Jump to content
The Education Forum
Andy Walker

Barb Junkkarinen's article:A HOLE THROUGH THE WINDSHIELD

Recommended Posts

"The best we can do is to weigh and evaluate what has come to light and decide for ourselves what to think -- not try an appeal to authority and make demands that others agree with us because 'we are right.' Everyone just goes around in circles. Oh wait, that is what has happened, isn't it?"

Pamela McElwain-Brown has claimed several times that we use an argument based on “authority.” I don’t really know what she means by this. She may mean that in publishing the notes of Frazier and his testimony we are relying on an “argument from authority” –– that is, the forensic examination of the limousine and its windshield by the FBI forensic team. Does she mean that this evidence should be ignored because it comes from “the government?” If so, then we should fold our tents and creep away since a great part of the evidence in the case comes from “the government.”

Or she may mean that we are relying upon the “authority” of evidence. If this is what she means, then I would certainly agree with her.

We have shown that there is no damage to the windshield in the Altgens photo taken at Z-255 but that damage is seen in the second Altgens photo taken a few seconds later. The location and general character of this damage is next seen in a photo taken at Parkland Hospital and finally in a photo of the windshield taken by Frazier’s forensic team at approximately 1:30 AM on November 23rd in the White House garage. Frazier’s contemporaneous notes of his examination match the photos shown and he testified under oath on the basis of this examination. We also quoted from Rowley’s letter to Rankin where descriptions of the non-puncture quality of the windshield damage is attested to by various agents.

Richard Dudman and SS Agent Charles Taylor gave descriptions of the windshield that seemed to indicate they had seen a through-and-through hole. These are eminently credible witnesses and what they say should be taken seriously. However, both these witnesses denied later having seen a through-and-through hole in the windshield. This leaves the only evidence of a through-and-through hole to lie in the reports of Freeman, Stavis, Glanges and Principe. We weighed these reports in the balance and found them wanting. We said in our paper:

"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."

We did not ignore witness reports as Pamela McElwaine-Brown alleges. We weighed the conflict in witness reports and resolved it on the basis of which reports were more believable. This is what anyone attempting to reconstruct an historical event must do. What we have tried to do is what any professional historian would do in looking at this question. If Pamela McElwaine-Brown believes we have failed in this task, she should do us the favor of stating how we have failed rather than lodging general criticisms with no stuffing to them.

Josiah Thompson

Pat, clearly the work you show on your website concering the jacket fold has been shown to be ...well not to put to fine a point on it...baloney, That there was a large fabirc fold on the back of JFK's jacket in Betzner is unimpeachable.

The question becomes, when shall we see the false information removed from your website?

With all due respect, almost nothing in this case is 'unimpeachable'. You are entitled to your opinion, as Pat is to his.

Unimpeachable:

1. Difficult or impossible to impeach:

2. Beyond reproach; blameless:

3. Beyond doubt; unquestionable:

Sorry, I'm not offering opinion, just plain hard fact. The laws of nature as they apply to light and shadow are truly unimpeachable. Thats the facts...pure and simple. Pat's mistaken "opinion" is proven wrong by the properties of light and shadow. That too is uninpeachable. Of course I have no problem if someone wants to try, in fact I encourage it. lets just hope they have a better grasp of light and shadow than the childish Clif Varnell.

Want few other unimpeachable pieces of work...with all due respect of course ( which we all know means the exact opposite)

www.craiglamson.com/costella.htm

www.craiglamson.com/costella2.htm

www.craig lamson.com.apollo.htm.

Unimpeachable is not hard at all...

Once again, in this situation where everything could have been simple, nothing is absolute. The best we can do is to weigh and evaluate what has come to light and decide for ourselves what to think -- not try an appeal to authority and make demands that others agree with us because 'we are right.' Everyone just goes around in circles. Oh wait, that is what has happened, isn't it?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I just don't think this is fair. Barb, Jerry and I put a lot of work into our paper. Craig Lamson and Cliff Varnell hi-jacked our thread and are continuing an argument that has literally NOTHING TO DO WITH OUR THREAD. If you guys want to continue an argument that seems interminable, leave us alone and start your own thread.

Josiah Thompson

Vertical fold = sideways ease.

Varnell call this area he has marked in red as a "sideways ease". Varnell also claines this area is an "INDENTATION"

All of which begs the question:

How does the sunlight, coming from above, in front of and to the left, place this entire "indentation" (which also includes the area where the jacket collar should be see in direct sunlight) in shadow in a direct violation of the properties of light and shadow?

The "gentle readers" must surely want to know.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi folks!

Because of the request made here, I have asked Evan Burton to move the Lamson/Varnell debate to its own thread, as he is much better able to do this than I am.

I have also made the Lamson/Varnell and outside responses to such posts invisible so Evan can see what to move, as well as give the windshield folks back their own thread. This way nothing will be lost. I hope everyone finds this fair.

Kathy

Edited by Kathy Beckett

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I just don't think this is fair. Barb, Jerry and I put a lot of work into our paper. Craig Lamson and Cliff Varnell hi-jacked our thread and are continuing an argument that has literally NOTHING TO DO WITH OUR THREAD. If you guys want to continue an argument that seems interminable, leave us alone and start your own thread.

Josiah Thompson

Vertical fold = sideways ease.

Varnell call this area he has marked in red as a "sideways ease". Varnell also claines this area is an "INDENTATION"

All of which begs the question:

How does the sunlight, coming from above, in front of and to the left, place this entire "indentation" (which also includes the area where the jacket collar should be see in direct sunlight) in shadow in a direct violation of the properties of light and shadow?

The "gentle readers" must surely want to know.

With all due respect, although one can control posting an article or not, how can one then claim the right to control the thread? Are you going to try to control the discussion on your piece on other forums too?

This piece is mainly a rehash of 10-year-old information brought to the community by those other than yourself, me being one of them, who also worked very hard on their presentation. The windshield hole is discussed regularly on this forum and frequently digresses into other areas. Why take it personally?

Edited by Pamela McElwain-Brown

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Craig Lamson apologized about a week ago for, in his words, "hijacking your thread." I thought it would stop. It didn't so I expressed my unhappiness with the "hijacking." What's the matter with that?

I thought you might be appreciative of the fact that material from Jerry Logan and John Hunt took the discussion of this issue much further. There's something waspish about your criticism. First, you complain that someone else posted our piece. The answer to this was that the photos caused a problem; we couldn't manage it ourselves. Then you complain in generalities about our piece being simply an argument from "authority." My answer. Sure, it's a piece based on "authority"... the "authority" of evidence. No answer from you. Now you object to me complaining that the thread got hijacked... which it did.

You were referenced in our piece. We pointed out that you described Evalea Glanges as "a nursing student at Parkland Hospital." Is that true? Doug Weldon interviewied her in 1999 and said she was in 1963 a second-year medical student at Southwestern Medical School and later became Chairperson of the Department of Surgery at John Peter Smith Hospital in Forth Worth. Could you clear up the confusion? Was Evalea Glanges a "nursing student" or a "medical student" in 1963 at Parkland Hospital?

Josiah Thompson

I just don't think this is fair. Barb, Jerry and I put a lot of work into our paper. Craig Lamson and Cliff Varnell hi-jacked our thread and are continuing an argument that has literally NOTHING TO DO WITH OUR THREAD. If you guys want to continue an argument that seems interminable, leave us alone and start your own thread.

Josiah Thompson

Vertical fold = sideways ease.

Varnell call this area he has marked in red as a "sideways ease". Varnell also claines this area is an "INDENTATION"

All of which begs the question:

How does the sunlight, coming from above, in front of and to the left, place this entire "indentation" (which also includes the area where the jacket collar should be see in direct sunlight) in shadow in a direct violation of the properties of light and shadow?

The "gentle readers" must surely want to know.

With all due respect, although one can control posting an article or not, how can one then claim the right to control the thread? Are you going to try to control the discussion on your piece on other forums too?

This piece is mainly a rehash of 10-year-old information brought to the community by those other than yourself, me being one of them, who also worked very hard on their presentation. The windshield hole is discussed regularly on this forum and frequently digresses into other areas. Why take it personally?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Craig Lamson apologized about a week ago for, in his words, "hijacking your thread." I thought it would stop. It didn't so I expressed my unhappiness with the "hijacking." What's the matter with that?

I thought you might be appreciative of the fact that material from Jerry Logan and John Hunt took the discussion of this issue much further. There's something waspish about your criticism. First, you complain that someone else posted our piece. The answer to this was that the photos caused a problem; we couldn't manage it ourselves. Then you complain in generalities about our piece being simply an argument from "authority." My answer. Sure, it's a piece based on "authority"... the "authority" of evidence. No answer from you. Now you object to me complaining that the thread got hijacked... which it did.

You were referenced in our piece. We pointed out that you described Evalea Glanges as "a nursing student at Parkland Hospital." Is that true? Doug Weldon interviewied her in 1999 and said she was in 1963 a second-year medical student at Southwestern Medical School and later became Chairperson of the Department of Surgery at John Peter Smith Hospital in Forth Worth. Could you clear up the confusion? Was Evalea Glanges a "nursing student" or a "medical student" in 1963 at Parkland Hospital?

It does seem possible that, based on your reaction to posting your piece, you may not have had a realistic understanding of the outcome.

In that regard, it would be interesting to hear specifically what you consider to be a 'new' contribution? You reference Jerry Hogan and John Hunt without providing any detail as to what you find valuable.

It was my understanding that Evalea Glanges was a nursing student; as Weldon interviewed her, he would have the specifics. The article at my site was posted prior to his interview. I will be updating it. I am not sure what difference this makes, unless a nursing student is even less credible than a med student who became successful?

The Parkland Hospital witnesses believed they saw something out of the ordinary. How can dismissing them end the discussion?

Edited by Pamela McElwain-Brown

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Our computers have been cursed this week - Tink has asked me to post the following reply to Pamala.

Sure Pamela. We’d be delighted to comply.

By the way, its “Jerry Logan” not “Jerry Hogan.” Jerry obtained the Charles Taylor materials from the Archives. Since David Lifton was unaware of them, we figured they had not been published anywhere before. Were we right?

John Hunt photographed Frazier’s contemporaneous notes of his examination of the windshield while he was doing research in the Archives on the FBI Lab. Were these published anywhere else? His comparison of the FBI photo with the later HSCA photo of the windshield I had never seen before. Had it been published somewhere else?

David Lifton was also unaware that Richard Dudman told a family friend within week of the assassination that ”he does not know whether the hole he saw penetrated the windshield.” Were you aware of that?

You write: "The Parkland Hospital witnesses believed they saw something out of the ordinary. How can dismissing them end the discussion?"

We didn’t “dismiss” these witnesses. We weighed what they said against the other evidence and came away convinced that (like Dudman and Taylor) they had seen the damage to the windshield and concluded quickly and inaccurately that it included a through-and-through hole. This isn’t “dismissing” witness testimony; it’s “weighing” it. This is what any historian has to do in unscrambling an historical event. What’s the matter with it?

Tink

Edited by Jerry Logan

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Please also weigh the following information....

p; 140 MIDP...2000 : Doug Weldon....Interviewed Dr.Evalea Glanges ( her first name is mispelt BTW .in the article that has been posted )......... in January 1999..." She confirmed that she was 100% certain that there was a hole in the windshield in the limousine at Parkland hospital "...She was looking forward to her retirement....Unfortunately she died on 2/ 27/1999.....

Seen below Vince Palamara, also, just before her death on Feb .27/99...Received this email in her own words,from Dr.Evalea Glanges...written December 2, 1998.....verifying her information given to Weldon in her interview....as well as heard and seen in TMWKK....

Vince Palamara

12/1/98

3) Evalea Glanges, M.D.

"December 2, 1998

[received 1/12/99]

Dear Mr. Palamara,

In reply to your letter in regard to the events at Parkland Hospital on

that fateful date November 22, 1963.

I was present at Parkland Hospital on that date in my role as a 2nd year

medical student. I observed President Kennedy's limousine outside the

emergency entrance. Another student and I went closer to observe the

limousine and the damage to the front windshield. Secret Service agents

appeared and moved the car to another location.

There was a bullet hole in the windshield.

I believe that the entire story has never been told.

Sincerely,

Evalea Glanges, M.D. "

B.....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Jerry Logan for.......Josiah ""John Hunt photographed Frazier’s contemporaneous notes of his examination of the windshield while he was doing research in the Archives on the FBI Lab. Were these published anywhere else? ""

***************************

""Josiah Thompson also wrote:

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. ""

Anthony Marsh has stated this information below on the alts..in a thread named.........

"ETERNAL RETURN: A Hole Through the Windshield? New article up."

on July 10/09

""First time? I have been posting those notes in the newsgroups for

several years. ""

Shortcut to: http://groups.google.com/group/alt.assassi...b50498dd26f687f

B.......

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hello Bernice,

Perhaps you missed this post which found itself in the middle of the Cliff/Craig exchange.

Hello Bernice,

As always, you present an amazing collection of photos. Since we're testing Glanges credibility the most interesting photos would be those showing the limousine with its top completely on because, according to her, the limo sped off almost immediately after she leaned on it and commented on the hole. In the existing photos taken after the top was fully in place it's hard to see how two people got to the front of the limo and leaned on it. It's also hard to understand why Kinney, Hickey and Kellerman wouldn't have immediately ordered someone leaning on the car to get back. Instead, they stand by while Glanges and her friend are leaning on the the car examining the windshield - then the Secret Service agents jump in the car and race off without a word? And in that time frame how exactly did Kinney, Hickey and Kellerman know that a hole in the windshield would be a bad thing? And, if somehow they did know it would be a bad thing for people to see a hole in the windshield, then why did they let anyone get close to the car? Glanges said she almost had her hand pulled off by the unexpected force and violence of the limousine pulling away - it looks like that would have been really hard on the people standing behind the car.

The photo you have showing the officer with the bubble top and the negative of that photo is very interesting. Do you have that negative or do you know the source of the photo?

Best regards to you,

Jerry

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

[quote name='Josiah Thompson' date='Jul 10 2009, 02:06 PM' post='169562']

JT: Pamela McElwain-Brown has claimed several times that we use an argument based on “authority.” I don’t really know what she means by this.

PB:Please pick up any book on logic and take a look. Or, if you wish, look objectively at the WCR. That is a good example of an appeal to authority. When a bunch of supposedly credible people get together and decide something is so, then try to push it off on others because they say it is so is an appeal to authority.

JT: She may mean that in publishing the notes of Frazier and his testimony we are relying on an “argument from authority” –– that is, the forensic examination of the limousine and its windshield by the FBI forensic team.

PB:You are missing the point. Frazier's notes etc are not the issue. Your 'publishing' them comes after they have been available on my site and Anthony Marsh's for over 10 years, also part of my 98 NID presentation and "SS-100-X" in CAR CRASH CULTURE. There is nothing new there that I can see. Perhaps the question is now what is 'new to you'?

JT: Does she mean that this evidence should be ignored because it comes from “the government?” If so, then we should fold our tents and creep away since a great part of the evidence in the case comes from “the government.”

PB: Of course not. All evidence should be weighed and evaluated -- including what the windshield witnesses say; especially those at PH.

JT: Or she may mean that we are relying upon the “authority” of evidence. If this is what she means, then I would certainly agree with her.

PB: You are trying to rely on the authority of your opinion and claim that it is fact.

JT: We have shown that there is no damage to the windshield in the Altgens photo taken at Z-255 but that damage is seen in the second Altgens photo taken a few seconds later. The location and general character of this damage is next seen in a photo taken at Parkland Hospital and finally in a photo of the windshield taken by Frazier’s forensic team at approximately 1:30 AM on November 23rd in the White House garage. Frazier’s contemporaneous notes of his examination match the photos shown and he testified under oath on the basis of this examination. We also quoted from Rowley’s letter to Rankin where descriptions of the non-puncture quality of the windshield damage is attested to by various agents.

PB: This is little more than repeating what I have been saying for years. Don't you Google? What new evidence have you offered? I'm glad to have you on board. I believe I am right too, but am hardly claiming absolute authority over it.

JT: Richard Dudman and SS Agent Charles Taylor gave descriptions of the windshield that seemed to indicate they had seen a through-and-through hole. These are eminently credible witnesses and what they say should be taken seriously. However, both these witnesses denied later having seen a through-and-through hole in the windshield. This leaves the only evidence of a through-and-through hole to lie in the reports of Freeman, Stavis, Glanges and Principe. We weighed these reports in the balance and found them wanting.

PB: You are entitled to your opinion. I believe your approach and conclusions are narrow in that they just cherrypick information rather than weighing and evaluating everything that is available. I don't think we have all the answers; you seem to think you do. You claim two of the witnesses later changed their statements, but where is the cite on that?

Taylor never claimed to see s t&t hole, that has been misread by the Fetzer camp; there was a defect in the windshield, though, and he acknowledged it. Weldon got Ellis to change the location of the hole he thought he saw. Everybody saw a small hole that you could put a pencil through. They thought the windshield was bulletproof. How did they get that impression? Why are they all saying basically the same thing, but pointing to different locations? Was it possible that someone started a rumour at PH and everyone there flew with it? Was it possible whoever started the rumour was trying to divert attention from windshield damage to another car, such as the followup QMII, for example? That limo was sequestered with 100x but nothing was ever written about it.

JT: We said in our paper:

"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."

PB: That is your appeal to authority -- you have decided based on 'indisputable facts'. It is my position that you do no have all the facts and therefore cannot with any validity make a blanket statement. It is my position that the witnesses experienced something out of the ordinary that needs to be defined. They may have seen something they thought were holes, but were instead additional pockmarks on the windshield. I tried my best to get to NARA with the DC last summer to have the windshield examined by a forensic glass person, but we were denied that opportunity. Robert Frazier said they used no special lighting for the forensic exam; they could easily have missed additional pockmarking, for example.

JT: We did not ignore witness reports as Pamela McElwaine-Brown alleges.

PB: Yet you must acknowledge that you dismissed the PH witnesses without having all the facts. Cherrypicked rather than weighed and evaluated.

JT: We weighed the conflict in witness reports and resolved it on the basis of which reports were more believable. This is what anyone attempting to reconstruct an historical event must do.

PB: Resolving? Wouldn't it be more effective to attempt to persuade? This issue has been going around for over 10 years, and will probably do so for another 10 or more. The cherrypicking and appeal to authority appear to do nothing to resolve the issue, nor to move things forward, though it is good to know that you do not believe the 'spiral nebulae' nonsense and have taken arms against it. It seems to me there are more effective ways to win over the fanatic believers on the Della Rosa site than through the logic used in this piece.

JT: What we have tried to do is what any professional historian would do in looking at this question. If Pamela McElwaine-Brown believes we have failed in this task, she should do us the favor of stating how we have failed rather than lodging general criticisms with no stuffing to them.

I hope that this post will help to provide some clarity.

Edited by Pamela McElwain-Brown

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

PB:You are missing the point. Frazier's notes etc are not the issue. Your 'publishing' them comes after they have been available on my site and Anthony Marsh's for over 10 years, also part of my 98 NID presentation and "SS-100-X" in CAR CRASH CULTURE. There is nothing new there that I can see. Perhaps the question is now what is 'new to you'?

It would save us some searching if you could provide the url's where Frazier's notes were published before. Would you be so kind as to do that? Thanks

Josiah Thompson

[quote name='Josiah Thompson' date='Jul 10 2009, 02:06 PM' post='169562']

JT: Pamela McElwain-Brown has claimed several times that we use an argument based on “authority.” I don’t really know what she means by this.

PB:Please pick up any book on logic and take a look. Or, if you wish, look objectively at the WCR. That is a good example of an appeal to authority. When a bunch of supposedly credible people get together and decide something is so, then try to push it off on others because they say it is so is an appeal to authority.

JT: She may mean that in publishing the notes of Frazier and his testimony we are relying on an “argument from authority” –– that is, the forensic examination of the limousine and its windshield by the FBI forensic team.

PB:You are missing the point. Frazier's notes etc are not the issue. Your 'publishing' them comes after they have been available on my site and Anthony Marsh's for over 10 years, also part of my 98 NID presentation and "SS-100-X" in CAR CRASH CULTURE. There is nothing new there that I can see. Perhaps the question is now what is 'new to you'?

JT: Does she mean that this evidence should be ignored because it comes from “the government?” If so, then we should fold our tents and creep away since a great part of the evidence in the case comes from “the government.”

PB: Of course not. All evidence should be weighed and evaluated -- including what the windshield witnesses say; especially those at PH.

JT: Or she may mean that we are relying upon the “authority” of evidence. If this is what she means, then I would certainly agree with her.

PB: You are trying to rely on the authority of your opinion and claim that it is fact.

JT: We have shown that there is no damage to the windshield in the Altgens photo taken at Z-255 but that damage is seen in the second Altgens photo taken a few seconds later. The location and general character of this damage is next seen in a photo taken at Parkland Hospital and finally in a photo of the windshield taken by Frazier’s forensic team at approximately 1:30 AM on November 23rd in the White House garage. Frazier’s contemporaneous notes of his examination match the photos shown and he testified under oath on the basis of this examination. We also quoted from Rowley’s letter to Rankin where descriptions of the non-puncture quality of the windshield damage is attested to by various agents.

PB: This is little more than repeating what I have been saying for years. Don't you Google? What new evidence have you offered? I'm glad to have you on board. I believe I am right too, but am hardly claiming absolute authority over it.

JT: Richard Dudman and SS Agent Charles Taylor gave descriptions of the windshield that seemed to indicate they had seen a through-and-through hole. These are eminently credible witnesses and what they say should be taken seriously. However, both these witnesses denied later having seen a through-and-through hole in the windshield. This leaves the only evidence of a through-and-through hole to lie in the reports of Freeman, Stavis, Glanges and Principe. We weighed these reports in the balance and found them wanting.

PB: You are entitled to your opinion. I believe your approach and conclusions are narrow in that they just cherrypick information rather than weighing and evaluating everything that is available. I don't think we have all the answers; you seem to think you do. You claim two of the witnesses later changed their statements, but where is the cite on that?

Taylor never claimed to see s t&t hole, that has been misread by the Fetzer camp; there was a defect in the windshield, though, and he acknowledged it. Weldon got Ellis to change the location of the hole he thought he saw. Everybody saw a small hole that you could put a pencil through. They thought the windshield was bulletproof. How did they get that impression? Why are they all saying basically the same thing, but pointing to different locations? Was it possible that someone started a rumour at PH and everyone there flew with it? Was it possible whoever started the rumour was trying to divert attention from windshield damage to another car, such as the followup QMII, for example? That limo was sequestered with 100x but nothing was ever written about it.

JT: We said in our paper:

"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."

PB: That is your appeal to authority -- you have decided based on 'indisputable facts'. It is my position that you do no have all the facts and therefore cannot with any validity make a blanket statement. It is my position that the witnesses experienced something out of the ordinary that needs to be defined. They may have seen something they thought were holes, but were instead additional pockmarks on the windshield. I tried my best to get to NARA with the DC last summer to have the windshield examined by a forensic glass person, but we were denied that opportunity. Robert Frazier said they used no special lighting for the forensic exam; they could easily have missed additional pockmarking, for example.

JT: We did not ignore witness reports as Pamela McElwaine-Brown alleges.

PB: Yet you must acknowledge that you dismissed the PH witnesses without having all the facts. Cherrypicked rather than weighed and evaluated.

JT: We weighed the conflict in witness reports and resolved it on the basis of which reports were more believable. This is what anyone attempting to reconstruct an historical event must do.

PB: Resolving? Wouldn't it be more effective to attempt to persuade? This issue has been going around for over 10 years, and will probably do so for another 10 or more. The cherrypicking and appeal to authority appear to do nothing to resolve the issue, nor to move things forward, though it is good to know that you do not believe the 'spiral nebulae' nonsense and have taken arms against it. It seems to me there are more effective ways to win over the fanatic believers on the Della Rosa site than through the logic used in this piece.

JT: What we have tried to do is what any professional historian would do in looking at this question. If Pamela McElwaine-Brown believes we have failed in this task, she should do us the favor of stating how we have failed rather than lodging general criticisms with no stuffing to them.

I hope that this post will help to provide some clarity.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Pamela,

I just wanted to say my respect for you really grew with your answers in this thread. You actually agree with Josiah and Barb, and have maintained there wasn't a hole in the windshield for a long time. Still, you point out the obvious- there is nothing dramatically conclusive in this article, which closes the door to that possibility.

I have long suspected there was a hole in the windshield, but it certainly isn't a sure thing. This is a perfect example of how critics can disagree about a myriad of issues in this case, but still respect each other's views. Thanks.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Pamela,

I just wanted to say my respect for you really grew with your answers in this thread. You actually agree with Josiah and Barb, and have maintained there wasn't a hole in the windshield for a long time. Still, you point out the obvious- there is nothing dramatically conclusive in this article, which closes the door to that possibility.

I have long suspected there was a hole in the windshield, but it certainly isn't a sure thing. This is a perfect example of how critics can disagree about a myriad of issues in this case, but still respect each other's views. Thanks.

Thanks, Don. As you may know, Fetzer's 'spiral nebulae' idea and the Weldon theory that was spawned from it have been a bete noir of mine for over ten years. I was booted off the DellaRosa forum (from which the article was generated) for butting heads with Fetzer over this -- as I recall, the statement that incurred the greatest outrage was my saying that it was the lack of damage to the limo, not extent of damage to the limo, that proved a conspiracy.

So, as you can imagine, I am pleased to see that this issue is being picked up and run with by others who have access to that forum and are able to stand up to Fetzer's bullying. However, any appeal to authority is weak and in this case particularly ineffective imo.

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

×