Jump to content
The Education Forum
Andy Walker

Barb Junkkarinen's article:A HOLE THROUGH THE WINDSHIELD

Recommended Posts

I am also uncomfortable with the attempts to dismiss the windshield bullet hole witnesses. This simply blocks research rather than allowing it to move forward to determine what relevance their statements have to the events.

Using witness-bashing to stop research in areas that lead to conspiracy is one of the heavy-handed tactics of the WCR defenders. Rather than simply weighing and evaluating what the witness says and then encouraging everyone to think for themselves, the apologists 'discredit' and then judge. The end result is inevitably that 'all roads lead only to the WCR.'

You keep saying this, Pamela, both here and on the mod group .... over and over and over, yet you never attempt to actually discuss any witness who you think has been dismissed or bashed, you never point out which witness statements you think have relevance to the events.

Pointing out that a witness placed the damage in the wrong part of the windshield is not gratuitous bashing and dismissal, for example.

Putting forth what ones have found and inviting discussion ... which IS encouraging others to think for themselves and voice their opinions ... is not any "heavy-handed tactic."

Presenting new information, as in this case, the Taylor affidavit, does move research forward.

Nothing here was about the WC, certainly not about defending it. The WC had no way of knowing that years later someone would fail to either read thoroughly, or comprehend completely, the Taylor Report and would cite it as evidence of a hole through the windshield. Or that for 29 years following THAT, others. including you, would have picked that up and run with it, continuing to promote that mistaken notion sans any additional full reading and understanding of what the document actually says themselves.

You do nothing but criticize others, leaving nothing but a trail of innuendo, not so veiled allegations and labels ... and inflammatory rhetoric about "WC defenders." Regardless of the subject. This is just one more in a long line where you have done the exact same thing.

Your nose is out of joint at me over my undertaking some fact checking on Judyth Baker's story a year and a half ago. Since you are one of her biggest defenders, and one who has actually given her money, you couldn't stand that, especially since, at every turn, claims she makes crash headlong into documented facts. Anything that mentions John Hunt's work has the same effect on you after the trouncing you took in a quite long discussion a few years ago involving the Dallas evidence going to the FBI lab in D.C. This is not the place or time to revisit any of that ... this is about whether or not there was a hole in the windshield, but the back alley agenda and any tactics are yours ... and is obvious to anyone who knows your history in some of those discussions. Most people here don't.

I wish I had a dollar for every post you have done since our windshield article came out that says nothing on topic, but merely fans flames, casts innuendo and steers any hope of actual discussion about what was presented further and further off course. Perhaps that is what you want.

If you think witnesses have been dismissed unfairly, then discuss the witnesses and what you disagree with in what we wrote. If you have additional insight or information ... bring it out.

Pick one. Let's go. :-)

no whining Barb, so stay on topic.... this isn't .johnnies hidey-hole.... thanks!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Pamela Wrote:

"I am also uncomfortable with the attempts to dismiss the windshield bullet hole witnesses. This simply blocks research rather than allowing it to move forward to determine what relevance their statements have to the events.

Using witness-bashing to stop research in areas that lead to conspiracy is one of the heavy-handed tactics of the WCR defenders. Rather than simply weighing and evaluating what the witness says and then encouraging everyone to think for themselves, the apologists 'discredit' and then judge. The end result is inevitably that 'all roads lead only to the WCR.'"

Pamela:

Word for word this seems to be exactly what you did with John Hunt's comparison graphic. Nearly a week ago you dismissed it as the result of a "lift" from Tony Marsh. Nearly a week later we're still waiting for your evidence or your retraction and apology. It's clear what you tried to do to Hunt, I guess I missed the part of the article where we "dismissed" the witnesses without any evidence or reason at all.

Don't you think it's a little 1984ish to falsely accuse someone of something you're doing yourself - while associating the falsely accused with a despised and discredited symbol? Does that remind you of any lessons from history? Talk about appeals to authority!!!!!

Jerry

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I am also uncomfortable with the attempts to dismiss the windshield bullet hole witnesses. This simply blocks research rather than allowing it to move forward to determine what relevance their statements have to the events.

Using witness-bashing to stop research in areas that lead to conspiracy is one of the heavy-handed tactics of the WCR defenders. Rather than simply weighing and evaluating what the witness says and then encouraging everyone to think for themselves, the apologists 'discredit' and then judge. The end result is inevitably that 'all roads lead only to the WCR.'

You keep saying this, Pamela, both here and on the mod group .... over and over and over, yet you never attempt to actually discuss any witness who you think has been dismissed or bashed, you never point out which witness statements you think have relevance to the events.

Pointing out that a witness placed the damage in the wrong part of the windshield is not gratuitous bashing and dismissal, for example.

Putting forth what ones have found and inviting discussion ... which IS encouraging others to think for themselves and voice their opinions ... is not any "heavy-handed tactic."

Presenting new information, as in this case, the Taylor affidavit, does move research forward.

Nothing here was about the WC, certainly not about defending it. The WC had no way of knowing that years later someone would fail to either read thoroughly, or comprehend completely, the Taylor Report and would cite it as evidence of a hole through the windshield. Or that for 29 years following THAT, others. including you, would have picked that up and run with it, continuing to promote that mistaken notion sans any additional full reading and understanding of what the document actually says themselves.

You do nothing but criticize others, leaving nothing but a trail of innuendo, not so veiled allegations and labels ... and inflammatory rhetoric about "WC defenders." Regardless of the subject. This is just one more in a long line where you have done the exact same thing.

Your nose is out of joint at me over my undertaking some fact checking on Judyth Baker's story a year and a half ago. Since you are one of her biggest defenders, and one who has actually given her money, you couldn't stand that, especially since, at every turn, claims she makes crash headlong into documented facts. Anything that mentions John Hunt's work has the same effect on you after the trouncing you took in a quite long discussion a few years ago involving the Dallas evidence going to the FBI lab in D.C. This is not the place or time to revisit any of that ... this is about whether or not there was a hole in the windshield, but the back alley agenda and any tactics are yours ... and is obvious to anyone who knows your history in some of those discussions. Most people here don't.

I wish I had a dollar for every post you have done since our windshield article came out that says nothing on topic, but merely fans flames, casts innuendo and steers any hope of actual discussion about what was presented further and further off course. Perhaps that is what you want.

If you think witnesses have been dismissed unfairly, then discuss the witnesses and what you disagree with in what we wrote. If you have additional insight or information ... bring it out.

Pick one. Let's go. :-)

no whining Barb, so stay on topic.... this isn't .johnnies hidey-hole.... thanks!

See, you ARE a riot! And predictable too. Sooo ... asking someone to discuss the witnesses and what someone disagrees with as presented in the article is off topic. Hmmmm. Well, from what we have seen so far, it would be for you and Pam, perhaps. :-)

ROTFL.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
See, you ARE a riot! And predictable too. Sooo ... asking someone to discuss the witnesses and what someone disagrees with as presented in the article is off topic. Hmmmm. Well, from what we have seen so far, it would be for you and Pam, perhaps. :-)

ROTFL.

Barb, dont you know Dave's idea of staying on topic means insults and smears....Dave just doesn't 'do' evidence and research. LOL

Edited by Denis Pointing

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
See, you ARE a riot! And predictable too. Sooo ... asking someone to discuss the witnesses and what someone disagrees with as presented in the article is off topic. Hmmmm. Well, from what we have seen so far, it would be for you and Pam, perhaps. :-)

ROTFL.

Barb, dont you know Dave's idea of staying on topic means insults and smears....Dave just doesn't 'do' evidence and research. LOL

just the facts young man.... no whining when the big boys are around..... this isn't .johnnies -- and where you hidin' Wild Bill Millah?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Leaving aside all the extraneous stuff that's crept into this thread, it is obvious that Barb's article has not ended the debate about whether or not there was a hole in the windshield. I think that the definitive tone of the article, and the posts supporting it, do not correspond to the cited evidence. The witnesses who claimed they saw a hole were not discredited. The Secret Service and FBI personnel who testified there was not a hole are still considered untrustworthy by those of us who believe in a large conspiracy. As in the debate over film alteration, reasonable people will disagree about what they see in photographs.

I can never disagree with Cliff stressing the location of the back wound at every opportunity- it IS the essential piece of evidence which disproves the ridiculous single bullet theory and destroys the official version of events all by itself. It also is related, at least tangentially, to the hole in the windshield discussion. An entrance wound to the throat might very well be an indication that those witnesses who saw a hole in the windshield were correct. While it certainly doesn't prove that such an entrance wound was directly connected to such a hole, Cliff is right to cite it as an indcator that perhaps there was.

I would be curious to know Barb's stance on the throat wound. Do you believe it was an entrance wound? If you believe it was an exit wound (contrary to all evidence about where the entrance on the back was), where do you believe the bullet exited? I know it's not directly related to this topic, but it would be interesting to know.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Leaving aside all the extraneous stuff that's crept into this thread, it is obvious that Barb's article has not ended the debate about whether or not there was a hole in the windshield. I think that the definitive tone of the article, and the posts supporting it, do not correspond to the cited evidence. The witnesses who claimed they saw a hole were not discredited. The Secret Service and FBI personnel who testified there was not a hole are still considered untrustworthy by those of us who believe in a large conspiracy. As in the debate over film alteration, reasonable people will disagree about what they see in photographs.

I can never disagree with Cliff stressing the location of the back wound at every opportunity- it IS the essential piece of evidence which disproves the ridiculous single bullet theory and destroys the official version of events all by itself. It also is related, at least tangentially, to the hole in the windshield discussion. An entrance wound to the throat might very well be an indication that those witnesses who saw a hole in the windshield were correct. While it certainly doesn't prove that such an entrance wound was directly connected to such a hole, Cliff is right to cite it as an indcator that perhaps there was.

I would be curious to know Barb's stance on the throat wound. Do you believe it was an entrance wound? If you believe it was an exit wound (contrary to all evidence about where the entrance on the back was), where do you believe the bullet exited? I know it's not directly related to this topic, but it would be interesting to know.

Don, you ask a straightforward question about the throat wound ... and I will be happy to answer it. I will start a new thread quoting your question ... because otherwise this thread will once again be off onto another subject. Admin already moved another offramp discussion to its own thread, I really don't want to veer off in another direction from the windshield again in this thread again.

On this topic, the windshield, I haven't seen any real debate or discussion take place on what we presented in the article. If people disagree with what was presented, we would like to see such discussion. I would be interested to know which witnesses who claim to have seen a hole in the windshield, you find credible?

I will be gone most of tomorrow, and have company coming to dinner in the evening, so it will be either late tomorrow night or on Wednesday before I can start that thread. All I can tell you is what I believe, and why ... and I will do that. I am not looking to get in to any long debate/discussion on any topic at the moment as I have other things, projects, commitments going on just now, but I will answer your question.

Bests,

Barb :-)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
See, you ARE a riot! And predictable too. Sooo ... asking someone to discuss the witnesses and what someone disagrees with as presented in the article is off topic. Hmmmm. Well, from what we have seen so far, it would be for you and Pam, perhaps. :-)

ROTFL.

Barb, dont you know Dave's idea of staying on topic means insults and smears....Dave just doesn't 'do' evidence and research. LOL

I came to know that rather quickly. There's at least one on every channel. <g>

Bests,

Barb :-)

Edited by Barb Junkkarinen

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Pamela Wrote:

"I am also uncomfortable with the attempts to dismiss the windshield bullet hole witnesses. This simply blocks research rather than allowing it to move forward to determine what relevance their statements have to the events.

Using witness-bashing to stop research in areas that lead to conspiracy is one of the heavy-handed tactics of the WCR defenders. Rather than simply weighing and evaluating what the witness says and then encouraging everyone to think for themselves, the apologists 'discredit' and then judge. The end result is inevitably that 'all roads lead only to the WCR.'"

Pamela:

Word for word this seems to be exactly what you did with John Hunt's comparison graphic. Nearly a week ago you dismissed it as the result of a "lift" from Tony Marsh. Nearly a week later we're still waiting for your evidence or your retraction and apology. It's clear what you tried to do to Hunt, I guess I missed the part of the article where we "dismissed" the witnesses without any evidence or reason at all.

Don't you think it's a little 1984ish to falsely accuse someone of something you're doing yourself - while associating the falsely accused with a despised and discredited symbol? Does that remind you of any lessons from history? Talk about appeals to authority!!!!!

Jerry

Perhaps Jerry will provide us with some clarification -- is it not mine, but Anthony Marsh's assertion that John Hunt used his version of CE 350? And is this not the same item that is part of the corrections you are making for your updated article? Isn't Jerry the one doing the apologising?

And isn't Jerry the one making false claims about what version of CE 350 I am using at my website? Does he not understand the difference between Anthony's souped-up version and the plain old WCR version? Does he really think everyone who uses CE350 needs to credit Anthony? Has he even provided a link to support the claim he is making?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Perhaps Barb is being far too modest about the process she uses with witnesses. She has not yet discussed the refinement of her skills, which even involve trying to pinpoint the location of one while they were a part of the asylum process in a foreign country.

What is the purpose in discrediting a witness? What does it give us to cast those aside who do not give us what we want?

Without witnesses, what do we have? The WC cherrypicked not only the statements of those it interviewed, but whom they interviewed. When we have witnesses who can prove that they were where they said they were at the time they talk about, who are we to simply dismiss what they have to say? They are witnesses, we are not.

We have the choice of repeating the WCR mistakes or finding a new process.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
See, you ARE a riot! And predictable too. Sooo ... asking someone to discuss the witnesses and what someone disagrees with as presented in the article is off topic. Hmmmm. Well, from what we have seen so far, it would be for you and Pam, perhaps. :-)

ROTFL.

Barb, dont you know Dave's idea of staying on topic means insults and smears....Dave just doesn't 'do' evidence and research. LOL

I came to know that rather quickly. There's at least one on every channel. <g>

Bests,

Barb :-)

think .john has noticed Denise yet, Barb? After all, ALL lone nutter-xxxxx deeds do get paid.... Carry on! :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Pamela Wrote:

"I am also uncomfortable with the attempts to dismiss the windshield bullet hole witnesses. This simply blocks research rather than allowing it to move forward to determine what relevance their statements have to the events.

Using witness-bashing to stop research in areas that lead to conspiracy is one of the heavy-handed tactics of the WCR defenders. Rather than simply weighing and evaluating what the witness says and then encouraging everyone to think for themselves, the apologists 'discredit' and then judge. The end result is inevitably that 'all roads lead only to the WCR.'"

Pamela:

Word for word this seems to be exactly what you did with John Hunt's comparison graphic. Nearly a week ago you dismissed it as the result of a "lift" from Tony Marsh. Nearly a week later we're still waiting for your evidence or your retraction and apology. It's clear what you tried to do to Hunt, I guess I missed the part of the article where we "dismissed" the witnesses without any evidence or reason at all.

Don't you think it's a little 1984ish to falsely accuse someone of something you're doing yourself - while associating the falsely accused with a despised and discredited symbol? Does that remind you of any lessons from history? Talk about appeals to authority!!!!!

Jerry

Perhaps Jerry will provide us with some clarification -- is it not mine, but Anthony Marsh's assertion that John Hunt used his version of CE 350? And is this not the same item that is part of the corrections you are making for your updated article? Isn't Jerry the one doing the apologising?

And isn't Jerry the one making false claims about what version of CE 350 I am using at my website? Does he not understand the difference between Anthony's souped-up version and the plain old WCR version? Does he really think everyone who uses CE350 needs to credit Anthony? Has he even provided a link to support the claim he is making?

I didn't realize that Anthony Marsh had stolen Pamela's Forum login and used her name to post this:

"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'?"

So no Pam - you wrote it, you asserted it as fact - evidence or apology and retraction are your only options. Trying to duck out of what you wrote is a transparent ploy.

Perhaps you haven't read the article closely enough so you keep repeating the same question over and over again even though it's been answered over and over again here and on the newsgroup aaj.

Marsh's CE350 enlargement was used in the earlier part of the text by Tink, Barb and myself. We didn't credit Marsh for that and that's what is being corrected.

Hunt did not use any of Marsh's images for his comparison graphic - he used his own. So when YOU wrote that Hunt borrowed the images from Marsh YOU were wrong and YOU owe the apology to Hunt.

Here are the reals claims - not what Pamela has imagined.

1) Pamela has finally acknowledged the 1961 limousine photo as Mr. Marsh's

after four years of a "momentary" editorial error.

2) The Baughman photo is Mr. Marsh's scan and it is unacknowledged.

3) What Pamela calls 352 (352a) is an unacknowledged scan - probably from Todd

Vaughn.

4) Pamela's claim that she "brought forth" the FBI bulky files in 1999 is a

little suspect since Mr. Marsh says he helped the Archives with

them in 1994 and brought them to the attention of the public in 1995.

5) Mr. Marsh and I would love to see window-1.jpg from Pamela's website

but the link is inoperative. Some people recall that it was Mr. Marsh's

enlargement of the crack area but we can't be sure.

The only confusion surrounding CE350 remains yours. At his own expense and

effort, Mr. Marsh obtained a negative of the CE350 photo. At his own

expense and effort, Mr. Marsh printed the entire negative to his own

specifications and he also had enlargements of several areas of the photo

printed. Mr. Marsh then scanned the photos and made them available to the

public. Mr. Marsh deserves credit for his superior version of CE350 and

for his enlargements from CE350. You used one of the inferior versions of

CE350 on your website, not Mr. Marsh's version - we all know that and have

for some time.

Is that clear enough?

Edited by Jerry Logan

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

1) Pamela has finally acknowledged the 1961 limousine photo as Mr. Marsh's

after four years of a "momentary" editorial error.

Anthony Marsh has been credited at my website since it was first published. Here is another example of credit given to him in an area that Jerry must be very familiar with, since it involves the 'spiral nebulae' theory:

"The typical configuration for a through-and-through windshield bullet hole include (1) a hole larger than the size of the ammunition, (2) white frothing around the hole and (3) spider cracking extending from the hole to perhaps the edges of the windshied. None of these things are evident in the "spiral nebulae" of the Altgens 1-6 -- the hole, later described by observers (one high on the windshield, one low on the windshield, adding to the confusion) was supposedly just big enough to 'put a pencil through it'. What ammunition would make a hole the size of a pencil? Possibly a BB or pellet gun, but not much else. Also, Anthony Marsh's has some interesting insights in an analytical article ."

Why is Jerry refusing to acknowledge this?

2) The Baughman photo is Mr. Marsh's scan and it is unacknowledged.

Since the site says it came from the JFK Library it probably did come from Anthony, and I will add credit at the next update. It is also available in works such as North's ACT OF TREASON. I have myself been in touch with the JFK Library since the early 90's and have ordered things from them as well. Will Jerry next need a list of all the publications of all the limo photos in order to become oriented to what is available? That would be a tall order.

3) What Pamela calls 352 (352a) is an unacknowledged scan - probably from Todd

Vaughn.

Actually, the version of CE 352 currently at the site came from a scan made by Russ Burr on one of his trips to the Archives. I'll be happy to add that credit. Hopefully Jerry will jump as quickly to make all the promised corrections to his piece.

Is Jerry aware that when he watched the DC show INSIDE THE TARGET CAR he was looking at some of my limo photos? I lent them to Robert Erickson when we were at Dearborn. Jerry does not seem to realize that NARA will sell photos to any citizen willing to pay for them. Jerry may not also realize that I own copies of many photos and countless documents that are not displayed at the website.

4) Pamela's claim that she "brought forth" the FBI bulky files in 1999 is a

little suspect since Mr. Marsh says he helped the Archives with

them in 1994 and brought them to the attention of the public in 1995.

My 99 NID presentation was to my knowledge the first formal presentation of the group of photos and definitely the first time they had been dated. I spent hours on the phone and in email with NARA helping them to track them down. The dating was done by FBI SA Robert Frazier, whom I interviewed for the presentation. I asked NARA if they could add the correct dates to the photos, but they were unable to change anything. I also presented the color SS photos (not CE 352/3) that had been found in the same box as the bulkies.

5) Mr. Marsh and I would love to see window-1.jpg from Pamela's website

but the link is inoperative. Some people recall that it was Mr. Marsh's

enlargement of the crack area but we can't be sure.

That's hilarious. Jerry is trying to mount an attack on something that does not exist. Whatever was there was a simple CE350, not Anthony's souped-up version. I don't even have a study of the windshield crack per se at my site at the present time.

The only confusion surrounding CE350 remains yours. At his own expense and

effort, Mr. Marsh obtained a negative of the CE350 photo. At his own

expense and effort, Mr. Marsh printed the entire negative to his own

specifications and he also had enlargements of several areas of the photo

printed. Mr. Marsh then scanned the photos and made them available to the

public. Mr. Marsh deserves credit for his superior version of CE350 and

for his enlargements from CE350. You used one of the inferior versions of

CE350 on your website, not Mr. Marsh's version - we all know that and have

for some time.

This is the one that does not exist?

Is that clear enough?

Clear as mud, as usual.

Edited by Pamela McElwain-Brown

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

With all of Pamela's snipping and clipping, huffing and puffing, we've almost lost sight of the original topic - Her casual accusation of John Hunt and her willingness to avoid responsibility for her words by "forgetting" what she wrote. We're still waiting for that evidence and snipping out the references to the issue won't make it go away.

It seems like Pamela would rather write about her website - although I'm not sure why she thinks that will make things better. But, as she wishes.....

1) Pamela has finally acknowledged the 1961 limousine photo as Mr. Marsh's

after four years of a "momentary" editorial error.[/size][/i]

Anthony Marsh has been credited at my website since it was first published. Here is another example of credit given to him in an area that Jerry must be very familiar with, since it involves the 'spiral nebulae' theory:

"The typical configuration for a through-and-through windshield bullet hole include (1) a hole larger than the size of the ammunition, (2) white frothing around the hole and (3) spider cracking extending from the hole to perhaps the edges of the windshied. None of these things are evident in the "spiral nebulae" of the Altgens 1-6 -- the hole, later described by observers (one high on the windshield, one low on the windshield, adding to the confusion) was supposedly just big enough to 'put a pencil through it'. What ammunition would make a hole the size of a pencil? Possibly a BB or pellet gun, but not much else. Also, Anthony Marsh's has some interesting insights in an analytical article ."

Why is Jerry refusing to acknowledge this?

Perhaps because all of your in-broad-daylight web pages from 2005 until about 36 hours ago didn't acknowledge Mr. Marsh's photo. That's sort of a long time for a momentary editing error.

http://web.archive.org/web/20050804085646/...d-daylight.com/

To your credit, you did refer to Mr. Marsh's page. To your discredit, you seemed to leave the impression that you had obtained the photo from the Kennedy Library. Also, since you've raised the issue of the spiral nebulae, it appears that yet another of Mr. Marsh's scans is uncredited on your site. The extreme enlargement of Altgens 6 is a scan Marsh made from Trask's "That Day in Dallas." Yet, you've credited neither Marsh or Trask.

2) The Baughman photo is Mr. Marsh's scan and it is unacknowledged.

Since the site says it came from the JFK Library it probably did come from Anthony, and I will add credit at the next update. It is also available in works such as North's ACT OF TREASON. I have myself been in touch with the JFK Library since the early 90's and have ordered things from them as well. Will Jerry next need a list of all the publications of all the limo photos in order to become oriented to what is available? That would be a tall order.

We know it's Mr. Marsh's because his is exactly the same as the photo on your site - except he properly credited North. Nobody needs a guide book Pamela - we're all judging for ourselves - no appeals to authority here!

3) What Pamela calls 352 (352a) is an unacknowledged scan - probably from Todd

Vaughn.

Actually, the version of CE 352 currently at the site came from a scan made by Russ Burr on one of his trips to the Archives. I'll be happy to add that credit. Hopefully Jerry will jump as quickly to make all the promised corrections to his piece.

So, just to be clear - you knew that Russ Burr had scanned the image but you didn't credit him on your site? And that's OK? But when we unknowingly used Marsh's CE350 enlargement without credit that's a moral failing. A "lift, lift, lift". That's a very flexible standard Pamela.

Is Jerry aware that when he watched the DC show INSIDE THE TARGET CAR he was looking at some of my limo photos? I lent them to Robert Erickson when we were at Dearborn. Jerry does not seem to realize that NARA will sell photos to any citizen willing to pay for them. Jerry may not also realize that I own copies of many photos and countless documents that are not displayed at the website.

If you have so many Pamela I guess I don't understand why you don't just use your own instead of someone else's. You know, like how John Hunt used his own images in his comparison graphic.

However, that is interesting information about Inside the Target Car. Did you lend him the photos or were you compensated in some way for their use?

4) Pamela's claim that she "brought forth" the FBI bulky files in 1999 is a

little suspect since Mr. Marsh says he helped the Archives with

them in 1994 and brought them to the attention of the public in 1995.

My 99 NID presentation was to my knowledge the first formal presentation of the group of photos and definitely the first time they had been dated. I spent hours on the phone and in email with NARA helping them to track them down. The dating was done by FBI SA Robert Frazier, whom I interviewed for the presentation. I asked NARA if they could add the correct dates to the photos, but they were unable to change anything. I also presented the color SS photos (not CE 352/3) that had been found in the same box as the bulkies.

Yes, it's good that you did that and we all respect your work in that area. It just would have been nice for you to mention that Mr. Marsh saw them in 1994 and reported them to the research community in 1995 at COPA.

5) Mr. Marsh and I would love to see window-1.jpg from Pamela's website

but the link is inoperative. Some people recall that it was Mr. Marsh's

enlargement of the crack area but we can't be sure.

That's hilarious. Jerry is trying to mount an attack on something that does not exist. Whatever was there was a simple CE350, not Anthony's souped-up version. I don't even have a study of the windshield crack per se at my site at the present time.

It's not an attack. It's a request for information. Since it was on your website it seemed like you might have a copy or at least know what it was. It's interesting that you can't just produce the photo but if you say it wasn't anything from Marsh that's ok by me.

The only confusion surrounding CE350 remains yours. At his own expense and

effort, Mr. Marsh obtained a negative of the CE350 photo. At his own

expense and effort, Mr. Marsh printed the entire negative to his own

specifications and he also had enlargements of several areas of the photo

printed. Mr. Marsh then scanned the photos and made them available to the

public. Mr. Marsh deserves credit for his superior version of CE350 and

for his enlargements from CE350. You used one of the inferior versions of

CE350 on your website, not Mr. Marsh's version - we all know that and have

for some time.

This is the one that does not exist?

No Pamela - you have a crop from CE350 right on the first page of your website. You've looked at the site, right?

Is that clear enough?

Clear as mud, as usual.

Oh I don't know Pam, we seem to be making real progress on the website, don't you think?

Plus, we're getting a clear picture of your standards for photo use. If Pamela posts unacknowledged photos she knows came from other researchers - that's ok.

If we unknowingly and inadvertently post a single image without credit - that's wrong.

I don't know about you - but things are looking clearer and clearer to me.

Edited by Jerry Logan

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Anthony Marsh has been credited at my website since it was first published. Here is another example of credit given to him in an area that Jerry must be very familiar with, since it involves the 'spiral nebulae' theory:

"The typical configuration for a through-and-through windshield bullet hole include (1) a hole larger than the size of the ammunition, (2) white frothing around the hole and (3) spider cracking extending from the hole to perhaps the edges of the windshied. None of these things are evident in the "spiral nebulae" of the Altgens 1-6 -- the hole, later described by observers (one high on the windshield, one low on the windshield, adding to the confusion) was supposedly just big enough to 'put a pencil through it'. What ammunition would make a hole the size of a pencil? Possibly a BB or pellet gun, but not much else. Also, Anthony Marsh's has some interesting insights in an analytical article ."

Why is Jerry refusing to acknowledge this?

Perhaps because all of your in-broad-daylight web pages from 2005 until about 36 hours ago didn't acknowledge Mr. Marsh's photo. That's sort of a long time for a momentary editing error.

http://web.archive.org/web/20050804085646/...d-daylight.com/

To your credit, you did refer to Mr. Marsh's page. To your discredit, you seemed to leave the impression that you had obtained the photo from the Kennedy Library. Also, since you've raised the issue of the spiral nebulae, it appears that yet another of Mr. Marsh's scans is uncredited on your site. The extreme enlargement of Altgens 6 is a scan Marsh made from Trask's "That Day in Dallas." Yet, you've credited neither Marsh or Trask.

Jerry continues to refuse to acknowledge that Anthony has been credited on my webpage and that any additional credit has been given to photos that Anthony provided or even may have provided.

Wherever the Altgens 1-6 came from it is from a scan that I did. It will be updated.

We know it's Mr. Marsh's because his is exactly the same as the photo on your site - except he properly credited North. Nobody needs a guide book Pamela - we're all judging for ourselves - no appeals to authority here!

Anthony has been given credit for that photo. When will you acknowledge that?

So, just to be clear - you knew that Russ Burr had scanned the image but you didn't credit him on your site? And that's OK? But when we unknowingly used Marsh's CE350 enlargement without credit that's a moral failing. A "lift, lift, lift". That's a very flexible standard Pamela.

As I look again at those photos I do not think they were those sent to me from a NARA scan. And I was mistaken in saying the researcher was Russ Burr; I will try to track down the name. Those scans were quite large in size, and I may have replaced them with smaller scans from prints from the Collector's Archive. Are you aware of them?

Is Jerry aware that when he watched the DC show INSIDE THE TARGET CAR he was looking at some of my limo photos? I lent them to Robert Erickson when we were at Dearborn. Jerry does not seem to realize that NARA will sell photos to any citizen willing to pay for them. Jerry may not also realize that I own copies of many photos and countless documents that are not displayed at the website.

If you have so many Pamela I guess I don't understand why you don't just use your own instead of someone else's. You know, like how John Hunt used his own images in his comparison graphic.

However, that is interesting information about Inside the Target Car. Did you lend him the photos or were you compensated in some way for their use?

The photos at the website are intended to illuminate the information there. I have tried to keep their size down and have found it cumbersome to scan and resize my photos. Obviously, photo work has not been my forte. The photos are being updated, though, as the website goes through a transition.

Yes, it's good that you did that and we all respect your work in that area. It just would have been nice for you to mention that Mr. Marsh saw them in 1994 and reported them to the research community in 1995 at COPA.

I don't know that I was specifically aware of that, but will be happy to.

That's hilarious. Jerry is trying to mount an attack on something that does not exist. Whatever was there was a simple CE350, not Anthony's souped-up version. I don't even have a study of the windshield crack per se at my site at the present time.

It's not an attack. It's a request for information. Since it was on your website it seemed like you might have a copy or at least know what it was. It's interesting that you can't just produce the photo but if you say it wasn't anything from Marsh that's ok by me.

There is not a copy of the photo on the server nor on the pc I am currently using. I am not aware of using anything of Anthony's, nor was I aware that he had a souped-up version until this discussion over your piece began.

The only confusion surrounding CE350 remains yours. At his own expense and

effort, Mr. Marsh obtained a negative of the CE350 photo. At his own

expense and effort, Mr. Marsh printed the entire negative to his own

specifications and he also had enlargements of several areas of the photo

printed. Mr. Marsh then scanned the photos and made them available to the

public. Mr. Marsh deserves credit for his superior version of CE350 and

for his enlargements from CE350. You used one of the inferior versions of

CE350 on your website, not Mr. Marsh's version - we all know that and have

for some time.

This is the one that does not exist?

No Pamela - you have a crop from CE350 right on the first page of your website. You've looked at the site, right?

Oh I don't know Pam, we seem to be making real progress on the website, don't you think?

Plus, we're getting a clear picture of your standards for photo use. If Pamela posts unacknowledged photos she knows came from other researchers - that's ok.

If we unknowingly and inadvertently post a single image without credit - that's wrong.

I don't know about you - but things are looking clearer and clearer to me.

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...