Jump to content
The Education Forum
Andy Walker

Barb Junkkarinen's article:A HOLE THROUGH THE WINDSHIELD

Recommended Posts

New research comparison of the John Hunt graphic comparison pictures of the cracks in the windshield....FBI 1963 and 1978 by the HSCA....by Martin Hinrichs.....at Duncan McacRae's Forum....

Do not match, similar to Chris Davison's Gif seen in this thread.......and others input at the Lancer Forum..

http://www.jfkassassinationforum.com/index...opic,813.0.html

B......

UH...Neither Davidson nor Martin has applied perspective correction to bring the two images into agreement. How in the world do you expect to make a comparison?

can't find a physicist to debunk Dr. John Costella's work so you dig up an attorney who was a news photog 40+ years ago? PUL-eeeze.... LMFAO!

Ya can't win the film-photo debate, ya lost the PR war years ago..... even FACE is out the window. Where's Wild Bill Miller when you need him?

Gary what are you, Lampoon-Lamson and Dr. Thompson trying to feed the group here?

Wow David you are a bit behind the storyliine. Do you need a cartooish storyboard to follow along?

A few PhD's in Physics, one silly PhD in bullsnit and their trusty sidkick the "photoexpert who can't understand shadows" are stumped by these uimpeachable proofs that John P. Costella, PhD in physics, does not understand physics!

www.craiglamson.com/costella.htm

www.craiglamson.com.coatella2.htm

John P Costella and company are losing the PR war, the Photo/film war, and for sure Costella has lost face because he has been reduced to hiding under a rock down there in OZ.

You need to get out more davie, you have lost touch with reality.

I'm here to serve you lone nut-trollsters there Craig. My one true function in life, to show how misguided your film-photo perceptions are.... now you keep coming back ya'll hear? And, when you find a Physicist willing to debunk Dr. John Costella work you get right back to us (been 6 years now.... tick-tock, still waiting).... This recent nonsense of throwing up a retired word merchant (lawyer) is rather childish and trite, if you catch my drift.... Lone Nutter-trolls, you're running out of time...

P.S. I'm out for hours, on a daily basis, son.... retirement is wonder-bar.... and what better place than in Las Vegas.... think you'll retire someday or have current conditions forced you there already...?

Translated from healyspeak:

Costella can't show his face becaause his grasp of the basic physics of photographic parallax is...well..nonexistant. I'm too stupid to even understand why Costella got creamed so I'll post some nonsense and try and convince myself I'm actually somebody.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I am mixed up about the debate within a debate regarding the hole (or alleged hole) in the front windshield.

The pictures that I have seen posted look authentic.

Apparently, someone thinks they have been altered.

Assuming the pics are authentic, from what shooting position do you think they originate?

1. Overpass (this seems most likely);

2. TBSD (the missed/Teague shot?);

3. DalTex Bldg (possible); or

4. GK (this seems like an odd (or impossible) angle)?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
So, do you think it's time to focus on what the evidence tells us

I find this comment curious given its context.

I wonder if you would be so kind as to indulge the following

multiple choice?

The wound in John F. Kennedy's throat was:

1) A wound of entrance, as established by "the authority of

evidence."

2) A wound of exit, as established by "the authority of evidence."

3) Unknown, evidence not dispositive.

Thanks in advance.

Cliff,

a)I have no idea, in this context, what you mean by "the authority of evidence". Therefore you need to clarify or revise your question before I can answer.

I'm refering to this context, wherein you wrote:

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.

Doesn't this statement assume both the SBT and the throat

wound are open questions?

By authority of evidence -- Dr. Thompson's phrase -- I'd say

"preponderance of evidence beyond reasonable doubt."

b)Since the context here is "hole in the windshield", I'm not sure why the nature of the throat wound is an appropriate question. It doesn't help us resolve the "hole" issue.

But the "hole issue" purports to resolve the "frontal shot" issue,

and if the frontal shot issue is resolved elsewhere -- what is the

"important" point of this exercise?

An entrance wound in the throat is possible with or without a hole in

the windshield. An exit wound in the throat is possible with or without

a hole in the windshield.

I don't think you can factually support that last statement.

The authority of evidence speaks otherwise.

So why would we want to add an extra layer

of complexity that doesn't bring anything additional to the table?

Jerry

Exactly!

And that's just what your article is, imo -- an extra layer

of complexity that doesn't bring anything to the table.

Edited by Cliff Varnell

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
New research comparison of the John Hunt graphic comparison pictures of the cracks in the windshield....FBI 1963 and 1978 by the HSCA....by Martin Hinrichs.....at Duncan McacRae's Forum....

Do not match, similar to Chris Davison's Gif seen in this thread.......and others input at the Lancer Forum..

http://www.jfkassassinationforum.com/index...opic,813.0.html

B......

Are you referencing the sharpened-up version of the '78 cracks that John Hunt borrowed from Anthony Marsh's site without bothering to give him credit? Shall we then ask 'new to whom'?

Pamela,

This is simple - post a url that shows someone, anyone other than John Hunt comparing HSCA/FBI crack patterns. What's new is the analysis - not the photos.

Since we know you would never just make something up - it would be helpful for you to offer all the evidence you have that John Hunt borrowed his photos from Mr. Marsh's site. Particularly in light of the fact that Hunt has spent substantial time at the Archives - and in light of the fact that those images are available in countless other locations. So how, exactly, do you know that the 1978 images were "borrowed" from Mr. Marsh?

Finally, I know that versions of some of Mr. Marsh's enlargements have appeared on your own website without acknowledgement. I'm just wondering when the "new" requirement that every photo has to carry a full pedigree everytime it's used went into effect. And I'm wondering when you expect to comply with the new rules.

Everyone gets that you don't feel like Pamela's work got enough credit. Can you move beyond that? Hunt's comparisons raise interesting questions and suggest the possibility of applying a new methodology to the windshield issues. I solicited Martin's opinion on the assassinationforum because it's possible to apply well established principles of photometry to the question and get answers that are more than just gut reactions. I'm sorry that isn't "new" enough for you.

Jerry

As Jerry is certainly aware, because he contributed to it, there is a spirited discussion going on at aaj over what your group borrowed without giving credit.

http://groups.google.com/group/alt.assassi...?scoring=d&

Anthony Marsh said the version John Hunt used of the later cracks was one he sharpened up and would appreciate being given credit for. That is a simple request, one usually accorded in any academic environment. So it seems to be Jerry that wants to make up some new rules.

The photo of the second windshield is momentarily without its longstanding acknowledgment to Anthony, who was indeed the one who first found it at the JFK Library. This has also already been discussed on aaj.

I have focused on the limo for the last 10 years. I brought forth the FBI photos and dated them for the first time in my 98NID presentation. I have discussed the issues of the windshield bullet-hole witnesses and my first interview with Nick Prencipe was published in "SS-100-X" of CAR CRASH CULTURE. I brought forth the Ferguson memo and interviews regarding his involvement with the limo after the assassination. In part, because of those things, and also the 2004 SPEED Channel documentary, it is almost common knowledge that the limo is the primary crime scene. Even the DC realized that, and so ITTC was made.

Jerry can dismiss my contributions or acknowledge them; that is his choice. What is at my website, though it is copyrighted, is available for use in moving research forward. Whenever anybody want to make false claims that things are 'new' when they are not, however, or attempt to use that information to block research in an appeal to authority, you can be very sure that my voice will be heard.

Live with it.

Pamela,

First, I take this reply to mean that you were unable to find anyone else who has compared the FBI/HSCA crack patterns.

Second, I take this reply to mean that you have no evidence whatsoever that John Hunt "borrowed" the 1978 HSCA photos from Mr. Marsh or anyone else.

Third, reading comprehension - Mr. Marsh made a copy negative of CE350 and made an enlargement of the crack pattern in CE350. Those are the photos that are the subject of the usenet discussion, not the HSCA photo. Mr. Marsh did not "sharpen the HSCA photo, he enlarged and "enhanced" the FBI photo. So again, because I'm sure you want to be completely accurate, - what is your evidence that Hunt "borrowed" the 1978 HSCA photo from Mr. Marsh - as opposed to hundreds of other web sites or making copies for himself while he was at the archives.

Fourth, your website does not credit Mr. Marsh for the FBI photos. You've said that this is "momentary" - yet the internet archive shows no credit for Mr. Marsh going back to 2005. Moreover, there are several additional photos on your website that were "discovered" or brought to public attention by Mr. Marsh or others, yet there's no indication that someone other than Pamela found those pictures. So again, when do you think you're going to start complying with the new rules for photo use you've decided we violated?

Fifth, your injured pride has blinded you to the potential of Hunt's new (yes, new) analysis. As you yourself said on usenet " I was initially so put off by the arrogance and cut + paste

areas that I have not been able to go back to it." That's unfortunate because, as I wrote, Hunt's work suggests the possibility of applying new methods to old materials and generating real answers.

I've searched and searched and I can't find a single place where I've "dismissed" your contributions. I did find a paragraph where I wrote that you were rightly proud of your accomplishments. So, do you think it's time to focus on what the evidence tells us - or do we need another round of "everything they wrote is trivial, stolen and an insult to human decency"?

Jerry

Pamela, you said John Hunt copied Tony Marsh's photos to make his comparison. This is the fourth time I've asked for your evidence or an apology and retraction. We both know you can't produce any evidence since Hunt used his own scans. Wouldn't it be easier to admit your mistake and move on?

What color is the sky in your world, Jerry? Anthony Marsh did not bring forward the FBI photos -- I did that and dated them for the first time, based on the statements of Robert Frazier to me in 1999. What Anthony gave to the community was the first photo of the second windshield of the limo -- the fact that there was one in the first place (removed three months later)was research that I brought forward. http://in-broad-daylight.com/LIMO1961.jpg.

Well Pamela, that's interesting. Because Mr. Marsh says he saw the photos in 1994 and told the world about them in 1995. I could certainly be confused about this. Also, what you label as CE352 on your site appears to be a copy of the Secret Service photo from which CE352 was derived. Who copied that photo and who made the crops and enlargements showing the asters? You, Marsh, someone else? I'm confused and have to ask these questions because there's no hint of an answer on your or Mr. Marsh's websites. Ironic, don't you think? Because your entire problem with our image citation comes down to this - we used one and only one enlargement of Marsh's - an enlargement that he doesn't even claim credit for on his own website. That was an oversight that will be corrected - but don't you think your response has been a little disproportionate in light of your own standards and practices?

I am not aware of any other photos that Anthony was the first to present. Since you seem to be an expert on my website, I am sure you will be able to provide names for them to share with us?

How about that Baughman photo? According to your website it's at the JFK Library along with Marsh's 1961 limousine photo. Did you find that or was it Marsh or Mark North? And can we please come off "my acknowledgement of Tony's photo was momentarily deleted due to and editing error"? Your acknowledgement has been missing since 2005.

You might try reading for comprehension too. How can I have a case of 'wounded pride' when I have already stated that it is your choice to dismiss or not contributions that I have made?

I reached that conclusion when you wrote an entire paragraph that had nothing to do with anything I posted. I think most people would infer that you cared about what others thought of you and wanted them to be aware of your accomplishments. If you don't care, why the unsolicited resume?

I have focused on the limo for the last 10 years. I brought forth the FBI photos and dated them for the first time in my 98NID presentation. I have discussed the issues of the windshield bullet-hole witnesses and my first interview with Nick Prencipe was published in "SS-100-X" of CAR CRASH CULTURE. I brought forth the Ferguson memo and interviews regarding his involvement with the limo after the assassination. In part, because of those things, and also the 2004 SPEED Channel documentary, it is almost common knowledge that the limo is the primary crime scene. Even the DC realized that, and so ITTC was made.

I am not comfortable with your article's dismissal of all of the windshield-hole witnesses, as you undoubtedly know. When I get over that I will go back to it and look at John Hunt's section. I seem to be repeating myself here too, however -- if Hunt is using a version of a photo that Anthony Marsh sharpened or enlarged or whatever it would be courteous to acknowledge that. In fact, I thought based on the aaj thread that you were updating the article to do that.

IF,IF Hunt used Marsh's material? No Pamela - you said he did - and he didn't. It would have been nice to have an intelligent discussion of the witnesses - Barb, Tink and I are all very open to that. But this Holy Jihad about Mr. Marsh's enlargement seems to have sucked all the oxygen out of that possibility. At the very least I hope it's now clear to you that Hunt's graphic is his own. His scans, his crops, his analysis. The article will be updated to acknowledge our use of Mr. Marsh's crop earlier in the body of the text but that has absolutely nothing to do with Hunt.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
An entrance wound in the throat is possible with or without a hole in

the windshield. An exit wound in the throat is possible with or without

a hole in the windshield.

I don't think you can factually support that last statement.

The authority of evidence speaks otherwise.

It's late so I'll just ask a question and make a full reply later.

What evidence suggests that an entrance wound in the throat is only possible if there's a hole in the windshield?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
An entrance wound in the throat is possible with or without a hole in

the windshield. An exit wound in the throat is possible with or without

a hole in the windshield.

I don't think you can factually support that last statement.

The authority of evidence speaks otherwise.

It's late so I'll just ask a question and make a full reply later.

What evidence suggests that an entrance wound in the throat is only possible if there's a hole in the windshield?

I can't imagine that the evidence of a frontal throat shot is in

any way dependent on the status of the windshield.

Which is my point: that the question of a frontal shot is

resolved not in the limo windshield, but the punctate

wound in Kennedy's throat.

ADDED ON EDIT:

Ah, I get your drift, Jerry.

No, the Betzner and Willis photos indicate a clear shot from

the BDM position.

Willis5:

Edited by Cliff Varnell

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
New research comparison of the John Hunt graphic comparison pictures of the cracks in the windshield....FBI 1963 and 1978 by the HSCA....by Martin Hinrichs.....at Duncan McacRae's Forum....

Do not match, similar to Chris Davison's Gif seen in this thread.......and others input at the Lancer Forum..

http://www.jfkassassinationforum.com/index...opic,813.0.html

B......

Are you referencing the sharpened-up version of the '78 cracks that John Hunt borrowed from Anthony Marsh's site without bothering to give him credit? Shall we then ask 'new to whom'?

Go see for yourself, if you have not by now........and tell us, you are a member.

B.....

Sure looks like it.

An issue that has not yet been addressed is why the cracks would be 'identical' after 15 years? The windshield was kicked out of the limo by the Arlington Glass men and then stored in an SS closet. It was also moved to different places, including the VA building where James Hosty gave his WC testimony and viewed it there. There should be some changes to the cracks.

What is compelling in terms of determining if this is the same windshield that was in the car during the FBI exam is the presence of the long cracks in the windshield that corroborate its being pushed out of the limo, per the Ferguson memo.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
"The Betzner and Willis photos indicate a clear shot from

the BDM position"

Cliff Varnell

So who was the assassin Cliff, the mother or the baby? :lol:

couple.png

I'll go with Rosemary Willis' description (to the HSCA, November 8, 1978)

of a "conspicuous" person "behind the concrete wall" who suddenly

"disappeared the next instant" right after the throat shot.

Sitzman wasn't watching that location at the time of the shots,

was she?

Besides, the HSCA detected a "very distinct straight-line feature"

to Black Dog Man ("Presence of Possible Gunman on the

Grassy Knoll", HSCA Vol 12, Section 2, pg 7).

So, Duncan, was the "very distinct straight-line feature" in BDM -- the

Mom or the Baby?

Edited by Cliff Varnell

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'll go with Rosemary Willis' description (to the HSCA, November 8, 1978)

of a "conspicuous" person "behind the concrete wall" who suddenly

"disappeared the next instant" right after the throat shot.

So that wouldn't leave a hole in the windshield, correct?

The hole and throat wound would be unrelated to each other.

I'm not arguing, just making sure we're on the same page.

Jerry

Edited by Jerry Logan

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I'll go with Rosemary Willis' description (to the HSCA, November 8, 1978)

of a "conspicuous" person "behind the concrete wall" who suddenly

"disappeared the next instant" right after the throat shot.

So that wouldn't leave a hole in the windshield, correct?

The hole and throat wound would be unrelated to each other.

Jerry

But both are related to the issue of a frontal shot.

What's the big deal about debunking evidence of a windshield

hole when the "authority of evidence" already establishes a

frontal shot?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I'll go with Rosemary Willis' description (to the HSCA, November 8, 1978)

of a "conspicuous" person "behind the concrete wall" who suddenly

"disappeared the next instant" right after the throat shot.

So that wouldn't leave a hole in the windshield, correct?

The hole and throat wound would be unrelated to each other.

Jerry

But both are related to the issue of a frontal shot.

What's the big deal about debunking evidence of a windshield

hole when the "authority of evidence" already establishes a

frontal shot?

If that's what's bothering you I can only speak for myself - I don't know why Barb and Tink are interested.

I want to know what happened. I want to reconstruct the crime as nearly as possible. Some one firing a single shot through the windshield from the North Knoll is a lot different than two shots from the front, one from the South Knoll and one from the North. And both of those are very different from a miss fired low from the Dal-Tex building. If there's a hole through the windshield it tells us a lot more about everything that happened that day than just a simple frontal wound to the throat.

Additionally, I'd like to be clear about the scope of a conspiracy and everyone's degree of involvement. If there's a hole in the windshield and if the Secret Service is trying to hide it from the public 20 minutes after the assassination then that implies one, very sinister, kind of conspiracy. Hole/no hole is important evidence about the role of the Secret Service - and the roles of specific Secret Service Agents in the events of that day.

You seem to want a binary solution. Front wound/conspiracy/case closed. That's fine if you're still focused on discrediting the WC. I'm trying for a more comprehensive picture and the status of the windshield is useful information for that purpose.

Jerry

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I'll go with Rosemary Willis' description (to the HSCA, November 8, 1978)

of a "conspicuous" person "behind the concrete wall" who suddenly

"disappeared the next instant" right after the throat shot.

So that wouldn't leave a hole in the windshield, correct?

The hole and throat wound would be unrelated to each other.

Jerry

But both are related to the issue of a frontal shot.

What's the big deal about debunking evidence of a windshield

hole when the "authority of evidence" already establishes a

frontal shot?

If that's what's bothering you I can only speak for myself - I don't know why Barb and Tink are interested.

I want to know what happened. I want to reconstruct the crime as nearly as possible. Some one firing a single shot through the windshield from the North Knoll is a lot different than two shots from the front, one from the South Knoll and one from the North. And both of those are very different from a miss fired low from the Dal-Tex building. If there's a hole through the windshield it tells us a lot more about everything that happened that day than just a simple frontal wound to the throat.

If the article had been framed as you have above, I wouldn't

have chimed in.

But your article isn't framed as "reconstruction of the crime as nearly

as possible"-- it's framed as debunking a "death knell for the SBT",

implying the SBT and throat wound are unresolved issues.

Seems to me you're straining for "importance" and begging

the question.

You seem to want a binary solution. Front wound/conspiracy/case closed. That's fine if you're still focused on discrediting the WC. I'm trying for a more comprehensive picture and the status of the windshield is useful information for that purpose.

Jerry

May I suggest you edit out the SBT death knell part and stop

exaggerating the importance of it all?

Edited by Cliff Varnell

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Here's a link to my 1999 NID presentation, "An Examination of the Presidential Limousine in the White House Garage": http://www.maryferrell.org/mffweb/archive/...bsPageId=226813

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I'll go with Rosemary Willis' description (to the HSCA, November 8, 1978)

of a "conspicuous" person "behind the concrete wall" who suddenly

"disappeared the next instant" right after the throat shot.

So that wouldn't leave a hole in the windshield, correct?

The hole and throat wound would be unrelated to each other.

Jerry

But both are related to the issue of a frontal shot.

What's the big deal about debunking evidence of a windshield

hole when the "authority of evidence" already establishes a

frontal shot?

If that's what's bothering you I can only speak for myself - I don't know why Barb and Tink are interested.

I want to know what happened. I want to reconstruct the crime as nearly as possible. Some one firing a single shot through the windshield from the North Knoll is a lot different than two shots from the front, one from the South Knoll and one from the North. And both of those are very different from a miss fired low from the Dal-Tex building. If there's a hole through the windshield it tells us a lot more about everything that happened that day than just a simple frontal wound to the throat.

If the article had been framed as you have above, I wouldn't

have chimed in.

But your article isn't framed as "reconstruction of the crime as nearly

as possible"-- it's framed as debunking a "death knell for the SBT",

It is not. It simply states that IF a bullet went through the windshield from either direction, it IS a death knell for the SBT. "...debunking a 'death knell' for the SBT" is yours and yours alone. It's not written that way, and that is not the context.

implying the SBT and throat wound are unresolved issues.

It implies no such thing. No wound is a part of this ... it is a look at the windhield ... and only the windshield. And that is because, as is noted in the article intro, whether or not there was a through and through hole in the windshield is one of those things that comes around and around over and over again ... mostly brought up by those who claim to see "spiral nebulae" and and who quote a paragraph from the Taylor report out of context and erroneously claim Taylor was at the FBI exam. We know different now. This time, there is some new information.

Seems to me you're straining for "importance" and begging

the question.

Seems to me you have been straining and trying to turn this into something it isn't since day one.

You seem to want a binary solution. Front wound/conspiracy/case closed. That's fine if you're still focused on discrediting the WC. I'm trying for a more comprehensive picture and the status of the windshield is useful information for that purpose.

Jerry

May I suggest you edit out the SBT death knell part and stop

exaggerating the importance of it all?

Try reading the statement again. It's not a difficult one. I think Jerry said it all well.

Barb :-)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
New research comparison of the John Hunt graphic comparison pictures of the cracks in the windshield....FBI 1963 and 1978 by the HSCA....by Martin Hinrichs.....at Duncan McacRae's Forum....

Do not match, similar to Chris Davison's Gif seen in this thread.......and others input at the Lancer Forum..

http://www.jfkassassinationforum.com/index...opic,813.0.html

B......

Are you referencing the sharpened-up version of the '78 cracks that John Hunt borrowed from Anthony Marsh's site without bothering to give him credit? Shall we then ask 'new to whom'?

Go see for yourself, if you have not by now........and tell us, you are a member.

B.....

Sure looks like it.

An issue that has not yet been addressed is why the cracks would be 'identical' after 15 years? The windshield was kicked out of the limo by the Arlington Glass men and then stored in an SS closet. It was also moved to different places, including the VA building where James Hosty gave his WC testimony and viewed it there. There should be some changes to the cracks.

What is compelling in terms of determining if this is the same windshield that was in the car during the FBI exam is the presence of the long cracks in the windshield that corroborate its being pushed out of the limo, per the Ferguson memo.

That is exactly what Martin Hindrich's informed you of yesterday Pam, on Duncan's site....

Martin has applied for membership here in the EF, so that he can post his own information, re his study, he had not heard back as yet, I am hoping he is allowed to join, as this is his work, none others..and he should have that right if possible.........imo..

Here was his information as posted yesterday to Pamela, & Jerry at Duncan's Forum........I cannot post the photos within his information, in reference so they will follow below....

B....

Quote from: Pamela Brown on Today at 04:02:40 PM

""You may also want to take into account what happened to the windshield during the intervening years. Robert Frazier took CE 350 at 1 a.m. 11.23.63. Subsequent to that, the windshield was kicked out by the feet of the Arlington Glass men, per the Ferguson memo, and then it was put into storage in various places. It was taken to the Veterans Building where James Hosty saw it prior to giving his WC testimony. It had been handled by various people at different times. It would hardly be realistic for the cracks to be precisely the same dimension 15 years later as they were on the night after the assassination. ""

Hi Pamela and welcome aboard.

Thats the reason why i guided Jerry to the last image i've attached.

The prominent cross crack is missing in the HSCA photo.

all the best

Martin

Martin Quote "It appeared to me also that the camera shooting the HSCA photo, was slightely tilted.

Look below please.

The two longest remarkeable cracks are easy to distinguish as good reference.

I've rotated the HSCA photo to an angle which fits approx the angle from the FBI.

Does it help to compare both images?

I'am not sure.

Look at 2 and 3 for instance please, Jerry.

The angle is far from being the same and crack 2 is so prominent and thick in the HSCA photo but not in the FBI photo.

Crack 3 in the HSCA photo is short but in the FBI photo pretty long.

I do not wanna judge, but is it possible the HCSA have tried to reenacte this windshield cracks in 1978?

As far as i know the windshield of the presidential limousine was later removed from the auto and suffered by several additional damages.

Robin posted this image on Lancer.

We should see the remarkable cross crack in the HSCA photo, which happend while detaching the windshield from the limo!?

all the best to you"

Martin

http://www.jfkassassinationforum.com/index...opic,813.0.html

B...

Edited by Bernice Moore

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

×
×
  • Create New...