclination, nor desire to repeat them, or even synopsize them again here and now.

If you're that interested, read them.

(Sorry to disappoint by not being like others who won't shut up, but I don't think very many people here would ever suggest that I'm "bashful!")

Oh, and by the way, I was absolutely wrong about plastic being used in venetian blinds in 1963. But the most common metal used in blinds was not steel either, as you suggested. It was aluminum, which was typically 20 gauge, and easily cut with a pair of scissors.

Did I say steel? Probably because I didn't think aluminum was in that widespread use back then, and I was fairly certain that they weren't made of tin (like cans used to be before they started being made with aluminum); some sort of "spring steel" or steel strapping made sense to me. I think I did say that I was making my points "on the fly," "off the cuff," or some other phrase that would suggest that this wasn't a heavily researched topic by any means.

In any case, I believe that most of my replies refer to them as "metal," but no matter what the actual metal was, they weren't plastic.

As to their being "easily cut with a pair of scissors," I'll put that alongside the "plastic" assertion: sounds like it might make sense, but who knows for sure? Never tried it myself.

Duncan, your image is ridiculously blurry and there is no stack of boxes up there, no matter how many white lines you insert that have no relationship to anything in the picture. But hey! Since Duke sees a live human in that window, maybe his little guy is stacking those boxes up!

Why do you guys see everything up there except what it obviously is?

Leaving aside the first part of the post about what I "see," perhaps the problem is that what there is in that window isn't "obvious" at all (except perhaps to a privileged few).

If the third floor was used for "storage" - what kind of storage, do you know? Do you know without question that it was used for storage? - is there any reason to think that it could not have been for boxed items of some sort, including office records or any of a gazillion other things?

Saying it "could be" boxes differs dramatically from saying it is boxes; saying it's not boxes, no-how, no way is saying that it's not possible. On what basis is it "not possible?"

And why don't you share with us, the data which convinced you that most blinds in 1963, were made of steel??? Surely, you wouldn't have just blurted out something like that without confirming the accuracy of your assertion, would you?

And finally, your assertion that I failed because you think I couldn't prove that there wasn't a human in that window, is about the lamest rebuttal I have heard in a very long time, especially since you flatly refused to demonstrate that such a thing was even possible.

And then you refused to talk about additional evidence which proved that the early shots came from a suppressed weapon and that JFK clearly reacted to an early shot during the Towner film.

I love how you then proceed to declare that you have "won" our debate, after running from every significant issue that we discussed

We have clearly not been part of the same thread.

The only significant issue has to do with the blinds; I'm clueless how I've "run from" that, or any part of it. But if you feel better asserting that, who am I to argue?

You said that there was "ONLY one" conclusion to be reached; I suggested several others, including the possibility of there being a human figure there in the window, which I clearly stated was nothing more than that: a possibility. You said that if that were so, he didn't move for 3½ hours, tho' your assertion is based on something I can't and couldn't see, but I nevertheless conceded that if in fact the figure was there and in the same position in a later photo, it probably wasn't human, but didn't eliminate the possibility of something inanimate between the window and the blinds.

In any event, you've not proven that there was the same image in the same window 3½ hours later, you've merely said that you see it there. You haven't proven or even shown conclusively that the cord/ribbon was broken and couldn't have been merely pushed aside by something between the window and the blind (tho' you've asserted that you don't think that could be the case, and invited me to prove that it could be), nor have you shown that the window was broken such that a weapon could be fired through it.

You've griped above about my making an assertion that most venetian blinds were metal in the early '60s, while you've made the assertion that plastic was as (or nearly as) prevalent then as now, and therefore the blinds were plastic until and unless someone else proves that they weren't. Apparently, for you, assertions you make are established fact; contrary assertions made by others are "just plain silly."

My input has addressed only whether your conclusion is the "ONLY one" or even (in your toned down version) "the only sensible solution," which I now concede it is ... the only conclusion that makes sense to you, anything else being "just plain silly." That's mighty good Kool-Aid.

You would rather take the discussion afield and demand answers about JFK's reactions when, even allowing for such reactions, it doesn't by any means address the source of those reactions, which could have been what you assert or something completely different.

Stipulating JFK's reaction does not validate your conclusion, and arguing about whether he did react does not address "the only sensible conclusion" you've drawn. It's beyond the scope (pardon the pun) of the issue of the window: only once you've proven that the window is a possible or probable shooting site do JFK's reactions matter at all.

This has, to my thinking and as far as my intent has ever been, only ever been about whether there was only "ONE conclusions" or "ONE sensible conclusion," or whether there were other possibilities. I'm not out to prove anything other than that there are other possibilities; I'm not out to prove what the actual fact is. That's your job: it's your conclusion, not mine.

Just as you can't believe that I'd make an assertion I didn't have data on, I'm presuming that you wouldn't do so either, so since it's your theory that the blinds were broken, and your theory that the blinds could be broken because it's your theory that the blinds were plastic, on what data is your theory based? Surely, you wouldn't have just blurted out something like that without confirming the accuracy of your assertion, would you?

I've merely challenged that assertion: I don't believe it's true, and my experience tells me otherwise, and even if there were plastic blinds in existence at that time, it by no means tells me that they were the preferred material for blinds in a commercial/industrial setting or anywhere else. You make me believe your theory rather than simply asserting it's true or "must" be true until someone proves you wrong beyond all doubt.

What's good for the goose is good for the gander, nicht wahr? After you, Sir Goose.

Duke, you've been posting in JFK forums for what? 18 years now?

How many times did you agree with a conspiracy theory - any conspiracy theory?

Lots of times - McAdams calls me a "conspiracy theorist" on his website, and I don't know of anyone who thinks I'm an LNer - but no matter: you're suggesting that if I don't hunt deer, I can't appreciate a good rifle, and probably don't even know how to use one.

Facts stand on their own. You haven't established any insofar as the Dal-Tex window is concerned, but a lack of facts hasn't stopped a lot of people more famous than you or me from building theories launched from speculation and supposition.

I'll make a post about plastic blinds when I get some answers back.

Duke, when did you decide that the blinds were made out of "steel"?? Plastic was far more common and less expensive then, as it is now. Don't you think it's a little bit silly to make such a presumption obviously, because you know that metal was harder to cut than other materials?

"Far more common" in the '60s than metal? In an industrial/commercial setting? I fear you are quite mistaken. What ever made you think they were plastic?

And no, the theory that we are seeing a human in that window is yours, not mine. Therefore, you bear the burden of proving that it is plausible or even possible. I think the idea is ludicrous and I am no more obligated to disprove it than I am to prove that there were no fairies there.

Golly gee whiz, Robert, how many times did I say that I wasn't postulating it was a human shape, but only that it could have been, and that based on size alone and tentatively ruled out if the same shape actually was there three or four hours later.

Really, now: how can anyone trust your data when you can't even look back on a single conversation to know what was being said before drawing a conclusion as ridiculous as that?

Your argument that a shooter would have difficulty in getting a weapon into the building and in getting out again, is just silly. A small caliber weapon, broken down, would fit in a brief case along with the suppressor and a pair of scissors or a pocket knife. As for getting spotted on the way out, that's exactly what happened to Mr. Braden and that's why he was arrested. Getting the weapon out again would have been an incredibly complicated process. He tosses it in a box and has somebody take the box out a few days later.

And why did you say that my answer to your question about why a sniper would choose to conceal himself behind the blinds, did not make sense? In his shoes, would you prefer to raise the blinds and expose yourself to God and everyone else in Dealey Plaza that day? Or would you prefer to fire through a small opening and remain unseen??

"Could have" and "did" are entirely different matters. You presume that nobody would have noticed an extraneous briefcase and looked inside, or that an accomplice who'd never be questioned was in place (always a possibility, but you seem to accept it as fact); you presume that nobody would notice or call attention to broken or bent blinds or a broken window conveniently overlooking Dealey Plaza, and that, lacking ventilation, the smell of gunpowder would quickly dissipate and also go unnoticed by anyone - whom you don't and can't even name - who might have been in that general vicinity at any time.

What I would do is every bit as valid as what you think someone else would do. I would leave as little trail behind me as possible, which means raising the blinds and firing through an open window, then shutting them both immediately. I wouldn't worry about being seen in a darkened area - can you see behind the women on the floor below in an obviously open window? - any more than my supposed compatriots on the TSBD 6th floor worried about being seen - and who weren't seen in their entirety, and were in any case presumed to be "Secret Service" or some other form of "security" - even though they were "behind" a fully open window with no blinds at all.

But if I or anyone else would do something you wouldn't do, it's just plain "silly."

As to your apparent befuddlement about how JFK could have "felt it" in spite of not being wounded by a bullet, I believe he was stung by debris which flew up from the road when the bullet struck the pavement - probably to his right, which is why he fell to his left. You would know that if you viewed any of the video links I provided and if you did not view them, and are really this ignorant about my analysis, then you really don't have the right to criticize it.

I must admit however, that this was not an original idea on my part. It was Posner who suggested that a missed shot, albeit a bit later, caused "sparks" to fly up from the road and LN fanatic, Jim Moore who in his book Conspiracy of One, suggested that JFK was hit in the face by debris from that shot. I think he was probably correct about that, in regard to frame 160 although JFK's reactions in the Towner film are much more conspicuous.

Those reactions are very real Duke. And they have been acknowledged even by hardcore nutters. What is your explanation for them?

Or do you really care?

... Frankly Duke, I expected much better from you. Either my theory is pretty solid or you are losing that killer instinct

In this context, no, I don't really care, any more than I care how Oswald killed Tippit four minutes after leaving his rooming house if he couldn't have gotten there in four minutes since the one eliminates the other from consideration. In this case, if you can't do a better job of putting someone into the Dal-Tex building, even if you're 100% correct about the rest of it, the basis of your theory falls apart.

I have only discussed in earnest the first part - a shooter in the Dal-Tex building - and see no point going on to the second part in relation to the first since it has no apparent relation to the first, at least not that you've convinced me of.

The problem is that you make suppositions and then construe and present them as established fact without providing any form of proof beyond mere conjecture: if you think it's possible, then that's what really happened. If someone points out an error, they're "silly." You've drunk the Kool-Aid and I'll make no further attempt to dissuade you from your beliefs.

As to the 400 people who applaud your efforts on YouTube, I can only guess it's because they presume your theory is backed by facts. At this point, I can't see where it is, at least not all the way from Point A forward, even if you do have Point Z down to a tee.

At least you've proven one thing: Bill Miller and I can agree from time to time! Who'd-a thunk it?

Duke, I'm sorry to get you so upset, but I would challenge you to take a comparable photo of yourself in the position that you posit. I'll bet that if you do that, the bottom piece of cord would either be totally out of our view, or would be waaaay out of position- much further than the small misalignment we see in the Altgens photo.

Seriously, since you are a photographer, why not photograph yourself or someone else in that position and then show us the picture? Perhaps it's my lack of imagination but I really don't think you can do it.

No time. No inclination. No deal. I'm not going to do your work for you. It's not up to me to prove. I've provided "plausible" explanations that don't fit your scenario, and your lack of experience - apparently - with venetian blinds causes you to believe what you want to believe and exclude anything that calls your belief into question.

Tell me what you think that a series of metal slats held together only by a flexible, cotton ribbon and cord does when someone pushes them aside: you think maybe they move straight outward, like a solid sheet of metal? You think they don't curve around your hand or head or your mop or broom, and continue to fall straight down once they've cleared the obstruction? Or that white slats and ribbons would disappear into the darkness when six or eight inches behind a closed window? Or that, viewed from an angle, the displaced section wouldn't appear to be "off to the side" of the part closest to the upper terminus?

Like I said: it's just as you say, and the proof is that you say it. Tell it to the world. No need to prove anything; merely assert it and challenge every naysayer to prove you're wrong, thus demonstrating that you're "obviously" right until and unless they do.

Nobody so far who's commented on this here seems to agree with you. That is the greatest proof of all.

As to your question about why a sniper would cut an opening in the blinds, I think the answer is ridiculously obvious.

Of course you do.

And as I explain this, let me give you a picture of how all this fits together. This guy didn't want to be seen. A sniper in that location had two problems. He might have been heard and he might have been seen, either of which might predictably have resulted in him being shot or apprehended by the small army of law enforcement people in Dealey Plaza that day.

You forgot a couple: he had to get a gun into the building without being seen. He had to get into position without being seen or otherwise arousing any suspicion. He had to get out of the building without arousing suspicion. He had to get the weapon out of the building. There could be no smell of gunpowder so no enterprising civilian or cop would put the damaged and cut blinds and the broken window together with it and suspect something might've happened here. He had to do the damage to the blinds - cutting the ribbon served no purpose if he only needed to shoot through a small section of blinds cut away - during a time while nobody would notice, see, or hear, using tools nobody would find (you can't rip metal slats with your hands), and soon enough before the event that nobody would make any attempt to fix them, replace them, remove them, or even put cardboard in the window against the coming cold before they'd get around to fixing it.

He solved the problem of being heard, by using a suppressed firearm. It's easy to confirm that such a weapon was used, because only one of the early shots was even noticed by most witnesses. And most of the people who heard that single noise, did not recognize it as being a gunshot. Nor did anyone in the limousine exhibit startle reactions as they would following the shots at 285 and 312. Oswald's rifle would have generated sound levels of 130 decibels at street level, to the ears of the limo passengers. That's 16 times louder than the minimum level which is known to provoke involuntary startle reactions.

Then what the f*** did JFK react to if he wasn't shot and didn't hear anything? "We know it happened because nobody witnessed it." They didn't see Brading exit the building with his experimental invisible rifle either, right?

The other problem was solved by cutting out a small section of the blinds, which allowed the sniper to target his victim without exposing himself to the people in DP or at least making it far less likely that he would be spotted.

Does that make sense?

No. It doesn't.

So it is not at all surprising that JFK can be seen reacting to that first shot which was fired just after he became visible to that sniper. I don't believe it is likely that he was hit by a bullet then although I suppose that's not impossible. Like everyone else, he didn't seem to have heard that shot. But he certainly felt it. Perhaps he thought that some kid (or redneck) in the crowd threw a rock at him.

Didn't get hit, didn't hear it, but "felt" it ... so it must've passed pretty close by? Or did he "feel" it as in "sense" it? He and he alone, as if it called his name on the way by? I can't imagine anything else that he'd have been doing but reacting to a bullet nobody saw, heard, noticed or was hit by. The only thing that astounds me is that it's taken 50 years for you and you alone to notice this and put together all of the "obvious" "known" "facts."

Yet you can't even tell me what was behind that window with any degree of certainty beyond something someone said.

Unfortunately for the bad guys, suppressors are notorious for causing wild shots and misfires, resulting from even microscopic misalignment problems as well as other causes. I cite Mark White, a leading expert on suppressors in my main presentation on the subject. You can view it here:

http://www.jfkhistory.com/ALL/ALL.mov

The second shot was fired around 160 but with the same result, although some witnesses heard it or the "firecracker" sound it made when it shattered on the pavement. Almost no one recognized it as a gunshot.

Perhaps realizing that his shots were pulling to the right, the sniper adjusted and managed to hit JFK in the back, well below his preferred target which was the back of the head. But it's obvious that this shot was also corrupted by the faulty suppressor. In addition to striking far too low, the entry wound was measured at 4x7MM - almost twice as tall as it was wide and clear evidence that the bullet was tumbling. That's why Humes measured the entry wound at such a steep angle, and why the bullet fell out from the wound as confirmed by Admiral David Osborne.

If the weapon was a semi-automatic rifle, he could have ripped off two shots almost simultaneously in a desperate effort to hit Kennedy before he was out of range. Following the natural tendency of the barrel to rise with each shot, the second passed over JFK's shoulder and hit Connally. The neck wound was inflicted by a tiny piece of debris from the explosion at 313, as the doctors originally suspected.

I realize I'm throwing a lot at you but but I think you will discover that this is the only explanation at least to date, which is consistent with the known facts.

Here. Smoke this. You're clearly halucinating. But at least you've solved the mystery. You've explained everything to your own satisfaction, filling in the pieces nobody knew until now were even pieces, much less missing, and done so with unerring exactitude ("realizing that his shots were pulling to the right, the sniper adjusted and managed to hit JFK in the back, well below his preferred target which was the back of the head. But it's obvious that this shot was also corrupted by the faulty suppressor. In addition to striking far too low, the entry wound was measured at 4x7MM - almost twice as tall as it was wide and clear evidence that the bullet was tumbling").

If you've got five minutes, can you please clear up the Tippit thing for us too? And MLK and RFK since they've been sort of bugging me too, and I just don't know who really put John Hinkley up to what he did (and much less Mark David Chapman).

Otherwise, I don't have time for this anymore.

I really don't see a human in that window Duke. And why would he wedge himself between the window and the blinds when all he had to do was raise the blinds in order to get a good view of the motorcade?

Presuming, of course, that the blinds could be raised. Is it not possible - possible - that the cord to raise them was broken? Or that a person was lazy?

Not knowing anything about the interior of Dal-Tex, what even makes you think it was necessary to "wedge" oneself anywhere? Is it not also possible that someone was simply walking by, heard cheers, and pulled the blinds back to see what was going on, or if the President was in the area? Or that, given the third floor's supposed use as storage that the cord to raise and lower the blinds was blocked by something?

My argument has nothing to do with what did or didn't happen, or what was or wasn't there, but only to do with possibilities, which you have eliminated based solely on conjecture, insisting that things "must" have been as you interpret them.

Our interpretation of what we are seeing needs to be consistent with two photographs - the one taken by Altgens and the one taken shortly after that at about 3pm that afternoon. The latter of the two is extremely important because it shows that third floor window to be unique in that the darkened area is considerably smaller, both vertically and horizontally, than in any of the other windows. That eliminates the possibility that we are just seeing the blinds pulled up.

And the first photo allows us to see two of the cords in those blinds. The leftmost cord has obviously been cut, because we can see two different sections of it, which are slightly out of alignment with one another, exactly as we would expect if that cord had been cut. And we see a darkened area which includes the gap between those two sections of cord.

I have provided a provable "alternative explanation" for why the ribbon ("cord" in your parlance) would appear the way it does, and it does not include its being cut.

Why would someone cut the ribbon anyway when doing so would serve little if any purpose? After all, while support from the center ribbon would lessen if not eliminate the blind slats from simply falling on one side, it would also lessen or eliminate any potential gain from cutting it, nicht wahr?

That being so, what would cause, in your mind, the left-most cord to move naturally since the blind slats aren't going to go anywhere because of the center ribbon? I'd think we'd see a gap where the cut was made and nothing more.

Furthermore, cutting the ribbon for any effect, even on a two-ribbon set, would also require that the string that pulled the blinds up be cut as well, which - since they are part of the same mechanism - would also cause the other side to become inoperable and slack.

There is nothing "obvious" about it, and certainly not based upon what "we would expect" to see. With the ribbon/cord severed, I'd think we'd "expect" to see an angular gap in the blinds where the one side fell or sagged as a result of losing some of its support; we don't see that at all, which argues for the ribbon/cord being intact, hence leading to the only(?) other explanation being that something is blocking the view of a portion of the cord, its depth offsetting the "line" of the ribbon as the angle of view becomes more acute. Unfortunately, we can't see the bottom of the blinds to make any firm determination.

To deny what we are apparently seeing, one has to believe that the bottom section of that broken cord is something else. But what? And do you really believe that this unknown thing just happened to be exactly where the bottom section of cord would have been if it had been cut and had exactly the same appearance as a small section of cord?

I've offered an explanation of this. You have yet to suggest why a "cut" portion of ribbon/cord should be "expected" to move laterally without affecting the space between the slats.

Yes, I would agree that we could be being fooled but I don't think you or anyone else have been able to suggest an alternative explanation which is consistent with both of those photos. A section of the blinds and leftmost cord in that window was removed. There is simply no other explanation that makes any sense, or at least no one has thought of one yet.

A "section of the blinds" has been removed?!? You're saying "cut with shears" since metal blinds don't just snap, and they're as long as the blinds are wide. One cannot simply move them aside due to the cord that runs down the middle of each one to accomodate the lifting/lowering cord, which would all have to be cut to do that.

Gee, why go through all that bother when all anyone had to do was raise the freaking things and lower them again when they're done, and nobody would ever know they were there, broken window or not? And of course, why break the damned thing when all that was needed was to raise it a couple of inches or so? Instead, they go through all of these machinations and leave "footprints" behind? To what end? So we could have this ridiculous conversation? There are none so blind as who will not see.

OK, you win, you're right. It is exactly as you say it is. I know this because you won't consider or acknowledge any other possibility, and you're not often right but you've never been wrong. The only possible explanation is yours.

You may now say that "the great debunker" Duke Lane was unable (or "failed") to convince you that your theory is wrong, but you may not say that he was "unable to offer any other plausible explanation."

The only one who's "being fooled" is you, and only by yourself.

Carry on.

"IDD (imagination deficit disorder!) is no reason to suppose that another explanation isn't correct."

Aren't you supposed to be accusing me of having too much imagination?

I wasn't aware that I was "supposed" to be doing anything. It was you who made that characterization; I just gave it a tongue-in-cheek name.

I don't believe the shape of the darkened area is consistent with that of a human being, but we can see that same darkened area at app. 3pm on the day of the assassination in a photo taken by the DPD. Because the photo has been heavily zoomed, things appear a bit fuzzy and we lose detail but if you compare that third floor window with the others, above and below, I think it's pretty clear that we are seeing a darkened area that extends only part way across the window. That has to be the same thing we are seeing in the Altgens photo.

It could be, and might not be; I don't know, I can't make out that portion of the image well enough to make even a bad visual comparison. (Robin, you've got this little area that you can scan at some 10,000 dpi or something?)

I would tend to agree that, if the pattern remains unchanged two or three hours or more later, the chance of it being human is drastically reduced if not eliminated. I didn't suggest, however, that it was human, only that looking at it "imaginatively," it could be interpreted as that, and maybe even could be.

If it's not human, there can be plenty of other explanations for what it is or may be, such as something that was leaning against the window when the blinds were put down, and the blinds falling behind them rather than in front of them (effectively hiding them from view inside), or staying on top of it (i.e., an object preventing the blinds from going down). This is especially true IF that floor was used mainly for storage, less so - but not impossibly so - if there was an office behind the blinds: it's not implausible, much less impossible, that someone could have left a mop there, again especially if it was a storage area.

Long and short, absent closer study, it could be virtually anything, and is not limited to "only" (in caps) one explanation or interpretation, or "only" one "plausible" or "logical" explanation or interpretation.

It would clearly seem, however, that not enough is known about Dal-Tex or its habitues to draw any final inferences. My entire point here is not to prove or disprove anything other than that nothing has yet been proven, at least not insofar as this whole "broken third floor window" scenario goes.

And tell the truth Duke, if I posted the "theory" that we see a living, breathing sniper in that window, you guys would be howling your proverbial butts off, would you not

I don't honestly know, Robert, what anyone else would be doing. And I don't care. I'd be telling you to "prove it!" the same as I have been here.

It seems to me that you've been being dissed and dismissed by people who've looked at this before and who disagree with you. Those are their deals if they're doing that, not mine.

I think I've taken the time to evaluate what you've had to say without regard for anything anyone else had to say. My only peeve has been in your "only" conclusions, which I think it's fair to say that I've shown that they are not the "only" anything, at least not based on the evidence I've seen here.

I was taught to sew up as many "holes" as possible before reaching even tentative conclusions, and to acknowledge those that can't be resolved. Ultimately, my only intent was to shoot holes in the "only" conclusion and get you to look at other possibilities; in actuality, the only conclusion I've reached is that the window does not appear to be broken or missing, and that there appears to be some object in the window that is causing the blinds to be pushed away from the window rather than a "cut" or "break" of any sort in the ribbon.

Given that I've taken and processed about 40,000 photographs in the last seven months, and God-only-knows-how-many (half a million? A million? You do the math) in the 15 years I've been making a living taking pictures, I consider that I've got "a trained eye" even if I'm not an "expert."

There is nothing about the shape or its apparent effect on the blinds that conclusively eliminates it as being a person ...

... Here's another interesting thing about that comparison [above, cropped from Altgens]: do you notice that where the location of the apparent insertion of the object is at about the same height above the floor - or in about the same relative vertical position - as where the women's heads are? This suggests the possibility that the "irregular shape" could be someone standing next to the window who moved the blinds outward so they could look directly out the window without, for whatever reason, actually raising them or it (perhaps they only had a moment to do so, or didn't want to be seen?). ...

Since I didn't say so in the message above, I should describe the second thumbnail: it is simply a crop from Altgens with the second-story window moved up and alongside the third-story window, the lower ledges aligned roughly without any resizing involved. As you can see, the second-story window appears a little bit taller, which it would since it is closer to the ground and therefore the camera.

Here's another crop with the second-floor window shortened so that the horizontal frame between the upper and lower parts of the window is the same distance from the lower ledge in both parts of the photo so there's some "height equivalency:"

I've also drawn a line from where the bottom of the upper portion of the left ribbon "cuts off" at the same angle as the horizontal divider, across to the second-floor window to show that the "irregular-shaped object" is indeed at the same height as the women's heads (were they not outside the window!).

Of course, unanswered is the question of whether the women are standing or kneeling or squatted down, but I think the point is made, at any rate, that there is no "ONLY sensible solution" to what that irregular pattern may be, which I'm now inclined to think is more likely someone trying to catch a glimpse of the parade out from the upstairs window and not a "hole" of any sort.

What it actually is, is anybody's guess. If, that is, it can't be shown that this very basic analysis doesn't offer a possible solution. Comments? Criticism? Crappola?