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

[Robert Harris]

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?

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. 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?

And if you agree that this was not a human being, then how do you explain the irregular shape of that darkened area?? What "object" would be of that shape? If you insist that it might have been a human, then you need to explain what we are seeing later that afternoon, and why that stupid guy still hadn't figured out how to raise the blinds

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.

[Bill Miller]

Duke has reiterated what was said early on and that is the haze on the glass in A6 is noticeable and is not seen in the windows that were open. A logical conclusion can be drawn that if a window was broken and void of glass, then the broken out area would be dark like it appears in the obvious open windows.

Bill

[Duke Lane]

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.

[Robert Harris]

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.

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.

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

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.

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?

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.

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.

[Duke Lane]

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.

[Robert Harris]

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?

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.

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

I seriously doubt that they represent a statistically significant number. In my forum, almost everyone has agreed with me and on Youtube I have gotten 100% thumbs up ratings after about 400 viewings. And I am baffled that someone who supports a theory which is only slightly more popular than that of the Flat Earth Society would be interested in popularity polls anyway

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??

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."

Thank you Duke. But in all honesty, I am not responsible for what others have done and not done. If we agree about nothing else perhaps we can agree that I am no genius. But I did spend a lot of time on my analysis - over 15 years, and have specialized in what happened inside Dealey Plaza.

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?

Oh and Tippit? I think Oswald shot him. But there is a bit more to the story. However, shouldn't that be discussed in another thread?

And I am flattered that you would ask me for information about the assassinations of Bobby and Dr. King but I'm sure there are others in this forum who are far more knowledgeable about those crimes than I am.

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

[Bill Miller]

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?

How hard would it be for you (Robert) to have contacted the Tal-tex building to find out what might be learned about the types of blinds they had in the 60's? After all ... that is part of good research 101 when presenting ones theory. Other than looking at a less than clear photo you haven't seemed to have done anything else to cross check your observations.

Bill

[Robert Harris]

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?

How hard would it be for you (Robert) to have contacted the Tal-tex building to find out what might be learned about the types of blinds they had in the 60's? After all ... that is part of good research 101 when presenting ones theory. Other than looking at a less than clear photo you haven't seemed to have done anything else to cross check your observations.

Bill

It would be quite easy for me to contact the Daltex building management and I did exactly that, more than ten years ago and then again within the last two years. But they had no information about anything related to occupancy in 1963. They didn't even have a list of the tenants names then, which is what I was really after. Apparently that was because ownership of the building had changed hands since 1963.

I did not ask about blinds but based on what the management company told me, they had no information about pretty much anything, from 1963. Nor did they believe that the old records were still available elsewhere.

But thank you for the excellent suggestion, Bill, in spite of your rather presumptuous assumption that I had not bothered to do my homework. Have you ever considered taking the time to find out if your accusations were actually true, before you make them??

Oh, and one other thing Bill. Why is it that most of your replies target "Harris" rather than the infinitely more important issues related to the JFK case, which we are discussing?

If I were the biggest sleezeball on the planet, that wouldn't change the nature of JFK's reactions during the Towner film, and it wouldn't make the evidence go away, which demonstrates that someone cut out a small section of the blinds in a window on the third floor of the Daltex building, where the only professional criminal to be arrested that day, was located.

Nor would it change the fact that most witnesses including the limo passengers heard no more than one of the shots which were fired prior to the very end of the attack, or that the limo passengers reacted dramatically to the shots at 285 and 312, which were much too close together to have been fired by Oswald.

Why don't you want to discuss any of that Bill?

Why is it more important to you, to "get Harris" rather than to get the truth about the JFK case?

Edited October 21, 2010 by Robert Harris

[Bill Miller]

It would be quite easy for me to contact the Daltex building management and I did exactly that, more than ten years ago and then again within the last two years. But they had no information about anything related to occupancy in 1963. They didn't even have a list of the tenants names then, which is what I was really after. Apparently that was because ownership of the building had changed hands since 1963.

I did not ask about blinds but based on what the management company told me, they had no information about pretty much anything, from 1963. Nor did they believe that the old records were still available elsewhere.

But thank you for the excellent suggestion, Bill, in spite of your rather presumptuous assumption that I had not bothered to do my homework. Have you ever considered taking the time to find out if your accusations were actually true, before you make them??

My response was directed at what you had done to find out about the blinds and it seems you answered that question ... you didn't ask. As you know, the Dal-tex Bldg was a matter of concern to researchers and investigators post assassination - views were tested and so forth. Witnesses names who worked there or were seen in the windows were known and could have been a source of information to someone like yourself, thus I wanted to know to what extent you looked into your theory.

If I were the biggest sleezeball on the planet, that wouldn't change the nature of JFK's reactions during the Towner film, and it wouldn't make the evidence go away, which demonstrates that someone cut out a small section of the blinds in a window on the third floor of the Daltex building, where the only professional criminal to be arrested that day, was located.

There is nothing in JFK's actions during the Towner film that indicate anything sinister in my view. There is no testimony of shots being fired or heard by anyone during the limo's turn onto Elm Street. You have not proposed anything in my opinion that offers any merit to anything to the contrary, thus why should I give a rats behind to discuss something that doesn't exist in my view? JFK certainly wasn't shot - no sounds of a shot was reported during that turn - and I don't believe for a minute that JFK did anything other than to offer a quick wave to someone who he glimpsed as the crowd was passing through his field of view. That is not to say that a shot wasn't fired from the Dal-tex building ... just not when you are proposing one and certainly not by anything that you have offered as proof to the possibility when all the evidence is considered as a whole.

Nor would it change the fact that most witnesses including the limo passengers heard no more than one of the shots which were fired prior to the very end of the attack, or that the limo passengers reacted dramatically to the shots at 285 and 312, which were much too close together to have been fired by Oswald.

I totally disagree with your assessment. Mrs. Connally describes two noises that led to first the President being shot and then her Husband. She went on to say that the third shot she heard was the shot that spattered the car with the President's brain matter.

As far as the limo passengers not reacting dramatically to the shots ... I thought the President and Connally acted very dramatically to the wounds they had received before Z255/56. So dramatically that their reactions led to a great debate as to whether both men were hit by the same bullet or by two separate bullets.

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

Mrs. CONNALLY. .......................................The third shot that I heard I felt, it felt like spent buckshot falling all over us,

Why don't you want to discuss any of that Bill?

I have addressed what you claim I have avoided ... you just don't want to acknowledge it because it doesn't go along with your assessment of things.

Bill Miller

Edited October 21, 2010 by Bill Miller

[Robert Harris]

It would be quite easy for me to contact the Daltex building management and I did exactly that, more than ten years ago and then again within the last two years. But they had no information about anything related to occupancy in 1963. They didn't even have a list of the tenants names then, which is what I was really after. Apparently that was because ownership of the building had changed hands since 1963.

I did not ask about blinds but based on what the management company told me, they had no information about pretty much anything, from 1963. Nor did they believe that the old records were still available elsewhere.

But thank you for the excellent suggestion, Bill, in spite of your rather presumptuous assumption that I had not bothered to do my homework. Have you ever considered taking the time to find out if your accusations were actually true, before you make them??

My response was directed at what you had done to find out about the blinds and it seems you answered that question ... you didn't ask. As you know, the Dal-tex Bldg was a matter of concern to researchers and investigators post assassination - views were tested and so forth. Witnesses names who worked there or were seen in the windows were known and could have been a source of information to someone like yourself, thus I wanted to know to what extent you looked into your theory.

If I were the biggest sleezeball on the planet, that wouldn't change the nature of JFK's reactions during the Towner film, and it wouldn't make the evidence go away, which demonstrates that someone cut out a small section of the blinds in a window on the third floor of the Daltex building, where the only professional criminal to be arrested that day, was located.

There is nothing in JFK's actions during the Towner film that indicate anything sinister in my view. There is no testimony of shots being fired or heard by anyone during the limo's turn onto Elm Street. You have not proposed anything in my opinion that offers any merit to anything to the contrary, thus why should I give a rats behind to discuss something that doesn't exist in my view? JFK certainly wasn't shot - no sounds of a shot was reported during that turn - and I don't believe for a minute that JFK did anything other than to offer a quick wave to someone who he glimpsed as the crowd was passing through his field of view. That is not to say that a shot wasn't fired from the Dal-tex building ... just not when you are proposing one and certainly not by anything that you have offered as proof to the possibility when all the evidence is considered as a whole.

Nor would it change the fact that most witnesses including the limo passengers heard no more than one of the shots which were fired prior to the very end of the attack, or that the limo passengers reacted dramatically to the shots at 285 and 312, which were much too close together to have been fired by Oswald.

I totally disagree with your assessment. Mrs. Connally describes two noises that led to first the President being shot and then her Husband. She went on to say that the third shot she heard was the shot that spattered the car with the President's brain matter.

As far as the limo passengers not reacting dramatically to the shots ... I thought the President and Connally acted very dramatically to the wounds they had received before Z255/56. So dramatically that their reactions led to a great debate as to whether both men were hit by the same bullet or by two separate bullets.

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

Mrs. CONNALLY. .......................................The third shot that I heard I felt, it felt like spent buckshot falling all over us,

Why don't you want to discuss any of that Bill?

I have addressed what you claim I have avoided ... you just don't want to acknowledge it because it doesn't go along with your assessment of things.

Bill Miller

Let me see if I understand you correctly Bill. You feel that I was remiss for not calling the Daltex management co. a third time to ask them what kind of blinds a tenant in the Daltex building installed decades before they took over management and after they had already told me that they had no records whatsoever for 1963 and didn't even know the names of the tenants??

I am I getting you right, Bill? You know, for someone who is virtually clueless about about the events in Dealey plaza, you certainly set your standards high

As for the shot at 285, the issue is not even debatable. For those who actually care about any of this, this video explains exactly what Nellie said and did at that time, as well as the people around her.

[Robert Harris]

Bill, I'm a bit confused by your "analysis" here. You stated,

"I totally disagree with your assessment. Mrs. Connally describes two noises that led to first the President being shot and then her Husband."

and then you went on to cite part of Mrs. Connally's WC testimony, which included this,

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."

Bill, when do you see Mrs. Connally look back and see JFK, with his hands up to neck level?

[Duke Lane]

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?

[Robert Harris]

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, 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?

[Robert Harris]

Bill, I'm a bit confused by your "analysis" here. You stated,

"I totally disagree with your assessment. Mrs. Connally describes two noises that led to first the President being shot and then her Husband."

and then you went on to cite part of Mrs. Connally's WC testimony, which included this,

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."

Bill, when do you see Mrs. Connally look back and see JFK, with his hands up to neck level?

Oh, and BTW Bill, if you need a good, clear copy of the Zapruder film in order to check out Mrs. Connally, you can download several different versions from my website, here:

http://www.jfkhistory.com/downloadables.html

[Duke Lane]

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.