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

[John Dolva]

re the concertina: there is a definite bunching of the slats above the 'cut'. To the left of the 'cord' of lower section no slats are visible.

[Robert Harris]

Robert,

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

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

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

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

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

Bill Miller

Did Duncan ask you to reply to my postings?

And what "basics" are you accusing me of forgetting? This seems to be something you just thought up today. Please be specific.

"It is fanatic low-brow individuals that I notice who will choose to respond with name calling"

Excellent point, Bill. Have you notified Duncan directly about this or were you just going to let him read about it in the forum? I assume you were referring to his recent name-calling tantrum in which he called me "Bungling Bob" and "babbling bob", right

You guys are real class acts

[Bill Miller]

Did Duncan ask you to reply to my postings?

And what "basics" are you accusing me of forgetting? This seems to be something you just thought up today. Please be specific.

"It is fanatic low-brow individuals that I notice who will choose to respond with name calling"

Excellent point, Bill. Have you notified Duncan directly about this or were you just going to let him read about it in the forum? I assume you were referring to his recent name-calling tantrum in which he called me "Bungling Bob" and "babbling bob", right

You guys are real class acts

First you ask only if Duncan asked me to attack you ... now you change it to did he ask me to reply to your postings, which I already answered as to why I responded to this thread. The answer is still 'NO'!

The basics goes to cross referencing photos/films and looking for the best prints. You were given options and you have not reported doing either. Gary Mack and the 6th Floor Museum has a wealth of information for those who seek it.

And I was referring to your calling people who's response you do not like names such as "Moron" and "Idiot". There is a difference in what Duncan implied and what you do. Please stop trolling and trying to get off track on such nonsense that has nothing to do with the evidence. The definitions of the words you attributed to Duncan are below, as well as the two you have used. I will let others determine if they all imply the same thing ... I find they do not.

Bill Miller

Babble: 2. To talk foolishly or idly; chatter:

Bungle: To work or act ineptly or inefficiently

Moron: A stupid person; a dolt.

Idiot: A foolish or stupid person. A person of profound mental retardation having a mental age below three years and generally being unable to.

Edited October 18, 2010 by Bill Miller

[Duke Lane]

I do hope that no offense was taken to my statement that you have done a great deal of debunking over the years. ...

I'm pretty thick-skinned, so no offense, but likewise no need not to clarify. There have been those who decry my "debunking," saying that eliminating various considerations runs counter to "the cause," as if "the more theories we've got, the better."

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

"Would have" and "probably" don't cut it, but in any case, it seems like something between the thicknesses of a head and a piece of cardboard might fit the bill here. Who knows?

It's clear, anyway, and we seem to be in agreement that something in between the window and blinds could have caused this misalignment of the thin "cord" line (more on that in a minute). A simple experiment would be to put a camera at about the same angle from a window of about the same size with blinds in it, and see /a/ how large or deep and object might be to cause a similar misalignment, and /b/ whether the depth of that object actually does move the blinds so far back as to be unseen. "Probably out of view" does not eliminate the possibility or the probability; it's just conjecture.

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

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

That is one helluva lot of coincidence ....

Well, yes, if the window was broken, if there was something in the window, if this, that and the other thing, then you're right: this might be a helluva lot of coincidence.

If, however, Braden/Brading (or anyone else) was in a building that provided absolutely no chance of successfully and surreptitiously firing a shot at anyone, then that's exactly what it is: coincidence. And even if he was supposed to have been doing the shooting, that hardly shows that he did.

I must a little bafflement about a reaction by JFK to a "shot" that didn't hit him and wasn't heard by him or anyone else because of some "muffling" or "suppression" of noise, but we're not there yet, are we? First, I'd like to deal with the possibility of that window as a shooting position if we might.

A point about Venetian blinds, c. 1960s (FWIW). Today, the common appearance of venetian blinds is something like this:

For those of us with longer memories, many if not most (or all?) venetian blinds of decades gone by looked more like these:

or these:

I don't know if all venetian blinds looked that way, but that's the way I remember most of them looking, including in residential as well as business/industrial settings, i.e., with wider, 1½" woven "ladders" to tilt and raise/lower the blinds. This description more closely resembles the vertical line in the middle portion of the window than that at the left.

This by no means eliminates blinds being in those windows, but it seems as if this possibility should be eliminated before concluding that we even see an actual cord there, or if we're looking at something else. Wouldn't I be justified to say that it's "most likely" or "probable" that the blinds in Dal-Tex were of the wider-ladder configuration, and thus "throw the baby out with the bath water" with a conclusion based solely on conjecture or supposed probability?

About the 3rd floor of Dal-Tex. How much is actually known about this location? I cannot recall any roster of Dal-Tex employees or even a floor plan for the building such that we can determine the layout of this building or who might have "had any business" being in the vicinity of a window in the southwest sector. Nor, to my knowledge, is there any indication (a la CE1381) of where any of the Dal-Tex employees were during the parade, including whether or not that section of the third floor was occupied by any of them and/or in what kind of venue (e.g., office, warehouse space, storage closet, etc.). Is there such a thing?

Absent that, can it be posited that someone could have shot out of that or any other window without witnesses either to the shooting or the escape, or - given that Brading was not arrested with a weapon - an accomplice who either hid the weapon or managed to spirit it out of the building? It seems that such a scenario at least needs to be considered (beyond the banality of "everyone" being involved in the conspiracy, it coming off as flawlessly as a Mission:Impossible op, and nobody not "in on it" not poking their noses in where it didn't belong) before we can even presume that it could have been pulled off.

What exits and entrances were there besides the front door, and is there any reason to think that Pops Rackley and James Romack didn't also notice the goings-on around that building other than that they didn't say anything about it after not being questioned about it (several months after TSBD became well known as "the" scene of the shooting)?

There are such things as coincidences - things that merely happen at the same time - and without demonstrating that there was opportunity to shoot from that area, it becomes doubly difficult to accept that it did simply because someone with an "odd background" was there on that floor.

The Holmsian maxim is to first "eliminate the impossible," but in this case I've never seen it demonstrated that, other than a favorable trajectory, Dal-Tex was indeed a "possible" shooting perch, or that there was anyone other (or in addition to) Brading who might've had anything all to do with it. It doesn't strike me that Brading had the background to have been a shooter as opposed to either a coordinator or observer; perhaps you can fill us in on that?

By no means is this either "blowing" anything "out of the water" or "debunking" the theory; I'm simply asking for more facts to support what you think.

Finally, does anyone have a better image of this or the surrounding windows?

[Robin Unger]

Hi Duke

One of the Murray images has a very good shot of the venetian blinds in the dal-tex first floor window.

The blinds are also visible behind the fire escape counter weight

Edited October 19, 2010 by Robin Unger

[Robert Harris]

I do hope that no offense was taken to my statement that you have done a great deal of debunking over the years. ...

I'm pretty thick-skinned, so no offense, but likewise no need not to clarify. There have been those who decry my "debunking," saying that eliminating various considerations runs counter to "the cause," as if "the more theories we've got, the better."

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

"Would have" and "probably" don't cut it, but in any case, it seems like something between the thicknesses of a head and a piece of cardboard might fit the bill here. Who knows?

It's clear, anyway, and we seem to be in agreement that something in between the window and blinds could have caused this misalignment of the thin "cord" line (more on that in a minute). A simple experiment would be to put a camera at about the same angle from a window of about the same size with blinds in it, and see /a/ how large or deep and object might be to cause a similar misalignment, and /b/ whether the depth of that object actually does move the blinds so far back as to be unseen. "Probably out of view" does not eliminate the possibility or the probability; it's just conjecture.

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

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

That is one helluva lot of coincidence ....

Well, yes, if the window was broken, if there was something in the window, if this, that and the other thing, then you're right: this might be a helluva lot of coincidence.

If, however, Braden/Brading (or anyone else) was in a building that provided absolutely no chance of successfully and surreptitiously firing a shot at anyone, then that's exactly what it is: coincidence. And even if he was supposed to have been doing the shooting, that hardly shows that he did.

I must a little bafflement about a reaction by JFK to a "shot" that didn't hit him and wasn't heard by him or anyone else because of some "muffling" or "suppression" of noise, but we're not there yet, are we? First, I'd like to deal with the possibility of that window as a shooting position if we might.

A point about Venetian blinds, c. 1960s (FWIW). Today, the common appearance of venetian blinds is something like this:

For those of us with longer memories, many if not most (or all?) venetian blinds of decades gone by looked more like these:

or these:

I don't know if all venetian blinds looked that way, but that's the way I remember most of them looking, including in residential as well as business/industrial settings, i.e., with wider, 1½" woven "ladders" to tilt and raise/lower the blinds. This description more closely resembles the vertical line in the middle portion of the window than that at the left.

This by no means eliminates blinds being in those windows, but it seems as if this possibility should be eliminated before concluding that we even see an actual cord there, or if we're looking at something else. Wouldn't I be justified to say that it's "most likely" or "probable" that the blinds in Dal-Tex were of the wider-ladder configuration, and thus "throw the baby out with the bath water" with a conclusion based solely on conjecture or supposed probability?

About the 3rd floor of Dal-Tex. How much is actually known about this location? I cannot recall any roster of Dal-Tex employees or even a floor plan for the building such that we can determine the layout of this building or who might have "had any business" being in the vicinity of a window in the southwest sector. Nor, to my knowledge, is there any indication (a la CE1381) of where any of the Dal-Tex employees were during the parade, including whether or not that section of the third floor was occupied by any of them and/or in what kind of venue (e.g., office, warehouse space, storage closet, etc.). Is there such a thing?

Absent that, can it be posited that someone could have shot out of that or any other window without witnesses either to the shooting or the escape, or - given that Brading was not arrested with a weapon - an accomplice who either hid the weapon or managed to spirit it out of the building? It seems that such a scenario at least needs to be considered (beyond the banality of "everyone" being involved in the conspiracy, it coming off as flawlessly as a Mission:Impossible op, and nobody not "in on it" not poking their noses in where it didn't belong) before we can even presume that it could have been pulled off.

What exits and entrances were there besides the front door, and is there any reason to think that Pops Rackley and James Romack didn't also notice the goings-on around that building other than that they didn't say anything about it after not being questioned about it (several months after TSBD became well known as "the" scene of the shooting)?

There are such things as coincidences - things that merely happen at the same time - and without demonstrating that there was opportunity to shoot from that area, it becomes doubly difficult to accept that it did simply because someone with an "odd background" was there on that floor.

The Holmsian maxim is to first "eliminate the impossible," but in this case I've never seen it demonstrated that, other than a favorable trajectory, Dal-Tex was indeed a "possible" shooting perch, or that there was anyone other (or in addition to) Brading who might've had anything all to do with it. It doesn't strike me that Brading had the background to have been a shooter as opposed to either a coordinator or observer; perhaps you can fill us in on that?

By no means is this either "blowing" anything "out of the water" or "debunking" the theory; I'm simply asking for more facts to support what you think.

Finally, does anyone have a better image of this or the surrounding windows?

Duke, I would refer you again to the image we are talking about. Due to the irregular shape of the darkened area, I have a very hard time imagining some object being positioned between the blinds and the window. It it was square or rectangular, then I think you would have a stronger case.

And for your explanation to work, you would not only have to posit a very strangely shaped object being inserted in there, but something that would cause the misalignment of the cords on the left side, while leaving everything nice and straight on the right.

As for more information about the Daltex layout, I would cheerfully kill to learn more about that. My efforts over the last decade have included contacting the current building management, posting requests for information in JFK forums, and contacting quite a few other researchers. Larry Hancock told me that the third floor was mostly vacant then and used for storage. He said, "There were a lot of boxes up there.". If Larry was correct then it would seem to have been easy to set up a sniper's nest there, similar to the one in the Depository.

Of course, there is a lot of information that I'm sure, we would all (with only a couple of exceptions ) like to have but until we do, we must work with what we have. I think what bothers me most is, the irregular shape of that darkened area. It LOOKS like a an opening that was haphazardly cut out and the misalignment of what appears to be the leftmost cord, is consistent with that conclusion.

And I don't think we should ignore the fact that JFK reacted as he did, at the same instant in which the limousine became visible to anyone who might have been in that window, or the knowledge that a professional criminal was up there, who was connected to other key suspects.

Edited October 19, 2010 by Robert Harris

[Duke Lane]

One of the Murray images has a very good shot of the venetian blinds in the dal-tex first floor window....

Thanks as ever, Robin!

This is a case in point, with the 1½"-wide "ladders" clearly visible. Even with these on the first floor, it's not certain that all of the blinds in the building were the same, but it's not unlikely that they were, or at least mostly were (these could, of course, be the exception rather than the rule, but the photo with Dulles and Specter in the foreground suggests otherwise).

In the grainy image posted above, it's still possible that the left-hand vertical line is indeed a ladder ribbon, even if it appears somewhat more narrow than the one to the right. It's likewise possible if not probable that the one we see in the middle section is also one, since there are three rather than two ladder ribbons in the Murray image of the first floor blinds: one at either side, and one in the middle.

Thanks again!

[Robert Harris]

One of the Murray images has a very good shot of the venetian blinds in the dal-tex first floor window....

Thanks as ever, Robin!

This is a case in point, with the 1½"-wide "ladders" clearly visible. Even with these on the first floor, it's not certain that all of the blinds in the building were the same, but it's not unlikely that they were, or at least mostly were (these could, of course, be the exception rather than the rule, but the photo with Dulles and Specter in the foreground suggests otherwise).

In the grainy image posted above, it's still possible that the left-hand vertical line is indeed a ladder ribbon, even if it appears somewhat more narrow than the one to the right. It's likewise possible if not probable that the one we see in the middle section is also one, since there are three rather than two ladder ribbons in the Murray image of the first floor blinds: one at either side, and one in the middle.

Thanks again!

The width of the leftmost cord/strap is exactly the same as the corresponding one on the second floor.

[Duke Lane]

Duke, I would refer you again to the image we are talking about. Due to the irregular shape of the darkened area, I have a very hard time imagining some object being positioned between the blinds and the window. It it was square or rectangular, then I think you would have a stronger case.

And for your explanation to work, you would not only have to posit a very strangely shaped object being inserted in there, but something that would cause the misalignment of the cords on the left side, while leaving everything nice and straight on the right.

IDD (imagination deficit disorder!) is no reason to suppose that another explanation isn't correct. Let's tax it some more and play "what-if," shall we? I'm doing this entirely on the fly....

First, let's discard the grainy image above in favor of this one (pardon the arrow), presuming as I am that you're satisfied that this is the same window as above:

There is nothing about the shape or its apparent effect on the blinds that conclusively eliminates it as being a person, although I'm not prepared to say that it actually is. But consider that the ribbon above the shape angles slightly away from the vertical window frame to the left, suggesting that it could be the result of something inserted between the blind and the window and causing the blind to be pushed back from the window frame and, given the perspective, appear to angle out-and-downward when in fact it is angling away from the window.

If that is the case, and presuming the blind to fall straight downward behind that inserted object (as it would, due to gravity), at the angle of the photo, it would appear to the right of where the portion above it would be: all that is missing is the angle of the ribbon behind the object to connect the two. Someone with better math skills than mine could probably, given this possibility, compute how thick the object must be to cause the ribbon to appear that far to the right from Altgens' perspective.

There is furthermore a shadow that seems to extend downward and to the right toward the bottom of the center ribbon, which is not inconsistent with what we might expect there to be on the blind slats that were at an angle - or perhaps even bent somewhat - from that object's insertion: while the thin metal (presuming that to have been the material, rather than wood) might tend toward staying straight, my experience with blinds is that they don't always.

The image is not clear enough to determine if the middle ribbon is "flat" all the way from the top and bottom, but it would not necessarily be as far from the window as the one to the left, especially if the metal slats bent at all, and it may be that the bottom of what we see is slightly narrower than the upper portion due to its being slightly twisted.

Comparing the shading to the full Altgens image (see http://jfkhistory.co.../altgensBIG.jpg), the darkness at the lower left corner of this window does not appear to be as black as that behind the people in the window below:

This suggests that the window is not missing from that space as it clearly is on the floor below (otherwise nobody would have been able to lean out the window!).

Here's another interesting thing about that comparison: 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?).

In fact, if I do "the old blur-my-eyes trick" (necessary for such things as finding Badgeman, etc.), I can easily imagine seeing a black man wearing a "golfer's cap" standing there doing exactly what I described. It's not out of the question, in my opinion. Of course, it could also be Brading watching the action ...!

As for more information about the Daltex layout, I would cheerfully kill to learn more about that. My efforts over the last decade have included contacting the current building management, posting requests for information in JFK forums, and contacting quite a few other researchers. Larry Hancock told me that the third floor was mostly vacant then and used for storage. He said, "There were a lot of boxes up there.". If Larry was correct then it would seem to have been easy to set up a sniper's nest there, similar to the one in the Depository.

Of course, there is a lot of information that I'm sure, we would all (with only a couple of exceptions ) like to have but until we do, we must work with what we have. I think what bothers me most is, the irregular shape of that darkened area. It LOOKS like a an opening that was haphazardly cut out and the misalignment of what appears to be the leftmost cord, is consistent with that conclusion.

And I don't think we should ignore the fact that JFK reacted as he did, at the same instant in which the limousine became visible to anyone who might have been in that window, or the knowledge that a professional criminal was up there, who was connected to other key suspects.

Entirely too many "ifs" to draw a conclusion, including an interpretation of where and how JFK "reacted" to some unknown and undefinable stimulus which, for all we know, might've been no more than a sneeze.

[Robert Harris]

"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 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.

[Duke Lane]

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?

[Robert Harris]

But the problem is Duke, that we see people on the right side of your montage.

And this guy must have been getting some serious cramps, perched in that window until 3pm

[Robert Harris]

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

[Duke Lane]

"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."

Edited October 20, 2010 by Duke Lane

[Robin Unger]

recent photo showing the Daltex windows

Note the smaller windows off to the right, these windows are only just visible in Altgen's 6

Altgen's 6 Crop

Edited October 20, 2010 by Robin Unger