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

[Duke Lane]

... 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.

[Duke Lane]

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 ...!

[Evan Burton]

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.

[Robin Unger]

Duncan's point is correct even though I wouldn't want to guess just where Nellie's eyes are focused at any given time. Human's most usually see a wider field of view than their cameras ... depending on their zoom setting. Moorman's number 5 Polaroid comes to mind. Mary had a wide field of view. With Nellie's head turned to her immediate right as Duncan points out ... I think anyone doing the same would be forced to admit that they could have seen either mans (JC or JFK) movements. I invite anyone to sit in a chair and test the view for themselves.

Bill Miller

Here is a superior copy of Zapruder frame 238 which clearly shows Nellie looking at JFK.

Robert should take off his Lone Ranger mask before studying film and photographs. ( Click To Enlarge )

Nice frame!

Nellie looking right at JFK

Cant wait to see how Robert will tell everyone she cant see JFK

Groden Scan

Click on thumbnail to view full size.

Edited November 12, 2010 by Robin Unger

[Chris Davidson]

18 Feb 2010 ... While in Dallas he decided to watch the parade for President t Kennedy. ... he noticed several broken windows on about the fourth floor, ..... source book said Mudd was interviewed by Josiah Thompson for Six Seconds in Dallas, ... several broken windows on the fourth floor of the Dal-Tex Building, ...

http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=15496 F.LEE MUDD

http://www.gnosticliberationfront.com/john_fitzgerald_kennedy_page_ii.htm

http://www.ratical.org/ratville/JFK/GoD.html

In that third floor window, the blinds are all the way down, so to be able to fire a rifle from there while remaining out of view, it was necessary to cut out an opening in the blinds. In the Altgens photo we see the white outlines of the cords which hold the blinds together. It is very clear, that the cord on the left side has been cut, causing a gap and the top and bottom of that cord to be out of alignment with one another.

I also created a video recently, on that subject.

First Shot

Hi Robert,

Once again, I'll state the quality of the Altgen's photo used to form your opinion is questionable.

If you want to argue your point, provide a Altgen's photo with more detail, such as the 1st floor of the DalTex building.

chris

[Robert Harris]

Chris, as I told you before, there is no higher quality version of the Altgens photo that is available to the public, than the one I used.

[Bill Miller]

Chris, as I told you before, there is no higher quality version of the Altgens photo that is available to the public, than the one I used.

The Josiah Thompson print which was posted on a couple of forums is sharper than the print you posted.

Bill Miller

[Robert Harris]

Chris, as I told you before, there is no higher quality version of the Altgens photo that is available to the public, than the one I used.

The Josiah Thompson print which was posted on a couple of forums is sharper than the print you posted.

Bill Miller

Well then, link it.

[Bill Miller]

Well then, link it.

I am not going to search it for you, Robert. I saved it when Josiah posted it and I am certain that others did as well. If all else fails you, then contact Josiah and ask if he could email a scan of it to you.

Bill Miller

[Robert Harris]

Well then, link it.

I am not going to search it for you, Robert. I saved it when Josiah posted it and I am certain that others did as well. If all else fails you, then contact Josiah and ask if he could email a scan of it to you.

Bill Miller

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.

[Chris Davidson]

Chris, as I told you before, there is no higher quality version of the Altgens photo that is available to the public, than the one I used.

Robert,

If your Altgen's print is the best available, I would expect it too show this detail (between the red arrows) on the flag.

What I supplied is from a newspaper 11-23-63.

A quality non-newspaper print of an original Altgen's 6 should show this detail.

chris

[Robin Unger]

Chris, as I told you before, there is no higher quality version of the Altgens photo that is available to the public, than the one I used.

Robert,

If your Altgen's print is the best available, I would expect it too show this detail (between the red arrows) on the flag.

What I supplied is from a newspaper 11-23-63.

A quality non-newspaper print of an original Altgen's 6 should show this detail.

chris

To set the record straight

The Altgens 6 i downloaded from Corbis is very nice.

but, i am not totally happy with it, as it lacks the sharpness and clarity in some parts of the image that i would prefer.

Particularly in the area of the doorway.

Here is Gary Mack's two cents worth, regarding the Corbis imsge.

Robin,

Don’t waste your money buying AP photos from Corbis…they are competing news agencies. Corbis owns what used to be UPI images. How they’re getting away with selling AP pictures is a mystery, but they can’t have any decent ones since they don’t have access to either the original negative or early generation copy negs. Thompson’s copy is from an early AP copy neg, but not the original, which AP locked up very early after making numerous copy negs for future use.

Gary

[Duke Lane]

(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.

[Duke Lane]

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.

[Bill Miller]

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.

I think the rest have spoken for me. You have issues that go beyond this case.

If you wanted to find out if I am telling it straight, then all you needed to do is send Thompson a message or contact Mack at the Museum for who knows better the history of these prints.

Bill Miller