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

[Robert Harris]

Robert, it's pretty clear that Connally yells out "My God! They're going to kill us all!" before Z-285. While Nellie Connally believed her husband yelled out "No, no, no" before he was hit,

That is absolutely correct.

she always insisted he yelled out "My God..." after. This means that she believed he was hit seconds before Z-285.

Pat, we cannot be certain about when he said that. She may have heard the tail end of that sentence as the 312 shot was going off. But the fact that she heard that "second shot" after looking back at 258, and then reacted within a third of a second following 285, has to trump anything else.

She told as much to the WC after viewing the film. Now, you might claim she was mistaken on a point or two. Most people do. But it's not quite kosher to pretend her statements and testimony support that she initially thought her husband was shot circa Z-285, after he yelled out "My God..."

I apologize in advance if I am misreading you, and you are not claiming she thought here husband was hit circa Z-285.

That is correct. I believe that JBC was hit at 223 and that the 285 shot missed the president. I suppose it's not absolutely impossible that Connally was hit at 285, but for a number of reasons, I don't think that is likely.

From patspeer.com, chapter 5b:

First Lady of Texas Nellie Connally sat directly to the left of her husband and directly in front of Jackie Kennedy: (11-22-63 WFAA report on a press conference given by Connally aide Julian Read, who had just spoken to Mrs. Connally.) “The car had turned to the left on Elm Street and was getting ready to go under the Triple Underpass. At that moment, Mrs. Connally said she heard a shot. Instantly, when she heard the shot, her husband turned to see what had happened and at that instant he too was shot.

I see no reason to look at second hand statements when we have a dozen interviews in which the Connallys give us first hand accounts which were almost flawlessly consistent.

Let's cut to Mrs. Connally's actual words, as you just cited them.

(4-21-64 testimony before the Warren Commission, 4H146-149) “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…

Yes, that was probably the shot at 160. The shot at 223 was silent and no one heard it - not even John Connally.

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

That is correct. And in fact, we can see Mrs. Connally as she turned back to the President and saw him in distress. Wouldn't you agree, that she is totally unaware at this time, that her husband has been wounded?

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

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

That statement is HUGE, Pat. She said it twice during her WC testimony and repeated it in nearly every interview she ever gave. But look at the Zapruder film. She turned to the rear TWICE after 223 - the last time, just after 280. But we NEVER see her turn to the rear again, after she reacted to the shot at 285 and pulled her husband back to her.

I remember that he turned to the right and then just slumped down into the seat, so that I reached over to pull him toward me…The third shot that I heard I felt, it felt like spent buckshot falling all over us, and then, of course, I too, could see that it was the matter, brain tissue, or whatever, just human matter, all over the car and both of us...(The time between the first and second shot was) Very short. It seemed to me that there was less time between the first and the second than between the second and the third.

Nellie was one of the extremely rare witnesses in DP that day to claim that the early shots were closer than the final ones. But there is a well known phenomenon in which people's perception of time seems to slow down during life threatening situations. I think that after she saw the massive blood on her husband's chest, the next couple of seconds seemed much longer than they really were. Jackie described that time period as "an eternity".

(At the time of the first shot) The underpass was in sight…(When asked about the Zapruder film, she said she thought her husband was shot at frame) “229—it could have been through the next three to four frames.” (Article in McCall’s magazine, August, 1964)

Her guess, based on a casual look at the Zapruder film, is absolutely worthless, because she had no points of reference which would allow her to know where they were at that time. And she was seeing in the Zapruder film, what she was unable to see on 11/22/63 - the anguished, painful look on her husband's face. Isn't that what convinces most of us that Connally was hit during that time period?

At the risk of sounding like a broken record, the sequence of events which we can visually corroborate has to take precedence over any subjective opinions. We KNOW when she looked back at Kennedy and we KNOW when she reacted to the shot that caused her to turn around and pull her husband back to her.

“in that instant the first shot rang out, I heard it and though I handle guns myself and am familiar with rifles, I did not in that split second realize it was gunfire…I looked directly at the President. He clutched his throat with both hands, and I felt sure he was dead. His face went blank. There was no pain or shock or fear just nothingness. His face was completely expressionless, as if the person had gone. Sitting on my right, John, the Governor, turned very fast to his right trying to look around at the President. Not getting him in his line of vision, he started turning to his left and the second bullet hit him.

Nellie realized that he turned back to his right and toward the president and then back to his left, which we can see him do, beginning in the 230's. She obviously, didn't realize that he was writhing involuntarily in pain and believed he was checking out JFK just as she was. Granted, he didn't quite make it a full 180 degrees by 285, but she was IMO, well within a reasonable margin of error.

Oops, the system tells me I have too many quotes. I'll try to finish up with a second message a bit later this evening.

Edited October 24, 2010 by Robert Harris

[Robert Harris]

“First I heard the shot, or a strange loud noise...back behind us. Then next I turned to my right and saw the President gripping at his throat. Then I turned back toward John, and I heard the second shot that hit John…

That says it all, Pat.

I am saving your other citations for future reference, but she seems to have been pretty consistent over the years, repeating the same thing she told the WC. Is there anything else she said that you feel contradicts a shot at 285?

Look, we all know that witnesses are fallible. But in this case we have an opportunity to test Nellie's statements about the shot that she believed, wounded Governor Connally. And Nellie's reaction began at 290-291 - exactly the instant that Alvarez identified as Zapruder's reaction to that loud noise.

And it began within 1/18ths of a second of the other three nonvictims in the limousine.

Look at what else happened, almost instantly, following frame 285:

Greer spun around at near inhuman speed and in his panic, slowed the limo, as he was feeling the "concussion" of what could only have been the shock wave of a passing bullet.

Clint Hill leaped from the running board of the followup car, in immediate reaction to a gunshot. He (mistakenly of course) testified that JFK first reacted at the same time that he jumped.

Charles Brehm heard the first of three shots, just as the limo passed "15-20" feet from him. JFK was actually about 18 feet away at 285.

Jean Hill, who said the limo was "almost abreast" of her position when she heard that shot, snapped her head very quickly, away from JFK within about a sixth of a second following the reactions of the limo passengers.

Mary Moorman also heard several shots beginning at roughly the same instant that she snapped her final photo.

And of course, Kellerman heard the "flurry"; Greer heard nearly simultaneous shots and people all over DP said they heard closely bunched shots at the end of the attack.

And I can give you another dozen examples which prove that there was a shot at 285. To understand the shooting in DP that day, you have to understand two facts. First, there was a loud shot at frame 285 and second, ALL shots prior to 285 were fired from a suppressed weapon.

Edited October 24, 2010 by Robert Harris

[Duke Lane]

Duke, I'm sorry that you refuse to answer my very simple questions. In fact, the one I asked you about where you believe the shots came from, is highly relevant to this conversation, as is the question about whether you believe other shooters were involved.

The only thing that matters here is whether I can believe, based on the evidence you've presented, whether a shot could have come from that particular window of the Dal-Tex building. It doesn't matter one whit - and is totally irrelevent to this conversation - if I think someone took a shot from the top of the County Records building or the manhole cover. You can change the focus to JFK or JBC or anywhere else as much as you'd like, you still have to return to that window. Even if everything you say about JFK and JBC are absolutely true, it still does not suggest, much less show, that any shot did or even could have originated from that spot.

But I am not about to waste my time, endlessly dealing with goofy claims about either people or boxes being piled up in that window. I cannot prove that we are not seeing Santa Claus, a herd of buffalo or a leprachaun in that window either, but I trust my readers to be bright enough to see for themselves that such things are just not present there.

And it is disingenuous to argue that since I cannot prove that various things were not there, that I must be wrong. Where do we draw the line? How do we "prove" that Oswald was holding a rifle in the backyard photos? Maybe I think it's just a tree branch and you can't prove I'm wrong.

My argument is that there is no plausible alternative explanation to the blinds being damaged and the top and bottom of the leftmost cord being disrupted. How the term, "plausible" is defined, is the subjective choice of each reader. I can only say that anyone who thinks he is seeing people or boxes in that window is probably not going to be interested in anything else I have to say, anyway.

Now, it strikes me that the only thing anyone's said is that the "irregular pattern" you've defined as only "one plausible thing" could be any number of other things; I don't believe that anyone here posited that it actually was any of the things that it could be. It probably could be any of a number of things since it is an area less than 0.3% - that's zero-point-three-percent - of the original image, .2175x.2960" of a 4x5" print, even smaller on the negative, the detail limited even with ISO100 film. What that "irregular shape" actually was is necessarily limited to interpretation since it can probably never be discerned with absolute certainty even under very high magnification.

Could it be what you interpret it as? Maybe. But since it ties in with your interpretation of JFK & JBC's "reactions" (or, more accurately, "actions"), it is ultimately up to you to show that the probability of it being what you interpret it as is greater than the probability of it being something or anything else.

That requires, in a case as this, that you show at least means and opportunity: state unequivocably that there was not an office behind those blinds (if that's in fact what they were, which seems apparent to me, at least at the upper part); that whether or not there was or was not, it was an unoccupied space (or that whoever occupied it was or at least might have been complicit); and that, of course, the window really was broken.

To fail to do so is to watch your theory go down in flames the moment someone else discovers that it was an office and that the person who normally occupied the office was there in it.

When and if that occurs, I would suspect that you'd be the first to demand absolute proof, which you so conveniently pussyfoot around now: your interpretation is so "obvious," so "irrefutable," so "absolute" that it requires none.

But for now, it requires all sorts of things that can have no proof - which you assert as proof that it "must" have been the way you think - such as nobody being seen, no weapon being in evidence ever, no glass falling or on the ground, nobody hearing anyone upstairs, nobody hearing a shot or seeing a rifle, "reactions" to a noise from a "suppressed" rifle, speculations all that nevertheless somehow are the "proof" of your theory.

You must accept the image of Badgeman absolutely on the same bases.

We are not all as omniscient and insightful and as infallible as you, so please forgive us mere mortals for the faults and foibles you are incapable of. Maybe you will find those informed readers who are as bright as you are, who see things as clearly and faultlessly as you, and recognize your clear superiority to the rest of the human race: finding 400 people - or even 4000 - who believe there was a conspiracy but have no idea of its nature is no more difficult to do than holding an uneducated gathering in thrall as you regale them with things they knew nothing about and accept as absolute truth from an "expert" who clearly knows more than they do.

[Bill Miller]

And would you please be specific about what you read in that Life article, which contradicted anything that the Connally's stated either in 1964 or in numerous interviews over the years since then? I certainly never saw such a thing, and I have to suspect that neither have you, or you would have cited the article, verbatim.

I not only saw it - I was one of the main participants in the thread ... I remember a Gary Myers not liking what Connally had said or whether he got to see all the slides, thus it would have been on Lancer, but it was probably posted here as well as most stuff ends up on both forums. So its not a matter of me making it up ... do a search and go find it! It gets pretty tiresome to have people want to be at the head of a debate, but yet won't life a finger to go find it for themselves.

I recall a researcher once saying that his Grandpa used to say that you can lead a horse to water, but you shouldn't have to drown the damned thing to get it to take a drink! If you chose not to research the article, then that is your problem - not mine.

Bill

[Bill Miller]

And would you please be specific about what you read in that Life article, which contradicted anything that the Connally's stated either in 1964 or in numerous interviews over the years since then? I certainly never saw such a thing, and I have to suspect that neither have you, or you would have cited the article, verbatim.

I not only saw it - I was one of the main participants in the thread ... I remember a Gary Myers not liking what Connally had said or whether he got to see all the slides, thus it would have been on Lancer, but it was probably posted here as well as most stuff ends up on both forums. So its not a matter of me making it up ... do a search and go find it! It gets pretty tiresome to have people want to be at the head of a debate, but yet won't life a finger to go find it for themselves.

I recall a researcher once saying that his Grandpa used to say that you can lead a horse to water, but you shouldn't have to drown the damned thing to get it to take a drink! If you chose not to research the article, then that is your problem - not mine. However, here is a lead I can give you by doing a simple Google search ... but be careful it would be considered research on your part to follow-up on it !!!

http://www.google.ca...lient=firefox-a

In the HSCA testimony it appeared that Connally stumbled and wasn't sure if he said Oh no before being hit in the back or after. So if Nellie is talking about hearing a shot and it hitting her husband in the back, then who cares if she thought he said Oh no 10 seconds later ... the Governor was only hit in the back one time and that moment can be shown to have happened back at Z223/224. If you were wanting to argue the sound only, then we would be discussing just how precise can Nellie's memory be to the millisecond? In this case she also adds that the shot she heard hit her husband in the back and that can be narrowed down to the transfer of momentum previously noted.

Bill

Edited October 25, 2010 by Bill Miller

[Robert Harris]

And would you please be specific about what you read in that Life article, which contradicted anything that the Connally's stated either in 1964 or in numerous interviews over the years since then? I certainly never saw such a thing, and I have to suspect that neither have you, or you would have cited the article, verbatim.

I not only saw it - I was one of the main participants in the thread ... I remember a Gary Myers not liking what Connally had said or whether he got to see all the slides, thus it would have been on Lancer, but it was probably posted here as well as most stuff ends up on both forums. So its not a matter of me making it up ... do a search and go find it! It gets pretty tiresome to have people want to be at the head of a debate, but yet won't life a finger to go find it for themselves.

I recall a researcher once saying that his Grandpa used to say that you can lead a horse to water, but you shouldn't have to drown the damned thing to get it to take a drink! If you chose not to research the article, then that is your problem - not mine. However, here is a lead I can give you by doing a simple Google search ... but be careful it would be considered research on your part to follow-up on it !!!

http://www.google.ca...lient=firefox-a

In the HSCA testimony it appeared that Connally stumbled and wasn't sure if he said Oh no before being hit in the back or after. So if Nellie is talking about hearing a shot and it hitting her husband in the back, then who cares if she thought he said Oh no 10 seconds later ... the Governor was only hit in the back one time and that moment can be shown to have happened back at Z223/224. If you were wanting to argue the sound only, then we would be discussing just how precise can Nellie's memory be to the millisecond? In this case she also adds that the shot she heard hit her husband in the back and that can be narrowed down to the transfer of momentum previously noted.

Bill

Bill, what is the point in just babbling on and evading another question. I read that Life article years ago and nothing in it contradicts the Connallys.

And why are you pretending that this is about when John Connally was hit in the back? As I said the last three times, we both know that he was hit at 223.

Evasion is shameful Bill. This is an important part of your country's history. How do you live with yourself?

[Bill Miller]

Bill, what is the point in just babbling on and evading another question. I read that Life article years ago and nothing in it contradicts the Connallys.

And why are you pretending that this is about when John Connally was hit in the back? As I said the last three times, we both know that he was hit at 223.

Evasion is shameful Bill. This is an important part of your country's history. How do you live with yourself?

Maybe you'll like this Nellie Connally version ... a penny for your thoughts?

Larry King Interview on the first and second shot:

KING: Did you know immediately?

CONNALLY: Well, I felt like then that it was -- John sitting right in front of him knew it was a shot.

KING: He did?

CONNALLY: Well, he's a hunter and a shooter, you know. So he turned quick...

KING: To his right?

CONNALLY: ... to his right and he couldn't see him because he was directly in front of him. And he said, "No, no, no" and turned to his left.

KING: He visibly said that?

CONNALLY: Yes. And turned to his left and he still couldn't see him. Now this is a second or two. Then, as he whirled back, the second shot hit John and...

KING: Where did it enter him?

CONNALLY: It went under his shoulder, out through -- under the nipple. It went through -- it took out five inches of his fifth rib and went through one of his lungs. He would -- which had all of that... (end)

Now unless I am missing something here ... Connally heard the first shot his wife went on to say that the second shot hit John in the shoulder AFTER John said : "Oh No ...No...No"

I will see if I can next contact someone I know and get a quote from the Life Magazine interview to see if I remembered it correctly ... I'll keep you posted.

Bill Miller

PS: Here is a piece from a post Ron Hepler made on Lancer concerning John and Nellie's remarks on when John said "Oh No,no,no" to the timing of his wounding ....

"Nellie supports the timing issue with her testimony to the Warren Commission, "...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..."(18). She reinforced the timing with her statement to the HSCA, “...John had turned to his right also when we heard that first noise and shouted, `no, no, no,' and in the process of turning back around so that he could look back and see the President--I don't think he could see him when he turned to his right--the second shot was fired and hit him.” (19) The Governor’s statement to the HSCA indicates that he was having trouble keeping his story straight, "When I was hit, or shortly before I was hit--no, I guess it was after I was hit--I said first, just almost in despair, I said, "no, no, no,...". (20) This Freudian slip indicates that he actually made the statement before he was wounded, but that did not fit the official story and had to be altered."

Edited October 25, 2010 by Bill Miller

[Robert Harris]

Bill, what is the point in just babbling on and evading another question. I read that Life article years ago and nothing in it contradicts the Connallys.

And why are you pretending that this is about when John Connally was hit in the back? As I said the last three times, we both know that he was hit at 223.

Evasion is shameful Bill. This is an important part of your country's history. How do you live with yourself?

Maybe you'll like this Nellie Connally version ... a penny for your thoughts?

Larry King Interview on the first and second shot:

KING: Did you know immediately?

CONNALLY: Well, I felt like then that it was -- John sitting right in front of him knew it was a shot.

KING: He did?

CONNALLY: Well, he's a hunter and a shooter, you know. So he turned quick...

KING: To his right?

CONNALLY: ... to his right and he couldn't see him because he was directly in front of him. And he said, "No, no, no" and turned to his left.

KING: He visibly said that?

CONNALLY: Yes. And turned to his left and he still couldn't see him. Now this is a second or two. Then, as he whirled back, the second shot hit John and...

KING: Where did it enter him?

CONNALLY: It went under his shoulder, out through -- under the nipple. It went through -- it took out five inches of his fifth rib and went through one of his lungs. He would -- which had all of that... (end)

Now unless I am missing something here ... Connally heard the first shot his wife went on to say that the second shot hit John in the shoulder AFTER John said : "Oh No ...No...No"

I will see if I can next contact someone I know and get a quote from the Life Magazine interview to see if I remembered it correctly ... I'll keep you posted.

Bill Miller

PS: Here is a piece from a post Ron Hepler made on Lancer concerning John and Nellie's remarks on when John said "Oh No,no,no" to the timing of his wounding ....

"Nellie supports the timing issue with her testimony to the Warren Commission, "...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..."(18). She reinforced the timing with her statement to the HSCA, “...John had turned to his right also when we heard that first noise and shouted, `no, no, no,' and in the process of turning back around so that he could look back and see the President--I don't think he could see him when he turned to his right--the second shot was fired and hit him.” (19) The Governor’s statement to the HSCA indicates that he was having trouble keeping his story straight, "When I was hit, or shortly before I was hit--no, I guess it was after I was hit--I said first, just almost in despair, I said, "no, no, no,...". (20) This Freudian slip indicates that he actually made the statement before he was wounded, but that did not fit the official story and had to be altered."

Yes, Bill. Nellie said her husband was hit after he shouted but he said said he was hit before he shouted. I think I said that about eight times in this thread.

And only an idiot would think that JBC was pressured to say that. If he was then his wife would have been too.

Why are you babbling like this? You might as well type up a page from the phone book. It would be just as productive.

I posted some questions for you. Why won't you answer?

Would you reply if I asked you some easier questions, Bill?

Or would you prefer to talk about Kellerman or Greer or Clint Hill or Charles Brehm or Mrs. Kennedy or some of the agents in the followup car? How about Mary Moorman or Jean Hill? I will show you that it doesn't even matter that Jean's credibility is questionable.

Or perhaps you would like to talk about Dr. Luis Alvarez.

You tell me Bill. I want to make this easy for you

[Robert Harris]

(duplicate)

Edited October 25, 2010 by Robert Harris

[Bill Miller]

"Nellie supports the timing issue with her testimony to the Warren Commission, "...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..."(18). She reinforced the timing with her statement to the HSCA, "...John had turned to his right also when we heard that first noise and shouted, `no, no, no,' and in the process of turning back around so that he could look back and see the President--I don't think he could see him when he turned to his right--the second shot was fired and hit him." (19) The Governor's statement to the HSCA indicates that he was having trouble keeping his story straight, "When I was hit, or shortly before I was hit--no, I guess it was after I was hit--I said first, just almost in despair, I said, "no, no, no,...". (20) This Freudian slip indicates that he actually made the statement before he was wounded, but that did not fit the official story and had to be altered."

Yes, Bill. Nellie said her husband was hit after he shouted but he said said he was hit before he shouted. I think I said that about eight times in this thread.

And only an idiot would think that JBC was pressured to say that. If he was then his wife would have been too.

Why are you babbling like this? You might as well type up a page from the phone book. It would be just as productive.

I posted some questions for you. Why won't you answer?

Would you reply if I asked you some easier questions, Bill?

Correct me if I am wrong, but you have been debating whether Connally said "Oh no ... no... no" after he was hit in the back as you contend or before he was hit in the back as I contend. You hold to your position because its part of your analogy that the second shot (according to Nellie Connally) was fired at a much later time than Z223/224.

My point has been plain and simple and that is that which ever version Nellie has given at different times during her interviews ... she states that when the second shot was fired that that she heard ... it was the one that hit her husband in the back. This means that if it is a fact that Connally only had one bullet strike to his back and that wounding can be seen at Z223/224 as I believe we have both agreed ... then when Nellie says she heard the second shot and it was the one that hit her husband in the back ... it becomes a moot point whether she remembers when John Connally said "Oh no ... no ... no" and this is why I point out the Larry King interview, as well as the Life Magazine interview with both Connally's. So the one thing she has said consistently is that she heard the second shot and was looking at her husband when it hit him in the back.

For the record and to test our memory, I will pursue the exact wording from the Life Magazine article that was said to end all speculation. I do this rather as a courtesy to you and others than to reply like some jackass who might say that he read the article years ago and doesn't need to refresh his memory about it now. If I am wrong, then I will stand corrected, but seeing how I participated in threads that dealt with the Connally article and had cited from it many times ... I am certain that I am correct as to what the Connally's said in that Life Magazine interview of November 1967.

Now I will offer you an example so to make what I am saying as clear as possible without hopefully needing sock-puppets to help you along ...

Try to imagine the Connally's sitting at the dinner table and Nellie had reported that she heard a shot from somewhere outside the house and close by and then a second shot which she said came through her dining room window and broke it. Also during her accounting of this occurrence she mentioned that John had said 'Oh no ....' before the window broke in one interview and then after the window had broke in another interview - we would have a contradiction and one of us might have a problem in deciding which is the correct statement ... which we are depending on as far as when Nellie heard the shot in relation to the statement of John saying 'Oh no ... no ... no'. But then we recall that Nellie heard the second shot at the same time the bullet came through the window breaking the glass. So regardless of how she remembers when John said 'Oh no ...no...no' which can be argued depending on which version she has given - the window being broke is the trump card that cannot be disputed as to Nellie saying that it happened at the time of the second shot she had heard. Now replace the term 'broken window' with .John being hit in the back' and we find ourselves being back at Z223/224.

I cannot explain this any better and that if you are going to continue embracing Nellie hearing a second shot at a latter time by relying on one of her contradictory statements to another she had made elsewhere while ignoring her consistent remark how that second shot was the one that hit John in the back, then we are pretty much where we were when debating the relevance of an alleged cut blind cord in relation to an alleged shot being fired at the President from behind an unbroken window.

Bill Miller

Edited October 25, 2010 by Bill Miller

[Robert Harris]

"Correct me if I am wrong, but you have been debating whether Connally said "Oh no ... no... no" after he was hit in the back as you contend or before he was hit in the back as I contend. You hold to your position because its part of your analogy that the second shot (according to Nellie Connally) was fired at a much later time than Z223/224."

No, I am not arguing about when Connally said that. That is a given. The film has been studied by professional lip readers who confirmed that he said, "Oh, no..." beginning between 242 and 250. You can read the article here.

http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/listen.htm

And I have never claimed that the second shot was fired at a "much later time than 223/224". Both Connally and Kennedy were hit at 223, give or take a frame.

And Nellie has NEVER contradicted her statements about the shooting - not even once. If she had, you would have been able to cite her doing that. Why are you pretending that she did??

And why are you still pretending that you don't get it? Why would you evade the questions which would force you to admit that Nellie heard a shot after she looked back at 258 and before the fatal headshot at 223? Why would you continue to argue after you know that you are wrong?

Bill, would you like me to repost the questions that you have been evading?

Edited October 25, 2010 by Robert Harris

[Robert Harris]

"Miles Scull has brought to my attention, the visibility of the lower window sill in Altgens 8. The window must therefore be closed."

:D

Of course the freaking window was closed. I told you that a long time ago. Why are you pretending that this was some kind of magnificent discovery after you argued all month that the broken glass would have fallen on people's head??

They wouldn't have needed to break the glass if the window was raised, duh...

You and Bill seem to be having a contest to see who can make the stupidest arguments. I think you are pretty much neck and neck so far

Edited October 25, 2010 by Robert Harris

[Robert Harris]

"Miles Scull has brought to my attention, the visibility of the lower window sill in Altgens 8. The window must therefore be closed."

:D

Of course the freaking window was closed. I told you that a long time ago. Why are you pretending that this was some kind of magnificent discovery after you argued all month that the broken glass would have fallen on people's head??

They wouldn't have needed to break the glass if the window was raised, duh...

You and Bill seem to be having a contest to see who can make the stupidest arguments. I think you are pretty much neck and neck so far

The discovery is, although you are obviously too thick in the upstairs department to get it, that with the clearer Thomson Altgens photograph, it's easy to see that the window is not broken, and that there are boxes behind the window, whether it be opened or closed.

There were no people walking about with lumps of sharp broken glass and dripping with blood after being hit with the falling glass shrapnel from a lunatic assassin cutting window blinds and then battering a hole in the window with a rifle. What a joker you are. LOL!!!

You can't even tell the truth about your own statements, can you Duncan?

"Miles Scull has brought to my attention, the visibility of the lower window sill in Altgens 8. The window must therefore be closed."

Why do you now pretend that you said something different??

As for your moronic claim that you now see a pile of boxes in that window, because you drew in some white lines, I will leave that to readers to decide for themselves

[Robert Harris]

It is interesting to compare Duncan's blurry, low resolution image of that window (on the left) with a much sharper, high resolution image.

Not only is it obvious that there are no boxes in that window (or little men for that matter), but if we look closely, we see in Duncan's image a couple of subtle but visible, dark lines. One of them extends all the way across to the rightmost cord and the other goes to the right at a descending angle of about 30 degrees, apparently meant to make us think we see boxes. You will not see them in any legitimate copy of the Altgens photo - ONLY in Duncan's.

[Pat Speer]

Robert, it's pretty clear that Connally yells out "My God! They're going to kill us all!" before Z-285. While Nellie Connally believed her husband yelled out "No, no, no" before he was hit,

That is absolutely correct.

she always insisted he yelled out "My God..." after. This means that she believed he was hit seconds before Z-285.

Pat, we cannot be certain about when he said that. She may have heard the tail end of that sentence as the 312 shot was going off. But the fact that she heard that "second shot" after looking back at 258, and then reacted within a third of a second following 285, has to trump anything else.

I don't follow you here, Bob, and suspect you are greatly mistaken. Deaf mutes have studied the film and have read Connally's lips. Their appraisal, moreover, seems obvious when one studies the film. Connally begins claiming "My God" in response to getting hit almost two seconds before you believe his wife thinks he was hit, even though she claimed from the first, even before viewing the film, that she thought he yelled this out as a response to getting hit. If you want to claim she was confused. Fine. But you shouldn't pretend that this is not a problem for your scenario.

Other problems I see... You seem to believe there was a shot at 160, but that no one heard it, or some such thing. Those claiming there was a shot at this time inevitably do so because they think they see Connally react to it. If no one heard it...then why should we think it happened? I don't get this at all...

Also, while you correctly claim that the witnesses heard the last two shots close together, you seem to ignore that the bulk of these claimed the head shot was the first of these two shots...and that Kinney and Roberts--looking at the back of Kennedy's head at the time of the shots--said they were so close together that they just couldn't tell or some such thing. This, to me, is a clear indication that the head shot was the second shot, and not the third of the three shots heard by most witnesses.