Barb Junkkarinen's article:A HOLE THROUGH THE WINDSHIELD

[Guest]

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.

[David G. Healy]

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.

...

Barb forget her password, Andy? Glad to see you trying to juice the place up.....

[Guest]

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.

...

Barb forget her password, Andy? Glad to see you trying to juice the place up.....

Barb experienced some technical problems posting and asked me for help - perhaps in time you might want to comment on the substance of the article?

[David G. Healy]

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.

...

Barb forget her password, Andy? Glad to see you trying to juice the place up.....

Barb experienced some technical problems posting and asked me for help - perhaps in time you might want to comment on the substance of the article?

no need waiting -- balderdash comes to mind. Perhaps as the latest to carry Barb's water, you can comment on its content?

[David Andrews]

What's Kellerman looking at here?

Are the cycle cop and the two SS rear right reacting to a bullet sound that they think traveled past them from the front? Are they missing the point of impact in JFK's throat?

Edited July 4, 2009 by David Andrews

[Pamela Brown]

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.

...

Barb forget her password, Andy? Glad to see you trying to juice the place up.....

Barb experienced some technical problems posting and asked me for help - perhaps in time you might want to comment on the substance of the article?

no need waiting -- balderdash comes to mind. Perhaps as the latest to carry Barb's water, you can comment on its content?

Ironically, there seems to be a noblesse oblige attitude here where others kindly allow members to post for them, for whatever reason.

[Barb Junkkarinen]

Our thanks to Andy for posting this article for us. Due to the number of photos, we needed assistance for it to post. Thanks to another moderator and Andy, as the go to technical whiz administrative person, it is up.

Interesting that responders so far are more interested in me and/or how it got posted than in the content. Of no real surprise where Pamela is concerned, of course, for even though I expect she agrees with the article, any opportunity to take even an lame and vague innuendo swipe at me cannot be ignored by her. :-)

As for David Healy, I know my password. But even more firmly entrenched in my mind is your number... I got your number long ago. :-)

Now, how about the article .... was there a hole through-and-through hole in the windshield, or wasn't there? What does the evidence say?

Thanks again Andy. :-)

Bests,

Barb :-)

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.

...

Barb forget her password, Andy? Glad to see you trying to juice the place up.....

Barb experienced some technical problems posting and asked me for help - perhaps in time you might want to comment on the substance of the article?

no need waiting -- balderdash comes to mind. Perhaps as the latest to carry Barb's water, you can comment on its content?

Ironically, there seems to be a noblesse oblige attitude here where others kindly allow members to post for them, for whatever reason.

[Barb Junkkarinen]

Here is the footnote that belongs at the end of section:

4. Witness Reports: From Parkland Hospital to the White House garage.

(For some reason, it refuses to copy and paste with the rest of the article...sigh):

"In addition to these witnesses, a U.S. Park policeman, Nick Principe, claimed thirty-five years later to have seen the windshield at the White House garage that night. Principe became both a friend and a witness to some members of Rich DellaRosa’s jfkresearch group about ten years ago. He told them that he had been on duty that night at a command post near the White House on the night of the assassination. He said that he had spoken to Secret Service agent William Greer on the White House grounds shortly after the family returned from Dallas that night and that Greer had told him they had been shot at from all directions. Principe said he had heard motorcycle escort transmissions about the limousine being brought to the White House garage and had gone there himself. He said he lifted a tarp and saw a through-and-through bullet hole in the windshield.

Principe’s claim has little probative significance not only because it was first made thirty-five years after the event but also because his claimed conversation with Greer could not have occurred. Principe could not have talked to Greer that night since Greer accompanied the body to Bethesda Hospital and stayed at Bethesda throughout the autopsy and morticians’ preparation, driving JFK’s body home to the White House for the last time after 3:30 AM on Saturday, November 23, 1963."

Bests,

Barb :-)

[J. Raymond Carroll]

ETERNAL RETURN: A HOLE THROUGH THE WINDSHIELD?

Barb Junkkarinen, Jerry Logan, Josiah Thompson

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.

My compliments to everyone involved in this study. If we now take it as a fact that the windshield was damaged FROM THE INSIDE, do the authors of this study believe that the damage was definitely caused by a bullet or bullet fragment?

If so, does the damage tell us anything about what direction such a bullet or fragment came from? I ask that because if the damage was caused by a ricochet, I am not sure if the damage itself could tell us anything about the original source/direction of the bullet.

[John Dolva]

There are indications on photos of the damage to the chrome area which often doesn't mention the damage to the rear view mirror mount. A number of indicators here, including some knowledge of the strctural strength of the items altered by the strike. may give fair idea of the magnitude of the impacts momentum from which a fragment may have struck the screen, hence some deductions re mass, velocity, perhaps even trajectory, may be made?

Perhaps particularly if one considers the handhold and various ''windows of opportunty''.

[Josiah Thompson]

Thanks Raymond.

Since Frazier described a lead smear being removed from the interior surface of the windshield, it is clear that the hit on the windshield came from the rear was either from a totally lead bullet or a fragment from a military jacketed round. Since a lead bullet hitting the interior surface of the windshield would have penetrated it, we can be pretty sure we are dealing with a fragment hit. As we all remember, two large fragments from an M-C 6.5 mm bullet (firearms IDed as having been fired in Oswald's rifle) were found in the front seat of the limousine. In all probability, then, the windshield hit probably was incurred by one of those fragments.

Of special interest to me was the report from Frazier's forensic team that brain and blood debris extended as far forward as the hood instrument on the limousine. I didn't know that and it gives powerful evidence of the results of a shot hitting Kennedy in the head from the rear. However, that does not mean that that shot occurred between Z 312 and Z 313.

The importance of our piece is to show that there is no credible evidence of a bullet or fragment producing a through-and-through hole in the windshield. Even David Lifton says the Fetzer/Weldon claim concerning the "spiral nebula" is eyewash. As we pointed out, Lifton properly took seriously the reports of Dudman and Taylor. We have shown that both these individuals are clear they observed no through-and-through hole in the windshield.

John Hunt was kind enough to give us copies of Frazier's notes. I had not seen them before and found them quite probative.

Josiah Thompson

Josiah Thompson

ETERNAL RETURN: A HOLE THROUGH THE WINDSHIELD?

Barb Junkkarinen, Jerry Logan, Josiah Thompson

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.

My compliments to everyone involved in this study. If we now take it as a fact that the windshield was damaged FROM THE INSIDE, do the authors of this study believe that the damage was definitely caused by a bullet or bullet fragment?

If so, does the damage tell us anything about what direction such a bullet or fragment came from? I ask that because if the damage was caused by a ricochet, I am not sure if the damage itself could tell us anything about the original source/direction of the bullet.

[David G. Healy]

Thanks Raymond.

Since Frazier described a lead smear being removed from the interior surface of the windshield, it is clear that the hit on the windshield came from the rear was either from a totally lead bullet or a fragment from a military jacketed round. Since a lead bullet hitting the interior surface of the windshield would have penetrated it, we can be pretty sure we are dealing with a fragment hit. As we all remember, two large fragments from an M-C 6.5 mm bullet (firearms IDed as having been fired in Oswald's rifle) were found in the front seat of the limousine. In all probability, then, the windshield hit probably was incurred by one of those fragments.

Of special interest to me was the report from Frazier's forensic team that brain and blood debris extended as far forward as the hood instrument on the limousine. I didn't know that and it gives powerful evidence of the results of a shot hitting Kennedy in the head from the rear. However, that does not mean that that shot occurred between Z 312 and Z 313.

The importance of our piece is to show that there is no credible evidence of a bullet or fragment producing a through-and-through hole in the windshield. Even David Lifton says the Fetzer/Weldon claim concerning the "spiral nebula" is eyewash. As we pointed out, Lifton properly took seriously the reports of Dudman and Taylor. We have shown that both these individuals are clear they observed no through-and-through hole in the windshield.

John Hunt was kind enough to give us copies of Frazier's notes. I had not seen them before and found them quite probative.

Josiah Thompson

Josiah Thompson

ETERNAL RETURN: A HOLE THROUGH THE WINDSHIELD?

Barb Junkkarinen, Jerry Logan, Josiah Thompson

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.

My compliments to everyone involved in this study. If we now take it as a fact that the windshield was damaged FROM THE INSIDE, do the authors of this study believe that the damage was definitely caused by a bullet or bullet fragment?

If so, does the damage tell us anything about what direction such a bullet or fragment came from? I ask that because if the damage was caused by a ricochet, I am not sure if the damage itself could tell us anything about the original source/direction of the bullet.

credible evidence as displayed on a internet forum, same credible evidence imagery prepared in Photoshop or some such other image manipulation software (of which there a plenty)? Come ON..... what is known is simply this: no one that has looked at this case for 15 minutes or longer, no one, is taking the WCR serious. (despite quoting David Lifton, LMFAO!)

45+ years and all the lone nuts have to show in that time span is a dog-n-pony show, brought forth by the City Fathers of Dallas, Texas called the 6th Floor Museum.

Edited July 5, 2009 by David G. Healy

[Paul Rigby]

ETERNAL RETURN: A HOLE THROUGH THE WINDSHIELD?

Barb Junkkarinen, Jerry Logan, Josiah Thompson

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.

This is unusually funny, for the pictures Hunt presents - taken a mere quarter century apart, but hey-ho - are plainly not the same. As the man said, "cracks don't go away" - but they did in this case!

As for prefering the testimony of the body snatchers of the SS to disinterested observers like Stavis Ellis, what can one say?

And as to the broader question of what this very lengthy nonsense is all about, here's a very plausible explanation:

Fred T. Newcomb & Perry Adams, “The Fifth Shot,” from Chapter 3, “Execution,” within Murder From Within (Santa Barbara, Calif.: Probe, 1974)

When Mrs. Kennedy was about to climb out of the Presidential limousine and Governor Connolly pulled himself up and looked over into the front seat, another shot was fired. That bullet hit the windshield of the limousine (1). The damage can clearly be seen in one of Altgens' photographs (Fig. 3-9).

The bullet hole was noted by reporter Richard Dudman (2). Sgt. Stavis Ellis described it: "Well, it was a hole. You could put a pencil through it. I showed it to Officer Chaney out there at the hospital [Parkland]…you could take a regular standard writing pencil - wood pencil - and stick it through there…and some Secret Service agent run up there and said, 'That's no bullet hole, that's a fragment.' It wasn't a damn fragment; it was a hole (3)."

There was a bullet scar on the curb near the triple underpass (4). By projecting a line, from the curb, through the windshield of the limousine at that point in time, it aligns near the centre of the road.

The line of trajectory points to a source within the motorcade.

Because of the steep angle - 45 degrees - of the front windshield, this shot must have been fired at or about ground level from some point behind the limousine. A shot fired from above the motorcade, such as from the sixth floor of the depository, would have hit either the windshield or the curb, not both.

(1) Zapruder frame number 330.

(2) Charles Roberts, op. cit., p. 17.

(3) Ellis, loc. cit.

(4) Lyndal L. Shaneyfelt, “Shaneyfelt Exhibit No. 26. ‘FBI report, dated July 17, 1964, concerning investigation into curb mark on Main Street in Dallas,’” in Hearings, v. 21, pp. 472-474.

Lyndal L. Shaneyfelt, “Shaneyfelt Exhibit No. 27. ‘Letter from the FBI to the Commission, dated August 12, 1964, concerning investigation into curb mark on Main Street in Dallas,’” in Hearings, v. 21, pp. 475-477.

Lyndal L. Shaneyfelt, “Shaneyfelt Exhibit No. 29-30. ‘Charts prepared by Lyndal L. Shaneyfelt showing locations of curb mark on Main Street in Dallas,’” in Hearings, v. 21, pp. 478-480.

Lyndal L. Shaneyfelt, “’Shaneyfelt Exhibit No. 34. ‘Piece of curb containing lead markings removed from Main Street in Dallas,’” in Hearings, v. 21, p. 482.

According to Shaneyfelt, “These metal smears [on the curb] were spectographically determined to be essentially lead with a trace of antimony. No copper was found. The absence of copper precludes the possibility that the mark on the curbing section was made by an unmutilated military full metal-jacketed bullet such as the bullet from Governor Connally’s stretcher.” [Lyndal L. Shaneyfelt, “Testimony of Lyndal L. Shaneyfelt [dated Sept. 1, 1964],” in Hearings, v. 15, p. 700.

[J. Raymond Carroll]

we can be pretty sure we are dealing with a fragment hit.

Agreed, subject to the Kellerman caveat discussed below.

As we all remember, two large fragments from an M-C 6.5 mm bullet were found in the front seat of the limousine. In all probability, then, the windshield hit probably was incurred by one of those fragments.

Not so fast, Josiah, you need to give yourself more credit. It was you who first publicly raised the question in 1967 , in the New York Review of Books, whether CE399 was planted evidence. Many of us believe that you proved your point re CE399, and that no one has disproved your thesis. Blakey's attempt to disprove your thesis was the notorious NAA, now proven to be junk science.

So the theory that CE399 was planted is still alive, and so, I submit, is the question whether the two large fragments were also planted. There was no blood or human tissue on either of those fragments, just as in the case of 399. If you assume a plot that involved the planting of CE399, and put yourself in the position of the mastermind -- knowing that you have control of the limo -- then why not also plant a couple of ballistically matching fragments to give the whole thing verisimilitude?

So while it may appear likely that the windshield damage was caused by a lead bullet fragment, that does not NECESSARILY entail that the lead in question came from one of the potentially planted fragments. All we know about the fragment that we presume struck the windshield is that it contained lead.

Kellerman Caveat:

What's Kellerman looking at here?

I am sure that someone knowledgeable in the film/photo evidence will quickly eliminate this possibility, but not having studied exactly what Kellerman's hands are doing during this period (or Greer's either) I cannot eliminate the possibility that the windshield damage was caused by an object (with a lead surface) applied to the windshield by a force other than a bullet, such as a human hand.

Of special interest to me was the report from Frazier's forensic team that brain and blood debris extended as far forward as the hood instrument on the limousine. I didn't know that and it gives powerful evidence of the results of a shot hitting Kennedy in the head from the rear.

I am not sure on what basis it can be asserted that debris on the front hood neccessarily entails a shot from the rear.

Are you relying on the experiments conducted in the Discovery Channel program, Inside the Target Car? As I recall that program it did not measure forward blood spatter from a knoll shot, and it used only one type of weapon for the knoll shot experiment. A shooter on the knoll was within pistol range, and as far as I know we have no experimental data showing that the debris on the limo in Dealey Plaza could not have been caused by a pistol shot from the front.

As for the type of ammo used in the head shot, we know there were 42? fragments in the brain. This suggests an explosive or frangible lead bullet, though -- judging by the Discovery Channel tests -- not one fired from a high-powered rifle.

Edited July 6, 2009 by J. Raymond Carroll

[Cliff Varnell]

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.

Amen!

One would think that the basic facts of the case would be resolved

after 45 years.

For instance: the location of the T-3 back wound. Although there

are those who noisily protest that the wound was higher, they

never offer a fact based argument to the contrary.

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.

No, it doesn't.

It's just another rabbit hole that obscures the most basic facts of the

case: (1) that JFK was shot in the back at T-3, and (2) he was shot

in the throat from the front.

The physical evidence, contemporaneous documentary evidence,

and eye-witness statements are abundantly consistent with these

conclusions of fact.

No one in the "research community" is willing to argue otherwise.

Right, Barb? :->

A through-and-through hole in the windshield would, at best,

corroborate what we already know.

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.

The death knell for the SBT has been tolling ever since Gaeton Fonzi

debunked Gross Ease Fallacy (the claim that JFK's casual movements

in the limo caused many inches of his shirt and jacket to hike up) right

there in Arlen Specter's office, back in 1966.

http://karws.gso.uri.edu/JFK/the_critics/F...th_Specter.html

Clearly; the research terrain would be forever changed.

The research terrain is pock-marked with rabbit holes leading

valid research no where.

The "windshield" discussion is one of those rabbit holes.

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.”

This article seems to reinforce the SBT myth, that the SBT hasn't already

been thoroughly debunked.

Edited July 6, 2009 by Cliff Varnell