• Announcements

    • Evan Burton


      We are opening registration!! If you are interested, please send an email to: edforumbusiness@outlook.com We require you use your real name, a valid email address, and your agreement to the Terms of Use, seen here: http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=21403. Additionally, you will have to send us your photo for use as an avatar and submit a brief biography. We will post these for you, and send you your password. We cannot approve membership until we receive these. We look forward to having you as a part of the Forum! Sincerely, The Education Forum Team

Andy Walker

  • Content count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by Andy Walker

  1. Like many men I tend to spend quite a bit of time at parties talking about sport, and most especially golf. My own 2 sporting heroes are Jack Nicklaus and Tony Jacklin. Nicklaus because he was quite simply the best there has ever been, and also because of his tremendous sportsmanship (see 1969 Ryder Cup), and Jacklin because by winning 2 majors at a time when no European golfer ever did this he laid the foundations of what has now become in Europe the dominant world force in golf. My sporting anti-hero is a golfer called David Robertson who though fantastically talented and with a great amateur career chose to cheat outrageously when trying to qualify as a professional in the early 80's. He was caught moving the ball yards nearer the hole before putting and banned for life
  2. ETERNAL RETURN: A HOLE THROUGH THE WINDSHIELD? Barb Junkkarinen, Jerry Logan, Josiah Thompson 1. Introduction Certain issues concerning evidence in the JFK assassination research arena bubble to the surface again and again. The wheels on the bus go round and round, grinding out the same arguments, largely by the same people, with no real progress achieved. One would think after forty-five years that issues concerning basic facts of the assassination might have been resolved. For example, was or wasn't there a through-and-through hole in the limousine windshield? It certainly makes a huge difference in finding out what happened in Dealey Plaza. Yet arguments about this claim have come and gone on the internet for over a decade. It has been a topic discussed in books at least as far back as Thompson's Six Seconds in Dallas (1967), and David Lifton devoted a lengthy footnote to the question in his Best Evidence (1980). More recently, this issue was discussed on the Ed Forum in 2007. Springboarding off the recent, “Moorman-in-the-Street?” discussions, which included the Altgen’s #6 photograph, the hole-in-the-windshield issue recently came up in discussion on the jfk-research Yahoo group (http://groups.yahoo.com/group/jfk-research/). James Fetzer took the lead for a group he copied on his posts. David Healy, Rich DellaRosa, Jack White and eventually David Lifton all weighed in. David Lifton and others presented “proofs” that the windshield had a through-and-through hole. Others were more skeptical. What was exceptional about this discussion, however, was that the wheels of the bus actually moved forward. For that reason, we have decided to share what we learned in that discussion here on the Ed Forum. And, thanks to Jerry Logan and John Hunt, we now have new documents from the Archives which advance our knowledge. Personally, we'd all be quite happy if a shot through the windshield (from either direction) could be proved. It would be a definitive death knell for the SBT. Clearly; the research terrain would be forever changed. But such proof has to be based upon valid evidence and not second hand reports. Here, as everywhere in this case, we have to make a judgment between kinds of evidence … photos and first-hand witness reports from trained observers and quick or secondary judgments made by others. We must take care to neither create nor promote myths and fables that only serve to keep the wheels spinning in place … over and over again. As John Kennedy put it, "The great enemy of the truth is very often not the lie, deliberate, contrived and dishonest, but the myth, persistent, persuasive and unrealistic.” What does the evidence show? Was there a hole through the windshield? 2. The Two Altgens Photos AP photographer James Altgens took two photos during the assassination, the first coincident with Zapruder frame 255, the second while Clint Hill was climbing onto the trunk of the limousine. Altgens was using a Nikkorex-F 35 mm camera with a 105 mm lens. In Dealey Plaze, he was shooting at 1/1000th of a second at f11. His shots are perhaps the highest resolution still photos taken in Dealey Plaza. His first photo of the limousine approaching down Elm Street with its motorcycle escort is one of the iconic photos of the assassination. Through the windshield, one can see Kennedy’s right arm raised in front of his chin. Governor Connally has turned far to his right and is now facing almost rearwards. Most importantly for our purposes, the limousine's windshield is shown clearly and appears undamaged. Professor James Fetzer has claimed that this Altgens photo shows a through-and-through bullet hole in the windshield. He claimed this as early as Assassination Science (1998) followed it up with a second claim in Murder in Dealey Plaza (2000). He is still claiming it. In Assassination Science, he illustrated his claim with the following photo and arrow: The feature in the photograph that Fetzer believes is a through-and-through bullet hole in the windshield he describes as “a small spiral nebula.” Good copies of the Altgens photo show it to be not a feature of the windshield. Rather it is a pattern formed by the gathering of fabric in the dress of a woman spectator standing in the background. The Altgens #6 photo demonstrates that the limousine windshield is not damaged at Zapruder frame 255. A few seconds later, Altgens snapped a second photo as Clint Hill climbed on the back of the limousine. This photo shows damage to the windshield just above and to the left of the rear view mirror (see photos) Later that Friday night, an FBI team of forensic examiners photographed the windshield in the White House garage. It is probative that this pattern of damage shown in a contemporaneous photo taken in Dealey Plaza matches the location and general character of damage later discovered in the windshield and photographed by the FBI. From the comparison of the two Altgens photos, we know that the windshield suffered no damage prior to Zapruder frame 255 and that damage to the windshield shown in a later FBI photo is consistent with the second Altgens photo. What we don’t know is whether this damage was to only one surface of the windshield or whether it produced a through-and-through hole. To answer that question, we must look to the reports of those who saw the windshield later and to the forensic examination that was done of the windshield that night. 3. Witness Reports: From Dealey Plaza to Parkland Hospital Secret Service Agent William Greer drove the car during the assassination and then on to Parkland Hospital. In a January 6, 1964 letter to Lee Rankin at the Warren Commission, Chief James Rowley of the Secret Service said Greer “states that he did not notice any damage to the windshield on the drive to the hospital.” At Parkland Hospital, Secret Service and other law enforcement personnel kept onlookers away from the limousine. Two police officers and a reporter later indicated they had seen a hole in the windshield at Parkland Hospital. Richard Dudman, St. Louis-Dispatch reporter. Dudman wrote a New Republic opinion piece on December 21, 1963 arguing that Kennedy had been shot from the front in Dealey Plaza. “Some of the points raised here bothered me on the scene in Dallas,” wrote Dudman, “where I witnessed President Kennedy's assassination and the slaying of the accused assassin two days later. Three circumstances --- the entry wound in the throat, the small, round hole in the windshield of the Presidential limousine, and the number of bullets found afterward --- suggested that there had been a second sniper firing from a point in front of the automobile.” And what of “the small, round hole in the windshield of the Presidential limousine?” Dudman wrote, “A few of us noticed the hole in the windshield when the limousine was standing at the emergency entrance after the President had been carried inside. I could not approach close enough to see on which side was the cup-shaped spot that indicates a bullet has pierced the glass from the opposite side.” Professor Fetzer and others often quote this remark of Dudman’s as proof a bullet penetrated the windshield of the limousine. What Fetzer does not quote is a follow-up to Dudman’s remark from Robert B. Livingston, M.D. published in Assassination Science. Dudman and Livingston were Stanford classmates and their families were friendly. “Our families had a dinner discussion on this subject in Washington, D.C. within a week or so of the assassination,” wrote Livingston. “Dick Dudman told me about the windshield then, although to the present he does not know whether the hole he saw penetrated the windshield. He was prevented by the Secret Service from testing the hole’s presumed patency by probing it with a pen or a pencil.” Harry Russell Freeman, a DPD motorcycle officer. According to Murder from Within (1974) by Fred T. Newcomb and Perry Adams, Gil Toff interviewed Freeman in 1971 for the book. Toff reported that Freeman said he observed a hole in the windshield when the car stood outside the Emergency Room at Parkland Hospital. “I was right beside it,” said Freeman. “I could have touched it. It was a bullet hole. You could tell what it was.” Stavis Ellis, a DPD motorcycle officer. The day after interviewing Freeman, Gil Toff interviewed Ellis. According to Toff, Ellis told him, “There was a hole in the left front windshield... you could put a pencil through it.” Ellis was also interviewed by Larry Sneed for No More Silence (1998). According to Sneed, Ellis reported: I walked by the limousine after they were taken in …… Some of the jockeys around the car were saying, ‘Looky here!’ What they were looking at was the windshield. To the right of where the driver was, just above the metal near the bottom of the glass there appeared to be a bullet hole. I talked to a Secret Service man about it, and he said, ‘Aw, that’s just a fragment!’ It looked like a clean hole in the windshield to me. In fact, one of the motor jockeys, Harry Freeman, put a pencil through it, or said he could. On August 5,1978, Ellis was interviewed by HSCA Staff with respect to his report that he had seen “a missile hit the ground in the area of the motorcade.” Ellis was riding a motorcycle in the motorcade ahead of the Presidential limousine. Ellis “saw debris come up from the ground at a nearby curb” and then saw “President Kennedy turn around and look over his shoulder. The second shot hit him and the third shot blew his head up.” Oddly enough, we can find no mention in HSCA documents of Ellis’ claim to have seen a hole in the windshield. Evangelea Glanges, Nursing student at Parkland Hospital or medical student at Southwestern Medical School. On Pamela McElwain-Brown’s web site, she is described as a “nursing student at Parkland Hospita.” She is reported to have seen a hole in the windshield. According to McElwain-Brown, Glanges did not mention a location for the hole when interviewed by Doug Weldon or Vince Palamara. Once again according to McElwain-Brown, Glanges “maintains that she leaned on100X, noticed the hole, commented on it, and, at that point, a Secret Service agent drove the car away.” Glanges is mentioned in an article on the windshield (“The Kennedy Limousine: Dallas 1963") penned by attorney Doug Weldon for Fetzer’s Murder in Dealey Plaza. Weldon argues for Secret Service misconduct with respect to the windshield and the likelihood it was penetrated by a shot from the front. In Weldon’s article, Glanges is described as “Dr. Evalea Glanges” who, in 1963, was a second-year medical student at Southwestern Medical School. According to Weldon, Glanges later became Chairperson of the Department of Surgery at John Peter Smith Hospital in Fort Worth. Weldon reports that Dr. Glanges died one month after his interview of her in January 1999. Weldon had this to say about what Glanges reported: She found herself standing next to the limousine. She leaned against the fender and viewed the hole in the windshield. Looking from the outside, she noted, “It was a real clean hole.” A friend, also a physician, was with Dr. Glanges at Parkland Hospital and refused to speak to this date about the incident. Dr. Glanges did not disclose the name of that person in an interview conducted by this author in January 1999. Apparently there was concern that disclosure might jeopardize her friend’s employment or otherwise be hazardous to his health. Dr. Glanges told me that, when she talked about the hole in a loud voice at Parkland, someone got into the vehicle and sped away, “almost taking my arm off.”... She stated she felt she “needed to keep her mouth shut.” She was insistent that the official story was “phony.” (MIDP, 140) It is difficult to know how to evaluate these witness reports. Dudman’s remarks to Dr. Livingston make it clear that he could not tell if the damage to the windshield he observed was a through-and-through hole. Officer Freeman’s remark is fragmentary; it is difficult to tell what to make of it. Officer Stavis places the damage to the windshield “near the bottom of the glass.” Nurse or Doctor Glanges would not disclose the name of a person who could confirm or disconfirm her report. She herself is deceased. However, what seems clear from other witness reports and photos is the extreme unlikelihood of Glanges claim to have “leaned against the fender” of the limousine. She claims to have done this shortly before the car was driven away. Although it took a few moments to place a law enforcement cordon around the limousine, law enforcement officers then kept civilians back from the limousine: Another photo shows the limousine from the rear. An enlargement from this photo appears to show some damage to the windshield consistent with Altgens #7 and the FBI photo: 4. Witness Reports: From Parkland Hospital to the White House garage. Chief Rowley’s letter to Lee Rankin of the Warren Commission goes on to list what other Secret Service agents observed concerning the windshield as the car was driven to Love Field and from Andrews Air Base to the White House garage. “SA Hickey,” wrote Chief Rowley, “who drove the car from Parkland Hospital to Love Field said that he noticed some slight damage to the windshield on the drive to the airport, but that the damage was not extensive enough to affect his vision. The windshield, in the area around the damage, was spattered with debris. However, SA Hickey noticed upon the arrival in Washington and at the White House garage the ‘spidering’ had increased and the damage to the windshield was more noticeable.” From Love Field, the limousine was flown to Andrews Air Field. Air Force One, carrying JFK’s body, arrived at Andrews Air Force Base at 6:08 PM on the evening of November 22nd. The Presidential limousine was taken back to Washington on a C-130 and arrived at Andrews Air Force Base at 8:05 PM. The limousine, driven by Secret Service Agent Kinney, with Secret Service Agent Charles Taylor riding shotgun, was escorted by motorcycles to the White House garage where it was parked in a bay and covered with a tarp at 9:00 PM. Chief Rowley’s narrative picks up again with the drive from Andrews Air Force Base. “SA Kinney,” wrote Chief Rowley, “who drove the car from Andrews Air Field to the White House garage, stated that he noticed little damage to the windshield when he was loading it on the plane; that the damage was more noticeable when he arrived at the garage but that it was not so extensive as to affect his driving from the air field.” At the White House garage, the damage to the windshield drew the attention of two Secret Service personnel. Chief Rowley’s letter to Lee Rankin continues: Special Officer Davis of the Secret Service and SA Gies stated that they noticed the damage to the windshield when the car arrived at the garage, that both of them ran their hands over the outside surface of the windshield and found it to be smooth and unbroken, that the damage to the windshield was entirely on the inside surface. Both were present when the windshield was removed from the car by the Arlington Glass Company and noticed that the removal caused the cracks in the glass to lengthen, but the outside surface still remained unbroken and there is no hole or crack through the windshield. Special Agent Gies has viewed the photographs of the windshield taken by the FBI and states that the damage noticeable to the windshield when it was first brought into the garage was not as extensive as the damage reflected in this photograph; i.e., the cracks were not so apparent. Apparently there was only a small spider-like damage visible on the inside of the windshield when the car arrived, but SA Gies is of the opinion that the temperature changes involved in the flight from Dallas, the temperature change and vibration from driving the car from Andrews Air Field to the White House garage, and then the storing of the car in the warm temperature of the White House garage is responsible for the change in appearance of the damaged area of the windshield visible in the photograph taken by the FBI. The photograph is attached and labeled as Exhibit I.1 Sitting beside SA Kinney in the front passenger seat of the limousine as Kinney drove through the dark from Andrews Air Field to the White House garage was Secret Service SA Charles Taylor. Chief Rowley mentions this in his letter to Lee Ranking and also attaches to his letter a report written by Taylor “concerning the security measures surrounding the car and the activity at the White House garage in connection with the search of the vehicle.” One sentence in Taylor’s report attracted the attention of David Lifton. 5. The Strange Fate of Secret Service Agent Charles Taylor When Josiah Thompson published Six Seconds in Dallas in 1967 he included a document appendix that reproduced several pages from CD 80, the January 6, 1964 letter from Rowley to Rankin that we have quoted from extensively. In 1968 David Lifton obtained a copy of the document from the National Archives. Attachments to the letter included an official report from SA Charles Taylor, Jr. prepared 11/27/63. A sentence in Taylor's report caught Lifton's eye. Taylor wrote that during an FBI examination "...of particular note was the small hole just left of center in the windshield from which what appeared to be bullet fragments were removed.." So began Agent Taylor's journey into history. For the next forty years, his name and words would play a featured role in the story of the Dallas windshield. The importance of Taylor's words cannot be underestimated. As late as April 2009 David Lifton reported: I never based any opinion about the windshield i.e., that it did or did not have a hole – on my interpretation of an Altgens photo, although I thought the one showing the car pulling away, with Clint Hill on the back (and with a cracked windshield) was very suggestive. My belief that the windshield probably had a hole and not just minor damage to one surface (and that meant there must have been deliberate windshield switching of some sort) was based primarily on two eyewitness accounts that were in writing within 10 days of the assassination: Number One: the report of reporter Richard Dudman, of the St. Louis Post Dispatch, who saw the car parked at Parkland and published his own account in the Post Dispatch of December 1;Number Two: the report of Secret Service Charles Taylor, which was dated November 27, 1963, was part of CD 80, and which I first obtained in 1968, from the National Archives .... my opinions about the windshield, I can assure you, were based on the eyewitness account of Dudman and the eyewitness account of Charles Taylor." It is unknown whether Lifton is aware of the fact that Dudman made clear to his friend Robert Livingston within days of November 22nd that “he does not know whether the hole he saw penetrated the windshield.” What is known is that Lifton made his opinion public in 1980 with the publication of Best Evidence and ever since Charles Taylor has been part of the discussion, his fame culminating in the digital age with the appearance of his typed report in a Gil Jesus YouTube video. The durability of Taylor's words undoubtedly springs from their undeniable power. A Secret Service agent who was an eyewitness to an FBI examination of the windshield states there was a hole in the windshield. And he put this observation into an official report to the Chief of the Secret Service less than a week after the assassination. For Lifton, Taylor ... plays a similar role, in watching while the FBI lab fellows examined the windshield, as FBI Agents Sibert and O'Neil played in watching while the Navy autopsy doctors examined the body. Unfortunately, Taylor didn't witness the FBI examination. Nor did he think there was a hole in the windshield. Other than that, it's all very powerful and convincing. Five years before the publication of Best Evidence, Charles Taylor had already unequivocally stated that there was, in fact, no hole in the windshield of 100-X on the night of November 22. Ironically, he almost certainly made that statement as a result of David Lifton’s efforts. Lifton, armed with the Freedom of Information Act, peppered federal agencies with requests once he was aware of Taylor’s report and the possibility of an FBI report on the limousine. The FBI and Department of Justice were less than forthcoming so in October 1975 Lifton brought his concerns to the attention of the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence — the Church Committee. (http://www.maryferrell.org/mffweb/archive/viewer/showDoc.do?docId=1461) Although it was probably unknown to Lifton at the time, the staff of the Select Committee took his concerns seriously. So seriously that they conducted an investigation of his claims and reported their conclusions in a Preliminary Report of Investigation into the Assassination of President Kennedy. (http://www.maryferrell.org/mffweb/archive/viewer/showDoc.do?docId=1464) The report, dated February 20, 1976 included an entire section on “Allegations Regarding Windshield in Presidential Limousine.” At page 109 of that report, the Committee staff recited Lifton’s arguments and used his references (without mentioning Lifton by name). However unoriginal that was, they did take the new step of interviewing Agent Taylor. The staff reported: The staff interviewed Secret Service Agent Taylor on December 10, 1975. On that occasion Taylor was positive that there had been a hole through the windshield. He stated that a pin could definitely be inserted through this hole from one side of the windshield to the other. However, the staff was not convinced that Taylor had actually had the opportunity to examine what he believed to be a hole. With Committee staff present, Taylor recently examined the windshield at the Archives. He stated that the windshield was as he had seen it in 1963; i.e. contrary to his report, there was no internal defect and not a penetration. The staff subsequently prepared an affidavit and forwarded it to the Secret Service for Mr. Taylor’s review and signature. (http://www.scribd.com/doc/16573650/TaylorAff) In that signed affidavit, Taylor states: During the trip from Andrews Air Force Base to the White House Garage, I noted what appeared to a hole in the windshield of SS-lOO-X. However, I never examined this apparent hole to determine if there had been any penetration of the glass, nor did I even get a good look at the windshield in well-lighted surroundings. In my contemporaneous report dated November 27, 1963 on the measures taken to effect security of the Presidential limousine SS-lOO-X and the follow-up car 679-X, I referred to a "hole" in the windshield from which what appeared to be bullet fragments were removed. However, it was not until December 19, 1975, at the National Archives that I ever examined the windshield – or even got a close look in well-lit conditions. The windshield I examined at the Archives had several large cracks extending the height and width of the glass. There was also a circle marked in red wax pencil which enclosed a portion of the windshield. This circle contained cracks emanating from a focal point. To the best of my recollection – as aided by contemporaneous FBI photographs of the windshield shown to me by members of the Senate Committee – I have no doubt that the cracks contained in the circle – cracks in the inner layers of the glass only, are the ones I noticed on the trip from Andrews Air Force Base (AAFB) described above. It is clear to me that my use of the word "hole" to describe the flaw in the windshield was incorrect. Since my responsibilities were strictly confined to the security aspects of the operations I was not involved in any phase of the examination of the Presidential limousine. The following are a result of personal observation and discussion with those more directly involved in the actual examination of the vehicle on the evening of November 22 and early morning of November 23, 1963. There are so many problems here for Lifton and others that it’s hard to know where to begin. First, obviously, there’s no hole in the windshield the night of the 22nd. Second, the affidavit is a classic illustration of the tendency of casual observers to overstate their conclusions relative to their actual observations and procedures. “There was a hole” becomes “I thought there was a pin hole but I never really examined the windshield closely or saw it in good light.” It’s astounding that Agent Taylor’s original report continues to be uncritically referenced. The Church Committee documents and Taylor’s affidavit have been available at the NARA since at least 2001. They were uncovered with a simple internet search. Even more astounding is that a simple, close reading of Taylor’s original report reveals that Taylor could not have been an eyewitness to the FBI examination the morning of November 23. Why? Because he was not on duty at that time. Some time after 8:00 PM on the 22nd, the limo was returned to the White House garage. SA Keiser, SA Brett, and SA Taylor plus two White House Policemen "effected security." At 12:01 AM "the security detail was relieved" by SA Paraschos, SA Kennedy and a White House Policeman. In short, Taylor, Keiser and Brett were replaced by Paraschos and Kennedy. If Taylor had remained, there would have been three Secret Service Agents. But, when FBI Frazier arrives at 1:00 AM, there are only two Secret Service agents. (http://www.maryferrell.org/mffweb-/archive/viewer/showDoc.do?absPageId=16881). Unfortunately, Frazier can't remember their names but we know that Paraschos and Kennedy are officially on duty at that time. Moreover, Vaughn Ferguson of Ford wrote that he visited the White House garage on the morning of November 23rd when he saw only two SS agents. (http://www.maryferrell.org/mffweb/-archive/viewer/showDoc.do?docId=1461&relPageId=53) Lifton’s mistake was in reading this as a first person account.... like the Dallas Secret Service Agents statements. But, it's clear that this is the report of an investigation. The document is filed on an investigation report form. Its three main sections are titled “Synopsis,” “Details of Investigation” and “Disposition.” The first two words of the “Details” section are “This investigation….”.The report contains some of Taylor's personal experience because he was part of the security at some points in the process. It also contains events and information that he could not have witnessed — for example, where the President was located at the time of the assassination and the vehicle’s location in the motorcade. And the report is crystal clear that Agents Keiser, Brett and Taylor were replaced at 12:01 AM by Paraschos and Kennedy, a full hour before the FBI team arrived. So the sad fate of Agent Charles Taylor is revealed. For more than thirty years, he has been used as a witness to an examination he never saw and a hole that was never there. 6. FBI Forensic Examination of the Limousine Windshield We have the Secret Service log for the White House garage on November 22-23, 1963. It shows that at 1:05 AM on the morning of November 23rd, four FBI agents arrived to conduct a forensic examination of the limousine. They were Special Agents Orrin H. Bartlett, Cortlandt Cunningham, Robert Frazier and Walter Thomas. The log shows they left at 4:35 AM. In the three and one-half hours this team of agents spent examining the limousine, they found two 6.5 mm Mannlicher-Cacano bullet fragments in the front seat, other smaller fragments in the carpet under the left jump seat and found widespread dispersion of blood and brain debris extending from the hood ornament at the front of the limousine to the rear of the trunk. Robert Frazier testified at the Clay Shaw trial as follows: The first examination which was made was of the exterior portions of the vehicle. We examined the outer surface of the hood, the grille area, both front fender areas, all the metal work on the outside of the automobile. The examination was for two purposes, to determine whether there were any bullets or other projectile impact areas on the outside of the car and also to note the presence of the foreign material deposited on it. We found blood and tissue all over the outside areas of the vehicle from the hood ornament over the complete area of the hood, on the outside of the windshield, also on the inside surface of the windshield, and all over the entire exterior portion of the car, that is, the side rails down both sides of the car, and of course considerable quantities inside the car and on the trunk lid area. We found however, no bullet holes or projectile marks. (http://www.jfk-online.com/rfraziershaw.html) Although Frazier and his team found no evidence of a whole bullet impact, they did find two possible fragment impacts. First, they noted a dent in the rear-facing chrome strip above the windshield (Commission Exhibit 349). Second, they noted an impact area and lead smear on the inside of the windshield on the driver’s side (Commission Exhibit 350). Frazier took notes as he examined the limousine early on the morning of November 23rd. John Hunt has been kind enough to provide copies of these notes obtained while doing research in the Archives. The first summarizes what Frazier and his team found in their examination of the limousine: The second shows what Frazier and his team found in examining the windshield itself: The first of Frazier’s notes indicates: “photo taken.” Below can be found the photo taken and an enlargement of the windshield damage from that photo: Frazier later testified before the Warren Commission concerning his examination of the windshield: Mr. Specter: Did you have occasion then to examine the windshield of the Presidential limousine? Mr. Frazier: Yes; I did. Mr. Specter: What did the examination disclose? Mr. Frazier: On the inside surface of the windshield there was a deposit of lead. The deposit was located then you look at the inside surface of the windshield, 13 ½ inches down from the top, 23 inches from the left-hand side or driver’s side of the windshield, and was immediately in front of a small pattern of star-shaped cracks which appeared in the outer layer of the laminated windshield. Mr. Dulles: What do you mean by “the outer layer of the laminated windshield?” Mr. Frazier: The windshield is composed of two layers with a very thin layer of plastic in between which bonds them together in the form of safety glass. The inside layer of the glass was not broken, but the outside layer immediately on the outside of the lead residue had a very small pattern of cracks and there was a very minute particle of glass missing from the outside surface. Mr. Dulles: And the outside surface was the surface away from where the occupants were sitting? Mr. Frazier: That is correct; yes. Mr. Dulles: And the inside surface was the surface nearest the occupants? Mr. Frazier: Yes. Mr. Specter: What do those characteristics indicate as to which side of the windshield was struck? Mr. Frazier: It indicates that it could only have been struck on the inside surface. It could not have been struck on the outside surface because of the manner in which the glass broke and further because of the lead residue on the inside surface. The cracks appear in the outer layer of the glass because the glass is bent outward at the time of the impact which stretches the outer layer of the glass to the point where these small radial or wagon spoke-wagon wheel spoke-type cracks appear on the outer surface. Mr. Dulles: So the pressure must have come from the inside and not from the outside against the glass? Mr. Frazier: Yes, sir; that is correct. Mr. Dulles: As far as the car is concerned from the back to the front? Mr. Frazier: Yes, sir. Mr. Dulles: Not from outside against the glass — from the front against the glass. Mr. Frazier: That is right. (5H68-69) 7. Summary and Conclusions Since the late 1960s, it has been well-known that Altgens #6 (taken at Z 255) shows an undamaged windshield while Altgens #7 (taken seconds later) shows damage to the windshield. Hence, whatever damage was incurred by the windshield it was incurred during this time interval. More importantly, the location and character of damage to the windshield showing in Altgens #7 matches what we see in a later photo of the windshield taken during Frazier’s examination. A photo of the limousine taken at Parkland Hospital may also show damage to the windshield at the location apparent in the Altgens and FBI photos. In spite of this, Professor Fetzer published Altgens #6 with a circle around what he called the “small spiral nebula” and labeled it: “Circle 1. The apparent through-and-through hole in the windshield.” Not even David Lifton believes this. He sees no damage to the windshield in Altgens #6 and, as we have seen, bases his opinions on the witness reports of Richard Dudman and Charles Taylor. Dudman had the trained eye of a reporter and Taylor was a Secret Service agent so their reports of a hole in the windshield cannot be easily ignored. Lifton was right to call attention to their reports but wrong to investigate no further. As we saw, Dudman told his friend, Robert Livingston, that “he does not know whether the hole he saw penetrated the windshield” and Charles Taylor has made clear that his use “of the word ‘hole’ to describe the flaw in the windshield was incorrect.” It is not necessary to underline the lack of probative significance to be attached to the fragmentary reports of Freeman, Stavis and Glanges. Much of the windshield argument in the past has been based upon taking the absolute statements of casual observers like Freeman, Stavis and Glanges at face value and finding a contradiction between those statements and the reports of professional examiners. Of even less probative significance is the claim of a purported witness like Nick Principe who surfaces thirty-five years after the event on a conspiracy web site with a story contradicted by indisputable facts. David Lifton first claimed in 1980 that there was some discrepancy between the report in Rowley’s letter that Special Officer Davis and SA Geis ran their hands over the outside of the windshield at the White House garage and found it “smooth and unbroken” and a March 1964 report from the FBI Lab that the windshield “contained no hole, only damage to the outside surface.” (Best Evidence, footnote, pp.369-370). Lifton goes on to point out that SA Roy Kellerman ran his hand over the outside surface on November 27, 1963 and also found it to be smooth. Lifton uses this to raise the question as to “whether the windshield on the limousine on November 22, 1963 was the same windshield sent to FBI Laboratory in March 1964.” (Ibid.) This “windshield switch theory” was then picked up by Fetzer in both Assassination Science and Murder in Dealey Plaza. The simplest explanation for the alleged discrepancy is that the officers cited ran their hands over the outside surface of the windshield and felt it to be smooth, missing the relatively minor damage observed by Frazier in his examination of it early on November 23rd. Consider what this “damage on the outside surface” was. Frazier testified that there was “a very small pattern of cracks and there was a very minute particle of glass missing from the outside surface.”. His contemporaneous note speaks of a “minute fragment missing from outside.” John Hunt, working from photos he obtained in the Archives, has come up with an ingenious but simple proof that the “windshield switch theory” is wrong. He compared Frazier’s photo of the windshield taken in the wee hours of November 23rd with a later photo of the windshield taken by the HSCA circa 1978: As Hunt points out, “cracks don’t go away.” If cracks were present in the windshield when photographed by Frazier on November 23rd while the windshield was still attached to the limousine and those cracks are not present in the HSCA windshield in 1978, then we are dealing with two different pieces of evidence. However, the photos show a marked similarity in the position and number of the cracks. The photos indicate that the two windshields are the same and that the Lifton/Fetzer “windshield switch theory” is wrong. Although alive in various forms over the last forty-five years, the claim that a bullet penetrated the Presidential limousine lacks credibility. There is simply no evidence for it.
  3. Lesson materials for A Level students http://www.theeducationforum.co.uk/new-a-level-history/ pitt.htm pitt.htm
  4. Have finally got round to using some of your august efforts in a lesson plan for the end of term http://www.educationforum.co.uk/moon.htm I will upload the best presentation at the end of the week
  5. An exciting opportunity to work as a teacher in a thriving and rapidly improving History Department http://www.dstc.kent.sch.uk/wp-content/uploads/History-Teacher-2015.pdf
  6. Sounds plausible enough to me
  7. One thing which is indeed sociologically and historically interesting is the central importance of freedom of speech in French culture and European culture generally. Arguably since the French revolution core Enlightenment ideas have been central values in European society. Freedom of speech is but one of these. The anti clericalism which marked much of 19th century France has clearly also morphed into a continuing tradition of mordant criticism of religious fundamentalism and closed totalitarian ideologies. Nothing is indeed sacred and there is a strong argument to suggest that this in itself is a good thing. Whilst there is much hypocrisy and semi understanding in the current debate on free speech and liberal freedoms in Western Europe we under estimate their importance at our peril.
  8. This week I will be embarking on a sponsored cycle ride from Lands End to John O Groats in the UK. This is approximately a distanced of 998 miles. I am cycling in support of the MS Society. Anyone who feels able to sponsor me please do so at the link below Many thanks https://www.justgiving.com/Andy-Walker14/
  9. Today the ownership of the Education Forum was successfully transferred to the Board administrators. Good luck with it I hope you make it a great success
  10. This issue has now been resolved.
  11. This is now being investigated. Apologies for the delay I have been on holiday. I will let members know when it is resolved.
  12. Interestingly the most able students were able to see the holes in conspiracy arguments quite quickly. The less able tended to fasten on to lazy arguments about photography and then stoutly defend them despite the evidence and regardless of the strength of the evidence.... Not unlike here in its heyday in fact! I haven't uploaded any of the presentation yet as I haven't got the permissions.
  13. My College currently teaches the Jack the Ripper as part of GCSE History. My support pages for their assignment can be found here http://www.educationforum.co.uk/jacktheripper.htm It is certainly a popular topic. I find the topic motivates the students to be sceptical, interested in the past and encourages historical speculation however I am a little ambiguous as to the ethics of focussing on such a series of vile crimes for a large chunk of the course when there is so much else they could be studying of greater importance. I'd be interested in hearing the views of others
  14. Oh dear oh dear! Its just a 'nonsense' way I get my students to thank each other after they have worked with each other - something teenagers often feel awkward doing - place your palm open and raise to your chin and move the hand towards your partner - nothing to do with the contents of the page or real Aboriginies of any shape of form If this offends then God help us all
  15. The forum is being updated to the latest version of the software this afternoon. Apologies for any short term impact this may have whilst the update proceeds.
  16. Update now complete
  17. There's some truth in that. However making a curriculum choice always incurs an opportunity cost. Also curriculum choice in history is never neutral. If we always go for the market driven easy engagement option we may end up with a very peculiar curriculum.
  18. The word education is related to the Latin verb educere which means "bring out", develop from a latent condition. Mr Gove please note it is nothing to do with 'stuffing in' great chunks of information then testing memory. Which is why education policy obsessed with measurable outcomes is ultimately so harmful to the authentic education of the young.
  19. Have you considered becoming Minister for Education?
  20. Its a few years since I examined. This sounds potentially quite worrying. The emphasis always used to be on 'positive marking' - viz. giving students credit for what they had learnt rather than penalising them for errors. It was a sound principle which celebrated learning. Perhaps this is another example of Gove's 'rigour' (mortis)?
  21. There has been 5% of total marks awarded for SPAG (Spelling punctuation and grammar) in GCSE for years .... or is this something more stringent? The story surrounding Science would appear to be more about 'standards' in Science rather than written English. http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/education-23290889
  22. This should now be resolved
  23. I'll be wearing a red carnation and a tin foil hat!
  24. I would like to invite friends on the Education Forum to support my 360 mile sponsored cycle ride at Easter. I am fundraising for the MS Society which with 2 close family members struggling with MS is a charity very close to my heart. Many thanks for any support you feel able to give http://www.justgiving.com/Andy-Walker10/?fb_action_ids=10151265968742712?utm_source=Sharethis
  25. Bump