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

[Robert Harris]

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.

Well, don't be bashful Duke. Tell us about the conspiracy. How many shooters? What evidence convinced you? Whodunnit??

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

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

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

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

[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?

Bill, I see that you were logged in today. Why won't you answer this very simple question?

Edited October 22, 2010 by Robert Harris

[Robert Harris]

Bill, I see that you were logged in today. Why won't you answer this very simple question?

I suspect like me, that Bill may be waiting for you to answer the question which I asked you first, which Bill agrees is a valid question, and to which you have failed miserably to respond to, ie, Name one of your "everybody" on this forum, who you claim sees what you see and agrees with you that your analysis is correct.

Good manners dictate that you should respond first.

I never in my life said that everybody in this forum agreed with me. I said that everyone except you and Bill were able to see the cords in those blinds. Why do you have to continually make up things Duncan?

And if you really want to help your bud, then instead of making up excuses for him, why don't you take a shot at answering my very simple question, which is infinitely more important than your petty little insults?

[John Dolva]

I can see the cords and other images indicate the central straps. I don't think that is the issue. I think it is a good idea to focus on the DalTex windows for other reasons. I don't think that Robert has made an argument that in any way supercedes those made by others. There is a seeming oddity, but it is more odd to cut the cords and break the window, in fact, it strikes me as daft.

[Robert Harris]

I said that everyone except you and Bill were able to see the cords in those blinds.

Name one of them then.

Sure, John Dolva and Duke Lane.

Now it's your turn. How long do you and Bill intend to dodge my question?

[Robert Harris]

I can see the cords and other images indicate the central straps. I don't think that is the issue. I think it is a good idea to focus on the DalTex windows for other reasons. I don't think that Robert has made an argument that in any way supercedes those made by others. There is a seeming oddity, but it is more odd to cut the cords and break the window, in fact, it strikes me as daft.

I appreciate the confirmation John, since Duke will probably deny seeing the cords in spite of talking about them all throughout our exchange

But I don't understand why you don't see the logic behind this. If you were a sniper in that window, would you pull the blinds up, exposing yourself to a small army of cops, deputies and Secret Service people?

By cutting out a small opening in the blinds, you could target your quarry but remain almost totally unseen. BTW, a fellow named Phil Dragoo posted an interesting graphic at the jfkhistory forum which illustrates the concept.

[John Dolva]

Robert, I think what various people have been trying to point out to you is that it is your logic and it works for you.

I think you are very attached to this and cannot see alternatives with, imo, more credibility as a consequence.

If this is your magnus opus, I think you'll end up disappointed. However, a focus on DalTex is, imo, worthwhile for whatever reason.

[Robert Harris]

Robert, I think what various people have been trying to point out to you is that it is your logic and it works for you.

I think you are very attached to this and cannot see alternatives with, imo, more credibility as a consequence.

If this is your magnus opus, I think you'll end up disappointed. However, a focus on DalTex is, imo, worthwhile for whatever reason.

John, why are you constantly using the pronoun "you"? This is NOT about Robert Harris.

The issue is whether a sniper in that location would prefer to be visible to the people below him as he fired at the President or whether he would want to remain unseen.

And in spite of that fact that the answer is so ridiculously obvious, it is not a trick question. It is the question that ANY sniper in Dealey Plaza that day had to face. I can understand that you disagree but I don't understand how you could label any of this as illogical or preposterous. You stated,

"it is more odd to cut the cords and break the window, in fact, it strikes me as daft."

Why is it "odd"? Why is it "daft"? Please be specific.

Shooting JFK from a building that day was a piece of cake. The problem was - how do you avoid getting caught? The scenario I am proposing, answers that question perfectly.

[Robert Harris]

I said that everyone except you and Bill were able to see the cords in those blinds.

Name one of them then.

Sure, John Dolva and Duke Lane.

Now it's your turn. How long do you and Bill intend to dodge my question?

That'll do for starters...Now..Please name everyone else, or is that your total of everyone?

Duncan, first you claimed that you couldn't see the cords in the blinds. But that wasn't true, was it?

And then you claimed that no one else could see those cords. But that wasn't true either, was it?

And then you said that I claimed everyone agreed with me. But that wasn't true either, was it?

And you said that no one in any forum agreed with me. But that wasn't true either, was it?

Duncan, on a scale of 1 to 10, exactly how important is it to you to be truthful?

Edited October 22, 2010 by Robert Harris

[Bernice Moore]

i have found a few things from past research on possible shots from the dal tex; though not to get involved within the discussion, they may help in some way with peoples studies......sheldon hershold's frames below were taken from the dal tex 11.22.63..thanks to john woods...shel was one of the many photographers there that day working for for nbc...i believe...information on businesses in the.Dal-Tex from the -business-coles directory..imo a shot from the dal tex was very possible..thanks b,,

Edited October 22, 2010 by Bernice Moore

[Robert Harris]

i have found a few things from past research on possible shots from the dal tex; though not to get involved within the discussion, they may help in some way with peoples studies......sheldon hershold's frames below were taken from the dal tex 11.22.63..thanks to john woods...shel was one of the many photographers there that day working for for nbc...i believe...information on businesses in the.Dal-Tex from the -business-coles directory..imo a shot from the dal tex was very possible..thanks b,,

Hehe, the two middle images bring back memories. I made both of those. I posted the one in the center-right, back in 1995 before I even knew that Alvarez had beaten me by twenty years, to discovering that loud "noise" at 285. Back then, I calculated the shot at frame "284" but later deferred to him after I learned of his analysis.

I also thought the shot came from the second floor, behind the fire escape. I've learned a lot since then.

[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.

I personally do not think you are capable of understanding anything correctly. Maybe you might have someone else read my response to you and they can better help you understand it. Often times while there may not be a history on who was where in a building full of offices ... there can be a history on the building ... sometimes interior photos and so forth. I also added that immediately after the assassination that researchers started looking closely at suspected possible shooting locations that included the Dal-tex building, which it sounds as if you not only can think outside your own little box to know how to find such answers, but don't care to try.

The above criticism also applies to your approach with Nellie Connally. Until now I didn't know anyone who didn't know about the big issue of when JFK was hit Vs Connally. Until a few years ago when computerized stabilization was done with Connally which showed the moment his right shoulder was driven forward and down in the initial 1/18th of a second .... everything else was left up to people who couldn't possibly have broken these movements down by merely witnessing the assassination which was sudden and unexpected. Witnesses recall a sudden stressful scene in a general sense and then try to make sense out of it later when describing it. Sometimes that is all one may have to work with, but the Zapruder film offers a more precise record of what happened and when. I find that while you can single out one thing to make a case for what you think happened ... you fail miserable to find a balance between what the film shows and what a witness believes they seen. No better example is that of Bill Newman who said he saw the President's ear fly off ... which obviously didn't really happen.

For instance, Nellie said her husband tried to look to see the President by turning to his right at the sound of the first shot (which Connally did with his head) ... but Connally couldn't see JFK he said ... not even out of the corner of his eye! That full body twist that you attribute to Connally as being his turn to the right has Connally turned so far around that he couldn't help but see JFK.

Then Nellie went on to say that her husband then turned to his left and couldn't see the President. Nowhere on the Zapruder film did Connally turn to his left with the exception of his head turn which only makes it back to about center when he felt a blow to his right shoulder ... the movement I cited from stabilizing the film. Even the Commission knew of this problem for that's how they came up with the instant reaction of the President and a delayed reaction of Connally's wounding to account for one bullet causing all the wounds. The problem with this is that a bullet slamming into muscle and taking out pieces of rib causes an immediate transfer of momentum, and that's where the Z223/224 1/18th of a second sudden forward and downward movement comes in at the same time Connally makes that acute grimace.

All this is recorded in the archives, but you go ahead and keep showing an aged Nellie giving her 'my husband then turned to look over his left shoulder and couldn't see the President' nonsense. Even Connally said in the Life Magazine interview that his intention was to turn to look over his left shoulder, but never got the chance because he was hit when his head came just about to center.

Bill Miller

Edited October 22, 2010 by Bill Miller

[Robert Harris]

Bill, I have no clue as to what you are trying to say here. Of course Connally was hit at 223. And of course, he was talking about the noise he heard circa 160. But Nellie didn't realize that he was hit at 223. She could only see his back then and thought he was hit by the shot she heard and clearly reacted to at 285.

But let's start with you answering the question I asked two days ago. It is critical to an understanding of what happened here, and as I will show you, 100% consistent with Nellie's testimony. Your claim that she was too old to know what she was talking about in that interview was outrageously disingenuous, since you must realize that her story hadn't changed even slightly since she testified in 1964.

This is it again. Please answer.

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?

[Robert Harris]

And btw Bill, as you ponder that question, perhaps you will consider another. In her WC testimony, Mrs. Connally said,

"I never again looked in the back seat of the car after my husband was shot."

and

"I still had not ever looked back at the back seat after the second shot."

Mrs. Connally repeated that over the years in numerous interviews. And yet, in the film, we can easily see her turn to the rear TWICE following frame 223, the last turn being just after 280.

How do you explain that Bill?

And the last question (for now). Mrs. Connally testified that she reacted to that second shot by turning toward her husband and pulling him back to her.

"I reached over to pull him toward me. I was trying to get him down and me down."

I see her begin that turn toward Governor Connally at 290-291. What do you get?

I am editing this message to clarify one thing. Of course, we see Mrs. Connally look toward her husband earlier than this. But in those cases, she went on to look away from him and toward JFK, or briefly, toward the front. There was only ONE time in which she turned to Gov. Connally and remained focused on him as she pulled him back to her and then pulled both of them down and out of harm's way.

And as Mrs. Connally stated repeatedly throughout the remainder of her life, she never again looked looked to the rear after that.

It is critical to identify that single instant because it is obvious that that was when she heard the shot that she believed, wounded him.

This issue is a deal breaker Bill. It settles the conspiracy question. Evasion is despicably and shamefully dishonest.

Edited October 23, 2010 by Robert Harris

[Robert Harris]

Bill, I have no clue as to what you are trying to say here. Of course Connally was hit at 223. And of course, he was talking about the noise he heard circa 160. But Nellie didn't realize that he was hit at 223. She could only see his back then and thought he was hit by the shot she heard and clearly reacted to at 285.

But let's start with you answering the question I asked two days ago. It is critical to an understanding of what happened here, and as I will show you, 100% consistent with Nellie's testimony. Your claim that she was too old to know what she was talking about in that interview was outrageously disingenuous, since you must realize that her story hadn't changed even slightly since she testified in 1964.

This is it again. Please answer.

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?

Bill, you seem to be really struggling with this question. Perhaps, this short animation will help you,