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

[Bill Miller]

Bill, you need to acknowledge your "mistake".

It was impossible for Mrs. Connally to have seen JFK's hands rise to his neck because when he did that she was not turned far enough to her right to even see her husband and couldn't possibly have seen JFK then.

I totally disagree with you. Nellie didn't change her story over time ... she gave it in more detail - details that you don't seem to like. And while you keep saying that Nellie couldn't see JFK ... I believe that she very well could. I have posted frames just prior to the first shot being fired that show Nellie's head turned to her immediate right.

So you say one thing while the Zapruder film says something else. I then go on to say that I have rode in Nellie's seat in one of the many rides I have taken in the replica limo and I found that with my head turned as Nellie's is that I could see any movements going on in Connally's seat, as well as the President. My feelings were and still are that even in a worse case scenario .... anyone with any peripheral vision at all couldn't have missed JFK bringing his hands up to his face. The images support the possibility that Nellie could have witnesses just what she claimed. I find no reason for Nellie to have lied for her and her husband's accounting of the shooting went against the sole assassin theory.

So let me break down what I know ...

1) I know that Nellie's head is turned to her immediate right during JFK's reaction to being shot in the neck ( I provided the images)

2) I have sat in Nellie's seat in the replica car and I witnessed with my own eyes that she could have seen JFK react to being shot.

3) I know that Nellie's could have also seen her husband and JFK at the same time and that all needed to be done to focus on either man would only take the moment of her eyes will turned to her immediate right for both men were close together - one directly in front of the other.

4) I know that for anyone to say differently and that Nellie could not have seen both seating locations at the same time has not rode in Nellie's seat in the replica limo so to know the facts for themselves.

After she heard the ambiguous "noise" she first turned to check her husband and obviously, did not believe he was wounded because she then turned away from him to examine JFK. It was only after she looked back and saw JFK at frame 258 that she heard the shot that she believed, wound John Connally.

I do not agree with your interpretation of what Nellie has said. These are things you have added. Nellie's testimony doesn't mention her attention being first given to her husband, but rather the President. She goes on to say that the Governor said 'Oh.no,no,no' which then came a second shot that hit her husband, she goes on to say that her husband recolied to the right and then crupled like a wounded animal.

Nellie Connally says to the Commission:

Mrs. CONNALLY. In fact the receptions had been. so good every place that I had showed much restraint by not mentioning something about it before.

I could resist no longer. When we got past this area I did turn to the President and said, "Mr. President, you can't say Dallas doesn't love you."

Then I don't know how soon, it seems to me it was very soon, that I heard a noise, and not being an expert rifleman, I was not aware that it was a rifle. It was just a frightening noise, and it came from the right.

I turned over my right shoulder and looked back, and saw the President as he had both hands at his neck.

Mr. SPECTER. And you are indicating with your own hands, two hands crossing over gripping your own neck?

Mrs. CONNALLY. Yes; and it seemed to me there was--he made no utterance, no cry. I saw no blood, no anything. It was just sort of nothing, the expression on his face, and he just sort of slumped down.

Then very soon there was the second shot that hit John. As the first shot was hit, and I turned to look at the same time, I recall John saying, "Oh, no, no, no." Then there was a second shot, and it hit John, and as he recoiled to the right, just crumpled like a wounded animal to the right, he said, "My God, they are going to kill us all."

This is the same thing Nellie said in the other interviews, but in less detail. In the other interviews she adds that she could see the President raise his arms towards his face. The action that Nellie is referring to is recorded on film and her head appears to be turned enough to have seen what she had claimed to witness.

Bill Miller

Edited November 10, 2010 by Bill Miller

[Bill Miller]

Of course. Since you located a frame in which her face can't be seen and then drew an arrow, that proves your case!! :D

You must really think people around here are idiots, don't you Duncan

The ridiculously obvious fact is that she could not have seen JFK until about frame 258.

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

Edited November 10, 2010 by Bill Miller

[Robert Harris]

Bill, you need to acknowledge your "mistake".

It was impossible for Mrs. Connally to have seen JFK's hands rise to his neck because when he did that she was not turned far enough to her right to even see her husband and couldn't possibly have seen JFK then.

I totally disagree with you. Nellie didn't change her story over time ... she gave it in more detail - details that you don't seem to like. And while you keep saying that Nellie couldn't see JFK ... I believe that she very well could. I have posted frames just prior to the first shot being fired that show Nellie's head turned to her immediate right.

So you say one thing while the Zapruder film says something else. I then go on to say that I have rode in Nellie's seat in one of the many rides I have taken in the replica limo and I found that with my head turned as Nellie's is that I could see any movements going on in Connally's seat, as well as the President. My feelings were and still are that anyone with any peripheral vision at all couldn't have missed JFK bringing his hands up to his face.

So let me break down what I know ...

1) I know that Nellie's head is turned to her immediate right during JFK's reaction to being shot in the neck ( I provided the images)

2) I have sat in Nellie's seat in the replica car and I witnessed with my own eyes that she could have seen JFK react to being shot.

3) I know that Nellie's could have also seen her husband and JFK at the same time and that all needed to be done to focus on either man would only take the moment of her eyes will turned to her immediate right for both men were close together - one directly in front of the other.

4) I know that for anyone to say differently and that Nellie could not have seen both seating locations at the same time has not rode in Nellie's seat in the replica limo so to know the facts for themselves.

After she heard the ambiguous "noise" she first turned to check her husband and obviously, did not believe he was wounded because she then turned away from him to examine JFK. It was only after she looked back and saw JFK at frame 258 that she heard the shot that she believed, wound John Connally.

I do not agree with your interpretation of what Nellie has said. These are things you have added. Nellie's testimony doesn't mention her attention being first given to her husband, but rather the President. She goes on to say that the Governor said 'Oh.no,no,no' which then came a second shot that hit her husband, she goes on to say that her husband recolied to the right and then crupled like a wounded animal.

Nellie Connally says to the Commission:

Mrs. CONNALLY. In fact the receptions had been. so good every place that I had showed much restraint by not mentioning something about it before.

I could resist no longer. When we got past this area I did turn to the President and said, "Mr. President, you can't say Dallas doesn't love you."

Then I don't know how soon, it seems to me it was very soon, that I heard a noise, and not being an expert rifleman, I was not aware that it was a rifle. It was just a frightening noise, and it came from the right.

I turned over my right shoulder and looked back, and saw the President as he had both hands at his neck.

Mr. SPECTER. And you are indicating with your own hands, two hands crossing over gripping your own neck?

Mrs. CONNALLY. Yes; and it seemed to me there was--he made no utterance, no cry. I saw no blood, no anything. It was just sort of nothing, the expression on his face, and he just sort of slumped down.

Then very soon there was the second shot that hit John. As the first shot was hit, and I turned to look at the same time, I recall John saying, "Oh, no, no, no." Then there was a second shot, and it hit John, and as he recoiled to the right, just crumpled like a wounded animal to the right, he said, "My God, they are going to kill us all."

This is the same thing Nellie said in the other interviews, but in less detail. In the other interviews she adds that she could see the President raise his arms towards his face. The action that Nellie is referring to is recorded on film and her head appears to be turned enough to have seen what she had claimed to witness.

Bill Miller

This is just looney tunes. Do a little critical thinking Bill. It doesn't matter whether she looked at JFK prior to the shot at 223 because she could not have seen his hands raised to his neck then.

And how could you possibly disagree with my statement that she could not have seen JFK raising his arms which he did in the frames prior to 229, when she wasn't turned far enough to her right to even see her husband then??

Please be specific.

And it doesn't matter whether she said she first looked at her husband or not, because we can SEE her turn to look at him and then stop, before continuing her turn and looking at JFK.

So you say one thing while the Zapruder film says something else.

Bullxxxx!!

You were WRONG in claiming that she could see JFK raising his hands to his neck and you need to man up and admit it. Even if you actually believed that she was studying him through some kind of peripheral vision, that could only have happened in the 240's which STILL places the next shot sometime AFTER those frames.

And unfortunately for you we can see exactly when she and the other nonvictims in the limo reacted to that shot.

Edited November 10, 2010 by Robert Harris

[Bill Miller]

Bullxxxx!!

You were WRONG in claiming that she could see JFK raising his hands to his neck and you need to man up and admit it. Even if you actually believed that she was studying him through some kind of peripheral vision, that could only have happened in the 240's which STILL places the next shot sometime AFTER those frames.

It was Nellie who claimed that she saw JFK raise his hands up towards his face ... I only have said that the film record shows me that it was possible. Please keep the story straight!

I see Nellie still turned to her immediate right in Z230 and Z236 and is why I used those frames in a multi-frame illustration. And while you keep saying Nellie couldn't have seen JFK (which implies she must be a xxxx) ... you have not said whether you have ever rode in Nellie's seat to see if what I have said is correct. Instead you just want to say she couldn't enough times in hopes that it will be true.

Bill Miller

Edited November 10, 2010 by Bill Miller

[Dean Hagerman]

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

[Robert Harris]

Bullxxxx!!

You were WRONG in claiming that she could see JFK raising his hands to his neck and you need to man up and admit it. Even if you actually believed that she was studying him through some kind of peripheral vision, that could only have happened in the 240's which STILL places the next shot sometime AFTER those frames.

It was Nellie who claimed that she saw JFK raise his hands up towards his face ... I only have said that the film record shows me that it was possible. Please keep the story straight!

I see Nellie still turned to her immediate right in Z230 and Z236 and is why I used those frames in a multi-frame illustration. And while you keep saying Nellie couldn't have seen JFK (which implies she must be a xxxx) ... you have not said whether you have ever rode in Nellie's seat to see if what I have said is correct. Instead you just want to say she couldn't enough times in hopes that it will be true.

Bill Miller

"It was Nellie who claimed that she saw JFK raise his hands up towards his face ..."

IT DOESN'T MATTER!! No one could possibly be this stupid and still be able to operate a computer.

FOR THE FIFTH TIME, HE RAISED HIS HANDS TO HIS THROAT BY 229, AT WHICH POINT SHE WASN'T EVEN TURNED FAR ENOUGH TO SEE HER HUSBAND, LET ALONE JFK.

Why do you continue to repeat these deliberate misrepresentations??

Edited November 11, 2010 by Kathy Beckett
removed cursing

[Bill Miller]

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

FOR THE FIFTH TIME, HE RAISED HIS HANDS TO HIS THROAT BY 229, AT WHICH POINT SHE WASN'T EVEN TURNED FAR ENOUGH TO SEE HER HUSBAND, LET ALONE JFK.

Why do you continue to repeat these deliberate misrepresentations??

Maybe if Nellie's eye was in her belly button, then she might not of seen her husband, but as I said - her head is turned to her immediate right. This is not the first time these things have come up, so during my many visits to Dealey Plaza I got to ride in Nellie's seat (as I have sat in all four back locations) and I am saying to the world that I could turn my head to my right as Nellie has done and see both men to my right. I can say with 100% certainty that I could have seen JFK raise his arms as Nellie claimed she had done and I believe I would have picked him the President's movements within my field of view even if I was looking at John Connally. I am also certain that a simple test at home with two chairs in front of the other and viewed from the Nellie location would show that both Connally and the President could be seen.

So tell me Robert ... how did your test go???

As far as that further turn of Nellie's head which comes at the end of your clip (Z255/56) ... My impression is that Nellie turned toward Jackie at that moment as if to see what she thought was happening.

Sorry Harris ... I don't buy it and besides ... it only matters what the future readers of this thread will believe to be right - if either.

Bill Miller

[Bill Miller]

What you and your fellow thugs are doing is infinitely more obscene than any four letter words that I could utter.

Your irrational inability to keep from throwing around such things like the 'F' word when debating Nellie's overall statements as to what she saw and when ... only gives the viewer an inside perspective as to how your temperament must influence how you perceive other evidence.

Bill Miller

[Robert Harris]

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

FOR THE FIFTH TIME, HE RAISED HIS HANDS TO HIS THROAT BY 229, AT WHICH POINT SHE WASN'T EVEN TURNED FAR ENOUGH TO SEE HER HUSBAND, LET ALONE JFK.

Why do you continue to repeat these deliberate misrepresentations??

Maybe if Nellie's eye was in her belly button, then she might not of seen her husband, but as I said - her head is turned to her immediate right. This is not the first time these things have come up, so during my many visits to Dealey Plaza I got to ride in Nellie's seat (as I have sat in all four back locations) and I am saying to the world that I could turn my head to my right as Nellie has done and see both men to my right. I can say with 100% certainty that I could have seen JFK raise his arms as Nellie claimed she had done and I believe I would have picked him the President's movements within my field of view even if I was looking at John Connally. I am also certain that a simple test at home with two chairs in front of the other and viewed from the Nellie location would show that both Connally and the President could be seen.

So tell me Robert ... how did your test go???

As far as that further turn of Nellie's head which comes at the end of your clip (Z255/56) ... My impression is that Nellie turned toward Jackie at that moment as if to see what she thought was happening.

Sorry Harris ... I don't buy it and besides ... it only matters what the future readers of this thread will believe to be right - if either.

Bill Miller

No Bill, it doesn't matter what future readers "believe". It doesn't even matter that you don't believe a word of what you just said. What matters is what really happened. And that matters a LOT.

[Dean Hagerman]

Robert dropping the F-bomb! Learn to control yourself Harris.

[Bill Miller]

No Bill, it doesn't matter what future readers "believe". It doesn't even matter that you don't believe a word of what you just said. What matters is what really happened. And that matters a LOT.

But Harris ... I do believe what I just said. That is why I take the time to create illustrations Vs just posting back vulgar obscenities. For instance: The limo is moving towards Zapruder which makes it appear to be turning left and away from his position. This can be witnessed by following the rotation of the cross bar from frame to frame. So lets keep that in mind and move to Nellie ...

From Z169 where Nellie appears to be looking to the front right of the car like Kellerman ... by Z187 she has turned her head to a 90 degree/plus position ... As she said 'she heard a shot and looked to her right and saw the President's hands go up to his face'. Considering that the limo was turning away from camera with each film frame, Nellie's right head turn was extreme enough to combat the rotation of the limo in Zapruder's field of view and offer us more of a profile view through the windshield.. (see below)

I contend that Nellie is looking at least in the direction of Kellerman when the first shot sounded and that she very well could have moved her attention to seeing JFK's hands raise up towards his face once she was looking to her abrupt right by Z187.

Nellie said that she heard a second shot and must have been looking at her husband when it hit for she saw him buckle and recoil from being hit. A clean image of Nellie by Z246 shows her looking towards her husband as he had buckled and recoiled to his right.

Like I have said before ... the photo and film record shows that what Nellie said she saw was possible.

Bill Miller

Edited November 11, 2010 by Bill Miller

[Evan Burton]

Warning to ALL participants: foul language will not be tolerated. Violation will lead to immediate moderation of posts and being placed on moderation for 7 days.

A strong and passionate argument does not need to resort to swearing.

Thank you.

[Robert Harris]

Warning to ALL participants: foul language will not be tolerated. Violation will lead to immediate moderation of posts and being placed on moderation for 7 days.

A strong and passionate argument does not need to resort to swearing.

Thank you.

Mr. Burton, there is no rule telling members which words are acceptable and which are not. Nor is there such a thing in any JFK forum I have ever participated in or moderated myself. What IS prohibited in good forums are attacks on other forum members. Ironically, while you are enforcing rules that do not exist, you and the other moderators have ignored or refused to enforce this rule, which really does exist and is infinitely more important.

"Members should not make personal attacks on other members. Nor should references be made to their abilities as researchers. Most importantly, the motivations of the poster should not be questioned. At all times members should concentrate on what is being said, rather than who is saying it."

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.

I have asked John Simkin and one other moderator to examine these flagrant violations and have been repeatedly ignored and finally told that a moderator couldn't figure out whether accusations that I was "making things up" was really an accusation of dishonesty. I am pretty sure that English was her first language, so I find that rather baffling.

Anyway, these are the posted rules I read. As a moderator myself, I would suggest that if you wish to make up new rules and ignore others, that you amend Mr. Simkin's posting to reflect those changes.

On the 12th November I posted a message about the behaviour of members.

http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=2224

This in itself has been taken over by personal bickering. I have therefore decided to make a new statement about the aims and objectives of this forum and to stress the kind of behaviour that we expect from members.

JFK Forum

The main objective of this forum is to bring together researchers into the assassination of John F. Kennedy. It is hoped that this forum will enable researchers to share information they have acquired about the case. In this way, the forum will become a major way of communicating information about the assassination to the wider community (we have a far larger number reading the forum than those posting information).

Rules of the JFK Forum

(i) All members have to provide a biography. A link to this biography should be added to their signature (see below for instructions how to do this).

http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=1471

(ii) All members should use a photograph of themselves as an avatar (see below for instructions how to do this). If you still find you have problems with this please email me and I will help you with this.

http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=1861

(iii) Wherever possible, members should give references (books, documents, etc) concerning the comments that they make. This will help those carrying out academic research into this area.

(iv) Members should not make personal attacks on other members. Nor should references be made to their abilities as researchers. Most importantly, the motivations of the poster should not be questioned. At all times members should concentrate on what is being said, rather than who is saying it. It is up to the reader to look at the biography submitted by the poster, to judge whether they are telling the truth or not. The word “xxxx” is banned from use on the forum.

(v) Members should take care over the accuracy of their postings. This includes spellings, capital letters, etc. This is important as the forum is read by young students and therefore we should not be setting them a bad example. I would suggest you write initially in a word processing program that automatically checks spellings, etc. The finished work can then be copied and posted into the forum.

(vi) Make sure your postings are relevant to the thread. Please start another thread if your comments do not belong to any existing threads.

(vii) When you start a thread please make sure it is relevant to the events surrounding the assassination of JFK. We have other areas of the forum where you can post about Politics, History, Mass Media, Sociology, etc.

http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?act=idx

(viii) Members should use the quote function of the forum when replying to people’s posts. To do this click the REPLY button. Pressing this button will allow you to reply to a topic, and have the text from a particular reply quoted in your own reply. This can be edited so that only the relevant passage is included. If you want to reply to several postings, copy and paste the relevant comments into your own answer. To make this clear use the colour options to highlight what someone else is saying. Type in the name of the person after the quotation.

(ix) It helps the reader if the text of your posts goes right across the page. If you find this has not happened, use the EDIT button to make sure it does. I do this for you whenever I can but I find it very time-consuming so I would prefer it if you did it yourself.

(x) There is no need to add your own name to postings. The forum software does this automatically.

Please feel free to add your comments about these rules. I welcome suggestions about other rules we might need. However, do not use this thread to reopen disputes with other members. If you do, they will be deleted.

Edited November 11, 2010 by Robert Harris

[Bill Miller]

Common sense 101: When one has to ask what rule did they violate when using vulgar language in their post that people of all ages are subject to ... within lies the problem.

Now what about that head turn of Nellie's ... wanna see it again?

Bill Miller

Edited November 11, 2010 by Bill Miller

[Evan Burton]

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.