Jump to content
The Education Forum
Andy Walker

Barb Junkkarinen's article:A HOLE THROUGH THE WINDSHIELD

Recommended Posts

As Cliff noted, whether or not there was a hole in the windshield, there was a conspiracy. My question would be why there is so much effort undertaken to prove that there wasn't a hole in the windshield, much as I question why the same people spend so much time and energy dismissing the question of film alteration. Once again, whether films were altered or not, there was a conspiracy.

It is amazing how so many were so "mistaken" about so much during those dark days in 1963. Boone and Weitzman were "mistaken" in identifying the rife on the sixth floor as a mauser. All those witnesses who claimed the motorcade stopped or almost stopped, during the shooting were "mistaken." Craig and the others who reported seeing someone like Oswald running and entering a station wagon were "mistaken." All the police and witnesses who stormed the knoll and raliroad area after the shots were "mistaken," since the shots were really fired from the TSBD, which was practically ignored in the immediate aftermath of the assassination. The early critics who found a figure that looked a lot like Oswald, wearing a shirt that looked a lot like the one he was wearing when arrested, standing in the doorway of the TSBD as shots were being fired were "mistaken." The reports about a bullet being found in the grass were "mistaken." The photographer (Murray) who wasted time and film on Buddy Walthers and an unindentified agent going through the grass and seemingly picking up and pocketing a bullet was "mistaken." Now, we are told that Dudman, Ellis and co. were "mistaken" about seeing a hole in the windshield.

You place a lot of trust in wholly uncredible sources, imho. The Secret Service? Please- they made the crime possible with their total non-reaction to the shots being fired at the limousine. They took over the crime scene, washed the limousine out and kept reporters away. Their testimony means nothing to me- in my estimation, they should have all been grilled as accessories to murder. The FBI? Please- who set the tone for the Warren Commission's non-investigation? Why would you trust anything they had to say about this case? J. Edgar Hoover was the primary architect of the coverup.

As for the bullet fragments allegely discovered in the limousine, Raymond rightfully questions that. Who controlled the crime scene, after tampering with it? What was discovered there, imho, is irrelevant. Because the car wasn't left in a pristine condition after the shooting, anything "found" there is forever tainted. I am also disappointed that Josiah refers to the Carcano matter-of-factly as "Oswald's rifle." There are a myriad of questions surrounding the ordering of said rifle, and many of us still believe that Oswald may very well never have owned (or even known about) it.

It has become routine for alleged believers in conspiracy to trash witnesses like Jean Hill, Roger Craig, Richard Carr, Ed Hoffman and others, all of whom provided testimony that buttressed the case for conspiracy. Curiously, no one is discovering the same flaws in the testimony of those who provided evidence for the official version of events. I've talked before about "neo-cons" and their impact on the critical community at large. Because of their increasing presence and impact on these forums, it is now accepted by most that Lovelady was the figure in the doorway, that the Umbrella Man was not a suspicious character at all, that witnesses like Hill and Craig were uncredible, that the limousine never stopped or slowed down dramatically, that the Secret Service cannot be blamed for their lack of response and now that there was no hole in the windshield.

Despite all these efforts, some of us are not fooled. The state of the evidence hasn't changed. It is still impossible for Oswald or any other "lone nut" to have accomplished the assassination by himself. It doesn't matter how many critics suddenly convert to lone nutterism. There WAS a conspiracy.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Don,

Just because someone does not believe in Umbrella Man, Oswald in the doorway,Z film alteration, or that there was a hole in the windshield, does not mean they are LNs or neocons for that matter.

I don't know why papers of this sort are always so complained about. It is a position paper with evidence, and it is up to us to read it, and think about it. Is it valid? If you see a problem, ask questions. But to question why it was written puzzles me. Who holds the ability to state whether an argument is IMPRIMATUR or not?

IMO, this case will not be solved in our lifetime, perhaps never, but there will be people coming behind us who will be reading and researching, and looking for valid truths, and I firmly believe that the result will not rest on who was in the doorway. Anyway, I certainly hope not.

The question I think you should be asking, is why THEY(the authors) still believe in a conspiracy.

Kathy

Edited by Kathy Beckett

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I don't know why papers of this sort are always so complained about. It is a position paper with evidence, and it is up to us to read it, and think about it. Is it valid? If you see a problem, ask questions. But to question why it was written puzzles me. Who holds the ability to state whether an argument is IMPRIMATUR or not?

The problem with this article is the way the issue is framed -- as if

the authors were going to "resolve" one of the basic facts of the case.

The "windshield" question adds nothing to what we already know:

JFK was fired upon both from the rear and the front.

Rather, the authors are obscuring the basic facts of the case by

pretending that the direction of the throat shot is unresolved.

That JFK was struck in the throat by a shot from the front is

only "unresolved" in the minds of LNers and those "CTs" who

either lack knowledge of the case or the capacity for intellectual

honesty.

I'm not impressed by the decades a person has studied the case

if they can't grasp two basic, readily established facts: JFK was

struck in the back around the level of T3, and struck by a separate

shot to his throat from the front.

In order to hype the "importance" of their article, the authors betray

a failure to grasp these "basic facts of the case."

Edited by Cliff Varnell

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Cliff is correct. Anyone who has studied the evidence for years should have

made up their mind by now on many issues.

Was the single bullet theory real? NO.

Were all shots fired by LHO from the 6th floor? NO.

Was there a hole in the windshield? YES.

Was LHO employed by an intelligence agency? YES.

Is the Zapruder film genuine? NO.

Was LBJ one of the plotters? YES.

Was Mary standing in the street? YES.

Were there two Oswalds? YES.

Was James Files a shooter? NO.

Did the limo stop? YES.

Did Judyth Baker have a passionate affair with LHO? NO.

Was Chauncey Holt the old tramp? NO.

Etcetcetcetc.

Give me a list of as many questions as you want. I will give you a yes or no

answer to all unless there is a reason to say "maybe/maybe not."

Endless debate after studying the case 45 years is a sign of indecisiveness.

Find another hobby if you are afraid to weigh the evidence and reach a

decision.

Jack

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
...

IMO, this case will not be solved in our lifetime, perhaps never, but there will be people coming behind us who will be reading and researching, and looking for valid truths, and I firmly believe that the result will not rest on who was in the doorway. Anyway, I certainly hope not.

The question I think you should be asking, is why THEY(the authors) still believe in a conspiracy.

Kathy

this case was resolved years ago..... and upwards of 90% of today's thinking Americans think JFK was assassinated by CONSPIRACY. Which nullifies the SBT/LHO did-it-all-by-his lonesome nonsense. So what's to resolve? When and if Wild Bill Miller takes over Gary Mack's slot?

As far as "position paper authors" (LMFAO) are concerned: who the hell cares about their outdated, outmoded postion? All that's happening in this thread is a PR campaign for the 6th Floor Mausoleum, it's summer time after-all... What the does anyone do in Dallas during the summer?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You wrote: "Now, we are told that Dudman, Ellis and co. were "mistaken" about seeing a hole in the windshield." You didn't read what we wrote carefully enough. We pointed out with a citation that within a week of the assassination Richard Dudman told a family friend that he never saw a through-and-through hole in the windshield. We didn't say Dudman was mistaken. We pointed out that he told someone else he never saw such a through-and-through hole.

Then we pointed out that another credible witness to the purported hole in the windshield said he did not see any through-and-through hole. Then we published for the first time Frazier's notes when he examined the windshield starting a little after 1:00 AM on the morning of November 23rd. Then we pointed out that even David Lifton doesn't believe the spurious "spiral nebula" claim of a through-and-through hole in the windshield. As we pointed out, the consequence of this in-depth study is that there is no credible evidence of a through-and-through hole in the windshield.

Why did we do this study? Because facts are important and a number of non-facts have begun to clutter up the fact pattern in this case. Apparently, you are more concerned with adherence to some kind of orthodoxy. Such a concern may be useful in religious circles but has no place in the unearthing of history, a fact-based activity.

Josiah Thompson

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Why did we do this study?

I'm not questioning "why" you did the study -- I'm challenging your

assertions concerning the issue's importance.

"The windshield" is NOT an important issue.

We already know that JFK was struck from the front.

Do you wish to share a collegial discussion on this issue, Dr. Thompson?

It wouldn't be the first friendly, collegial discussion we've shared.

Your co-author Barb Junkkarinen would rather have a root canal

than discuss her high-back-wound/throat-exit-wound position.

Because facts are important and a number of non-facts have begun

to clutter up the fact pattern in this case.

Indeed. Chief among these non-facts is the readily debunked

claim that JFK's back wound was higher than T3, and that the

throat wound was an exit.

Apparently, you are more concerned with adherence to some kind

of orthodoxy. Such a concern may be useful in religious circles but

has no place in the unearthing of history, a fact-based activity.

Josiah Thompson

The fact that JFK's back wound can be readily proven at T3 renders

discussions of the windshield, the police dictabelt, and the NAA moot,

barely foot-note worthy exercises.

There is direct physical evidence of the T3 back wound (clothing

defects, Dealey Plaza photos showing the jacket dropping).

There is contemporaneous, properly prepared documentation of the

T3 back wound (Burkley's death certificate and the autopsy face

sheet).

More than a dozen people at Bethesda got a close-up, prolonged view

of the back wound and all of them consistently describe it as being at

T3 or lower.

Barb J, John Hunt, Stu Wexler and a cast of dozens claim that

JFK's back wound was at least two inches higher -- but none of

them will dare attempt to make fact-based argument for same.

They don't have an argument, but they cling to their hide-bound

beliefs nonetheless and make absurd statements like the ones

in your article.

Tell me again -- who is behaving like a religious zealot in this instance?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'd love to have a "collegial discussion" but I don't want to talk about the back wound and its position. Maybe sometime I will. But not now. Okay?

Josiah Thompson

Why did we do this study?

I'm not questioning "why" you did the study -- I'm challenging your

assertions concerning the issue's importance.

"The windshield" is NOT an important issue.

We already know that JFK was struck from the front.

Do you wish to share a collegial discussion on this issue, Dr. Thompson?

It wouldn't be the first friendly, collegial discussion we've shared.

Your co-author Barb Junkkarinen would rather have a root canal

than discuss her high-back-wound/throat-exit-wound position.

Because facts are important and a number of non-facts have begun

to clutter up the fact pattern in this case.

Indeed. Chief among these non-facts is the readily debunked

claim that JFK's back wound was higher than T3, and that the

throat wound was an exit.

Apparently, you are more concerned with adherence to some kind

of orthodoxy. Such a concern may be useful in religious circles but

has no place in the unearthing of history, a fact-based activity.

Josiah Thompson

The fact that JFK's back wound can be readily proven at T3 renders

discussions of the windshield, the police dictabelt, and the NAA moot,

barely foot-note worthy exercises.

There is direct physical evidence of the T3 back wound (clothing

defects, Dealey Plaza photos showing the jacket dropping).

There is contemporaneous, properly prepared documentation of the

T3 back wound (Burkley's death certificate and the autopsy face

sheet).

More than a dozen people at Bethesda got a close-up, prolonged view

of the back wound and all of them consistently describe it as being at

T3 or lower.

Barb J, John Hunt, Stu Wexler and a cast of dozens claim that

JFK's back wound was at least two inches higher -- but none of

them will dare attempt to make fact-based argument for same.

They don't have an argument, but they cling to their hide-bound

beliefs nonetheless and make absurd statements like the ones

in your article.

Tell me again -- who is behaving like a religious zealot in this instance?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I'd love to have a "collegial discussion" but I don't want to talk about the back wound and its position. Maybe sometime I will. But not now. Okay?

Josiah Thompson

Nice blow off.

But I didn't invite you to have a "collegial discussion" about the back wound.

I invited you to have a discussion about the throat entrance wound

which bears directly upon claims made in your article concerning the

importance of the "windshield."

That a shot came from the front is already an established fact,

which you seem reluctant to acknowledge.

If you don't want the framing of your article challenged, I suggest

you put it in a mite less ambitious context.

Edited by Cliff Varnell

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I invited you to have a discussion about the throat entrance wound

which bears directly upon claims made in your article concerning the

importance of the "windshield."

Skip it, Tink.

The following is irrefutable:

"If you want to know what happened in Dealey Plaza just

look at the photos and films." -- Dr. Josiah Thompson, at the

Cracking the Case Conference, 2005.

The throat entrance wound:

"Was JFK Trying to Cough Up a Bullet?"

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u3uH7FHjCeQ

The T3 back wound:

"JFK's Jacket Dropped in Dealey Plaza?"

http://occamsrazorjfk.net/

Now, what's this you say about "research terrain"?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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. 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.”

The "definitive death knell" for the SBT is its physical impossibility, and always has been. As Cliff has noted time and time again, the holes in the clothing, backed by Burkley's death certificate, Boswell's original autopsy face sheet and Sibert & O' Neill's report, clearly prove that the back wound entered at a lower point than any potential exit in the neck. In addition, we have the nearly undamaged CE399, which we can juxtapose against the Commission's own test fired identical bullets, which were quite deformed (after hitting just a wrist bone). Continuing to act like the SBT is possible, to any degree, can only be done if one ignores the evidence, as well as the laws of science and common sense.

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.”

Greer is considered suspect by many of us, since he didn't respond to the sound of gunfire, and can be seen turning around and staring at the President, who was obviously in distress, without hitting the gas and probably saving his life.

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.

Which, when combined with the literal washing away of evidence, makes any claims about what was found in the limousine later completely worthless. The car was the crime scene, and it was dramatically tampered with.

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.”

This is a second hand account. Even if Dudman told Livingston this, it only reflects his reluctance to completely confirm that it was a definite hole, because he was prevented from making sure by the Secret Service. The earliest, first hand accounts are always the most reliable, and Dudman certainly seemed pretty sure it was hole (along with at least "a few" others).

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.”

Sounds like Freeman was very sure it was a hole.

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.

Ellis seems pretty sure it was a hole. I don't see any backing off later, by him or Freeman. It would be typical of the HSCA if they didn't ask Ellis about seeing 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)

Glanges seemed certain she'd seen a hole in the windshield.

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:

ParklandHospitaloverview.jpg

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:

ParklandWindshieldfull-frame.jpg

ParklandWindshieldclose-up.jpg

Your conclusion is at odd with the facts; Dudman, Ellis, Freeman and Glanges all seemed certain they'd seen a hole in the windshield. Dudman, if Livingston is accurate, told him he couldn't be completely sure it was a hole because the Secret Service wouldn't let him get close enough. The others never backed off in the slightest. How is it "difficult to evaluate" these reports?

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.

These Secret Service agents would be expected to support the official version of events, especially in light of their own questionable lack of response in Dealey Plaza. Their testimony has to be evaluated in light of that, and is naturally suspect to those of us who believe in a large scale conspiracy.

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)

So Taylor was certain he'd seen a hole in the windshield, like the other unconnected witnesses. It's interesting that, contrary to Taylor's initally strong assertion, "the staff was not convinced that Taylor had actually had the opportunity to exanine what he believed to be a hole." How insightful of them, to theorize in this manner instead of perhaps examining his testimony, and that of the others, and wondering exactly what happened to the windshield. Not surprisingly, Taylor sees the light and agrees that he windshield looks the same as he'd seen it in 1963. Except for the hole he was certain of, of course. Just more "mistaken" observations. You know, there are a lot of us who remain suspicious that the car was quickly whisked away, and the windshield was reportedly replaced on November 26. In Broad Daylight (Limousine Timeline)

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. According to who? The Secret Service? The FBI? There is at least a question as to whether or not there was a hole. You certainly haven't proved that there definitely wasn't. Second, the affidavit is a classic illustration of the tendency of casual observers to overstate their conclusions relative to their actual observations and procedures. And you aren't doing that? “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.

This simply isn't an accurate conclusion for the evidence you cited.

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:

FBIWINDSHEILDCRACKSVSHSCACROPPED.jpg

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.

I don't think you've conclusively proven there wasn't a hole in the windshield. All you've done is question the testimony of witnesses who had no reason to lie, and relied exclusively on the testimony of officials who, if there was a conspiracy, had good reasons to.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

""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: ""

Not all by far and not in a few moments.

B..

Edited by Bernice Moore

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
You wrote: "Now, we are told that Dudman, Ellis and co. were "mistaken" about seeing a hole in the windshield." You didn't read what we wrote carefully enough. We pointed out with a citation that within a week of the assassination Richard Dudman told a family friend that he never saw a through-and-through hole in the windshield. We didn't say Dudman was mistaken. We pointed out that he told someone else he never saw such a through-and-through hole.

Then we pointed out that another credible witness to the purported hole in the windshield said he did not see any through-and-through hole. Then we published for the first time Frazier's notes when he examined the windshield starting a little after 1:00 AM on the morning of November 23rd. Then we pointed out that even David Lifton doesn't believe the spurious "spiral nebula" claim of a through-and-through hole in the windshield. As we pointed out, the consequence of this in-depth study is that there is no credible evidence of a through-and-through hole in the windshield.

Why did we do this study? Because facts are important and a number of non-facts have begun to clutter up the fact pattern in this case. Apparently, you are more concerned with adherence to some kind of orthodoxy. Such a concern may be useful in religious circles but has no place in the unearthing of history, a fact-based activity.

Josiah Thompson

With all due respect, your 'study' is simply your opinion, to which you are entitled. In fact, this piece is devised as an appeal to authority, which is not persuasive logic. Knowing personally how much of a bully Fetzer is on this issue, I do appreciate your attempt to discredit the wacky 'spiral nebulae' theory; however, taking aim at witnesses is counterproductive, because they are for the most part just decent people who happened to be in the path of history and are communicating what they believe they saw.

Here is my 'study' of the windshield-hole witnesses. It has been at my website for nearly 10 years.

http://www.in-broad-daylight.com/hole1.html. Oh wait, IN BROAD DAYLIGHT is where much of this info came from in the first place, isn't it?

And let's not forget to give credit to Anthony Marsh, whose excellent article debunked this theory over 10 years ago:

http://home.comcast.net/~the-puzzle-palace/windshield.htm, not to mention his excellent article on the limo also from over 10 years ago:

http://home.comcast.net/~the_puzzle_palace/bestwitn.htm

Edited by Pamela McElwain-Brown

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Don,

Just because someone does not believe in Umbrella Man, Oswald in the doorway,Z film alteration, or that there was a hole in the windshield, does not mean they are LNs or neocons for that matter.

I don't know why papers of this sort are always so complained about. It is a position paper with evidence, and it is up to us to read it, and think about it. Is it valid? If you see a problem, ask questions. But to question why it was written puzzles me. Who holds the ability to state whether an argument is IMPRIMATUR or not?

IMO, this case will not be solved in our lifetime, perhaps never, but there will be people coming behind us who will be reading and researching, and looking for valid truths, and I firmly believe that the result will not rest on who was in the doorway. Anyway, I certainly hope not.

The question I think you should be asking, is why THEY(the authors) still believe in a conspiracy.

Kathy

Kathy,

I want to thank you for your reasonable response in what has become a cacophony of off topic diverts and outright intolerant ugliness rather than anyone actually addressing the issue and the evidence presented. What is that all about? Umbrella man, Gary Mack, the Sixth Floor Museum, the back wound, pronouncements about the throat wound, the WC, lone nutters, lists of what all CTs must believe, etc .... one might think that conspiracy itself hinges on whether or not there was a perforating hole through the windshield. It most assuredly does *not*.

And comments actually on the topic still proclaim Ellis .... who placed the "hole" he saw at the ***bottom*** of the windshield! How credible is that as evidence ... and how credible does that make those that continue to tout Ellis as proof? Gimme a break. And Dudman ... who a Fetzer player and hero himself is quoted in Assassination Science as having heard from Dudman's own lips that he didn't know if it was a through-and through hole or not?

What's "education" here to me is that so many prefer no information that might give them something to think about, give them an opportunity to reassess ... for so many here, it seems, do not care. They have their minds made up. Why bother evaluating each piece of evidence on its own merit? Isn't that what they criticize the WC for having done? We should be better than that if we are really ever going to figure this thing out.

You may be right, sadly, that it will never be resolved, at least not in our lifetime. It most assuredly will not be if people are afraid of information that counters what they have already decided, if they are not only not interested in new or complete information, but damn it, divert from it. Those to come after us, as you mention, are our hope it seems, and they deserve better. The least we can do is leave them some cohesive collections of what is known on assorted topics. That's what this article does ... it merely presents what has been argued, what has been touted, as "proofs" of a through-and-through hole in the windshield, puts what is known about all those things together in one place. People can make up their own minds about whether or not they think there was a hole through the windshield ... and hopefully, they will be able to make that decision based on the evidence about the windshield ... not out of some knee jerk fear that no hole = no conspiracy. Ridiculous.

You are very insightful, Kathy! And in an environment where one can be damned for not toeing other people's lines, I, for one, appreciate you speaking up.

Bests to you,

Barb :-)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Barb,

Since Josiah suggested I wasn't directly addressing the points in your article, I took the time to do so.

As you can see, I am not arguing that there definitely was a hole in the windshield. Apparently, several people who saw it that afternoon, before the car was whisked away and it was replaced, thought it did have a hole. My point was that you didn't discredit their testimony, and certainly didn't prove there wasn't a hole.

For the record, I do not think there should be a litmus test for conspiracy believers, as I've said before. There are a multitude of points that reasonable people can disagree about. I'm just making observations, the same kind that Jim DiEugenio made in his recent article about the "Target Car" documentary. For instance, I provided a link to Pamela's web site in my last post, even though she doesn't believe there was a hole in the windshield. She provides a valuable timeline for the limousine on her web site, and in particular cites the replacement of the windshield on November 26. I respect her position- we don't have to agree on everything.

However, there are a few issues that are beyond debating, for those of us who have studied the evidence. The single bullet theory was totally discredited before many posters here were born. While it may be theoretically plausible that one bullet could take such a magical path through two people, this particular bullet could not have done so, because the government's own tests prove it would have been significantly deformed, and this one was nearly undamaged. Also, the holes in the clothing, along with the death certificate, autopsy face sheet and Sibert & O'Neill report, show conclusively that the entrance wound was several inches too low to have exited from the neck. Thus, this single bullet theory IS impossible.

My point about the Umbrella Man, figure in the doorway, mysterious deaths of witnesses, backyard photos, etc., is that a growing number of conspiracy believers seem to be giving ground on issues that were once core interests of almost all critics of the official story. This would be understandable if some evidence had been produced that cast a new light on these issues, but that simply hasn't happened to my knowledge. My observation is that there is no logical reason for critics to suddenly dismiss these questions without a rational reason. I'm not accusing them of anything, just asking questions.

We're all here to express our views about a subject we all seemingly care a lot about. I will defend anyone's right to believe whatever they want, even if I completely disagree. However, we all have to expect to be challenged here- that's the nature of internet forums. You posted an article, and I found things to disagree with in it. I don't know why you'd be surprised by that- did you expect universal acceptance here?

If we all agreed on everything, this forum would be pretty boring. You just convey the impression that this issue has now been resolved, and I don't think it has.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Please sign in to comment

You will be able to leave a comment after signing in



Sign In Now

×