Jump to content
The Education Forum
  • Announcements

    • Evan Burton

      OPEN REGISTRATION BY EMAIL ONLY !!! PLEASE CLICK ON THIS TITLE FOR INFORMATION REQUIRED FOR REGISTRATION!:   06/03/2017

      We have 5 requirements for registration: 1.Sign up with your real name. (This will be your Username) 2.A valid email address 3.Your agreement to the Terms of Use, seen here: http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=21403. 4. Your photo for use as an avatar  5.. A brief biography. We will post these for you, and send you your password. We cannot approve membership until we receive these. If you are interested, please send these  to: edforumbusiness@outlook.com We look forward to having you as a part of the Forum! Sincerely, The Education Forum Team
Doug Weldon

A shot fired through the front of the windshield- To Barb and Jerry

Recommended Posts

I have moved this topic because it did not fit well within the topic from which there had been some previous discussion. Barb and Jerry have examined some further evidence and have agreed to contribute to the exchange. I believe the prior discussion has been constructive and has demonstrated that disagreement can be expessed passionately, at times, without personal attacks. I submit, unequivocally, that it is a fact that a shot was fired through the front of the windshield and second that there is a strong possibility that the shot resulted in an entrance wound to the throat of President Kennedy. I would define a "fact" as testimony or evidence which would convince an impartial body of people that such was true. I sincerely believe that I could have convinced any unbiased jury "beyond a reasonable doubt" that such a shot was fired and that a cover-up occurred at the highest levels of the United States government and that members of the United States Secret Service had to be complicit in allowing the assassination to occur. I have not reached my conclusions lightly or without great concern and disappointment.

There have been a number of people on this forum who have indicated that this is an extraneous issue. I would contend that issues such as this, the alteration of the body, and the manipulation of the Zapruder film, etc., each and of themselves, if proven, would have dramatic impact on the history of our nation. However. I also believe that truth in this matter would be the genesis for providing a positive change for our future.

Thompson, Jerry, and Barb have sought to refute that there was a hole in the windshield. They noted, "Our purpose, as stated in the intro to our article, was to share what had been discussed and learned in a discussion that took place on a yahoo group. We dealt with what had been offered as proofs by Mr. Fetzer who brought others into it, like David Lifton, Rich, White, Healy, etc. We dealt with those issues, those witnesses. And especially given the new documents regarding Taylor we decided to write it all up and share it elsewhere... like on the Ed Forum."

If this was a summarization of the exchange on the group then I have no problem. However, as I have noted. Fetzer, Lifton, Rich, White, Healy, etc. do not speak for me and not knowing what they posted I can neither support or defend any of their propositions. I am not aware that you or any of the people listed ever spoke to any of the witnesses and are not fully aware of everything they said.

I do have to take exception to a couple of your points. First of all, St. Louis Dispatcher newspaper reporter Richard Dudman had NO doubt he saw a hole in the windshield of the Kennedy limo but was unable to get close enough to determine if the hole entered the front or rear of the windshield.

You have questioned the account of U.S. Park police officer Nick Prencipe. I have provided you with a copy of my first conversation with the late Mr. Prencipe and I am willing to address any concerns you might have. I will neither seek to enhance or minimize anyone's account but I believe I can demonstrate that the overall record is compelling. It did concern me that you wrote that none of you had much knowledge about the limousine but yet you were willing to post very definitive conclusions. It bothered me that you characterized two highly trained police officers as "casual observers" and the fact that three experienced police officers, including Nick Prencipe, unequivocally described the hole they witnessed as a "bullet hole." Dr. Evalea Glanges, who was well experienced with firearms, was also unequivocal in describing what she witnessed as a "bullet hole." Charles Taylor of the Secret Service described a hole from which it appeared that "bullet fragments" had been removed. A key witness who you failed to mention was George Whitaker. a man who in 1963 had thirty years of experience working with glass and had been involved with many tests involving guns and glass, was 100 percent certain that he witnessed a bullet hole that penetrated the windshield from the outside to the inside of the windshield. What is ambiguous about Dallas Police Officer Stavis Ellis, considered by his colleagues to have impeccable integrity, stating that he placed "a pencil in the hole?"

I am sincerely astounded by the contention Jerry made that witnesses "could have been found" who saw no hole in the windshield (assuming I guess that they saw the windshield at Parkland) but yet there are at least eight people (nine, if Prencipe is credible} who clearly saw a hole in the windshield! There is not one identifiable person at Parkland Hospital who saw the windshield and stated there was NO HOLE. I would like to use that logic and state I could have found 1000 people who saw the hole. Is there any difference in the logic? The closest evidence to someone not witnessing a hole is when Officer Ellis loudly stated there was a hole in the windshield and a Secret Service agent came up to him and said "That's not a hole, it's a fragment." Ellis loudly replied "It's not a damn fragment, it's a hole."

One of you wrote that "How about the cops? They could have named others who were standing around the limo." There were many civilians shown in the photographs standing in front of the limousine. Two police officers saw the hole. Who else do they need? They corroborate each other. What would cause one to conjecture that they would have known the civilians and personnel at Parkland and would have taken names of all who would have seen the hole while the Secret Service was pushing people away and drove the limousine away? As for Dr. Glanges she did say there was someone with her who saw the hole but when she spoke with me he was in fear for his job if he said anything. Is that reasonable. I believe so, simply based upon the fears, real or perceived, that so many witnesses expressed to me. If he was trying to distort her account would it not have been easier to say that she was by herself and thus no one could contradict her?

Jerry stated "Latter day gilding the lily, perhaps, but outright lie...no. They saw a spot on the windshield. There was a spot there. They thought/speculated/assumed it was, or may have been a complete hole." What witness said they saw a SPOT? All of them said they saw a HOLE! How does Jerry or anyone have the knowledge to say they saw a SPOT or thought/speculated/assumed they saw a hole. If anyone has the ability to get into the mind of all of the witnesses and speak for them it is a skill far beyond anything I have ever known. When I mentioned to Stavis Ellis once that someone questioned whether he saw a hole, his response to me was "Were they there?"

I acknowledge and appreciate the new information you brought forth about Charles Taylor. However, I believe that there has to be some suspicion of someone who wrote in 1963 that he saw a hole, confirmed it in 1975, and then was approached by the government and suddenly an affidavit is signed that he was mistaken and that the windshield he saw then was the same one he saw in 1963 without a hole. Would that changed information be more reliable than those who never changed their accounts? Which would be more reliable, the account he wrote in November 1963 and verified in 1975 or a retraction noted in an affidavit after that time. Do we know that he even wrote that affidavit or if it was given to him by the government to sign? Why was this retraction classified as "Top Secret."

Isn't it somewhat ironic that a similar circumstance happened to Richard Dudman. Like Taylor, he wrote he saw a hole in the windshield. Lo and behold the government flew him from St. Louis to Washington D.C. and showed him a windshield that had no hole. Like Taylor, he renounced his prior position and wrote another article and would never speak about the assassination again and severed his deep friendship with Robert Livingstone. If you saw a hole and then were shown a different windshield by the government would you not be intimidated or even fearful?

There are further problems. The windshield Taylor was shown in 1975 had to be the one you showed in your comparison study in your article by John Hunt. Martin Hinrichs did a detailed study and demonstrated that the cracks were not the same. Jerry himself now questions whether the two windshields in the article are the same. Jerry wrote on this forum "Yes, that's correct. Right now, I don't think any windshield comparison can be conclusive including Hunt's. If we can gather better data at the Archives it might be possible, but right now I'm certain that we really don't know exactly what it is we're trying to compare."

Martin Hinrichs also pointed out a very pertinent fact: "A comparison of this two windshield cracks is nevertheless dominated by the following undeniable principal:

The windshield was kicked out at 11/26/63 by the feet of the Arlington Glass men. And that dominant cross crack should be visible in every photo post to 11/26/63."

There is also evidence that the Secret Service ordered twelve windshields after the assassination for "target practice." Did they need these windshields to attempt to duplicate the damage to the original windshield but without a crack," George Whitaker stated that the original windshield was "scrapped" (destroyed) on November 25, 1963 in Dearborn, Michigan.

I believe there has to be a stronger argument than I "think" all of the witnesses to the hole were mistaken or to state that you are sure that witnesses could be found who did not see a hole, when NO such witness can be presented. I appreciate this exchange. Barb, Jerry, and Josiah have all been very gracious in their responses. Jerry and Barb have now seen further evidence. I respect the intelligence of each of them and each brings a unique expertise to the discussion. I would have preferred that each had responded individually without the opportunity to corroborate with a response, but ultimately it does not make a difference. I am certain that others have shared the position that there was no hole in the windshield evidencing a shot from the front, but those beliefs should be based on more than feelings.

I have discovered many things that I have not yet published but hopefully will get the opportunity to do so in my book. I eagerly anticipate the reactions of Jerry, Barb, Josiah, and anyone. This is not an academic exercise for me nor do I have any interest in any notoriety for myself. I hope to be responsive and seek only truth.

Best,

Doug Weldon

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

EXCELLENT, Doug. I am with you! There WAS a hole. It very likely came from the south knoll.

The government hid the hole and tried to produce windshields with cracks but no hole.

I agree with ALL of your research, but am not 100 percent sure that the windshield bullet was

the throat bullet, because there is no evidence to support a bullet in the throat...since none

(that we know of) was found.

Jack

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
EXCELLENT, Doug. I am with you! There WAS a hole. It very likely came from the south knoll.

The government hid the hole and tried to produce windshields with cracks but no hole.

I agree with ALL of your research, but am not 100 percent sure that the windshield bullet was

the throat bullet, because there is no evidence to support a bullet in the throat...since none

(that we know of) was found.

Jack

Jack:

I do not disagree with you but I believe there was an entrance wound to Kennedy's throat LIKELY caused by the shot through the windshield. Mantik speculates that a glass fragment caused by the bullet from the windshield may have caused that entrance wound. It is a reasonable hypothethiis.

Best,

Doug

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You do not have to get close up to a definitely identified bullet hole passed through the screen theis way or that way, all you'd have to do is to change your perspective. Your eyes move involuntarily about 3 times a second, it helps in stereo depth perception, plus he is moving his head and body and should have left a clear understanding of whether it was an in or out shot. Anyway, that's my story and I'm sticking to it (unless being given cause to think otherwise of course), but then I've done a lot with glass and in nibbling the techniques to get the required break, well, plus all my life studied the development of the transparent screen, whether it be lead crustal, to windshield development and to see a over 100's of miles the widening of strands of fracture that as the already heated supercooled liquid obeyed the nature of the development of a crack, from an oncomin pebble, often decomposed granite with an iron content kicked up by passing traffic both going at 100+ k's on a softedge two lane, as the glass looses mometarily and locally its molecular cohesion and becomes subject to stress fractures that develop from the forces on the prestessed screen.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I have moved this topic because it did not fit well within the topic from which there had been some previous discussion. Barb and Jerry have examined some further evidence and have agreed to contribute to the exchange. I believe the prior discussion has been constructive and has demonstrated that disagreement can be expessed passionately, at times, without personal attacks. I submit, unequivocally, that it is a fact that a shot was fired through the front of the windshield and second that there is a strong possibility that the shot resulted in an entrance wound to the throat of President Kennedy. I would define a "fact" as testimony or evidence which would convince an impartial body of people that such was true. I sincerely believe that I could have convinced any unbiased jury "beyond a reasonable doubt" that such a shot was fired and that a cover-up occurred at the highest levels of the United States government and that members of the United States Secret Service had to be complicit in allowing the assassination to occur. I have not reached my conclusions lightly or without great concern and disappointment.

There have been a number of people on this forum who have indicated that this is an extraneous issue. I would contend that issues such as this, the alteration of the body, and the manipulation of the Zapruder film, etc., each and of themselves, if proven, would have dramatic impact on the history of our nation. However. I also believe that truth in this matter would be the genesis for providing a positive change for our future.

Thompson, Jerry, and Barb have sought to refute that there was a hole in the windshield. They noted, "Our purpose, as stated in the intro to our article, was to share what had been discussed and learned in a discussion that took place on a yahoo group. We dealt with what had been offered as proofs by Mr. Fetzer who brought others into it, like David Lifton, Rich, White, Healy, etc. We dealt with those issues, those witnesses. And especially given the new documents regarding Taylor we decided to write it all up and share it elsewhere... like on the Ed Forum."

If this was a summarization of the exchange on the group then I have no problem. However, as I have noted. Fetzer, Lifton, Rich, White, Healy, etc. do not speak for me and not knowing what they posted I can neither support or defend any of their propositions. I am not aware that you or any of the people listed ever spoke to any of the witnesses and are not fully aware of everything they said.

I do have to take exception to a couple of your points. First of all, St. Louis Dispatcher newspaper reporter Richard Dudman had NO doubt he saw a hole in the windshield of the Kennedy limo but was unable to get close enough to determine if the hole entered the front or rear of the windshield.

You have questioned the account of U.S. Park police officer Nick Prencipe. I have provided you with a copy of my first conversation with the late Mr. Prencipe and I am willing to address any concerns you might have. I will neither seek to enhance or minimize anyone's account but I believe I can demonstrate that the overall record is compelling. It did concern me that you wrote that none of you had much knowledge about the limousine but yet you were willing to post very definitive conclusions. It bothered me that you characterized two highly trained police officers as "casual observers" and the fact that three experienced police officers, including Nick Prencipe, unequivocally described the hole they witnessed as a "bullet hole." Dr. Evalea Glanges, who was well experienced with firearms, was also unequivocal in describing what she witnessed as a "bullet hole." Charles Taylor of the Secret Service described a hole from which it appeared that "bullet fragments" had been removed. A key witness who you failed to mention was George Whitaker. a man who in 1963 had thirty years of experience working with glass and had been involved with many tests involving guns and glass, was 100 percent certain that he witnessed a bullet hole that penetrated the windshield from the outside to the inside of the windshield. What is ambiguous about Dallas Police Officer Stavis Ellis, considered by his colleagues to have impeccable integrity, stating that he placed "a pencil in the hole?"

I am sincerely astounded by the contention Jerry made that witnesses "could have been found" who saw no hole in the windshield (assuming I guess that they saw the windshield at Parkland) but yet there are at least eight people (nine, if Prencipe is credible} who clearly saw a hole in the windshield! There is not one identifiable person at Parkland Hospital who saw the windshield and stated there was NO HOLE. I would like to use that logic and state I could have found 1000 people who saw the hole. Is there any difference in the logic? The closest evidence to someone not witnessing a hole is when Officer Ellis loudly stated there was a hole in the windshield and a Secret Service agent came up to him and said "That's not a hole, it's a fragment." Ellis loudly replied "It's not a damn fragment, it's a hole."

One of you wrote that "How about the cops? They could have named others who were standing around the limo." There were many civilians shown in the photographs standing in front of the limousine. Two police officers saw the hole. Who else do they need? They corroborate each other. What would cause one to conjecture that they would have known the civilians and personnel at Parkland and would have taken names of all who would have seen the hole while the Secret Service was pushing people away and drove the limousine away? As for Dr. Glanges she did say there was someone with her who saw the hole but when she spoke with me he was in fear for his job if he said anything. Is that reasonable. I believe so, simply based upon the fears, real or perceived, that so many witnesses expressed to me. If he was trying to distort her account would it not have been easier to say that she was by herself and thus no one could contradict her?

Jerry stated "Latter day gilding the lily, perhaps, but outright lie...no. They saw a spot on the windshield. There was a spot there. They thought/speculated/assumed it was, or may have been a complete hole." What witness said they saw a SPOT? All of them said they saw a HOLE! How does Jerry or anyone have the knowledge to say they saw a SPOT or thought/speculated/assumed they saw a hole. If anyone has the ability to get into the mind of all of the witnesses and speak for them it is a skill far beyond anything I have ever known. When I mentioned to Stavis Ellis once that someone questioned whether he saw a hole, his response to me was "Were they there?"

I acknowledge and appreciate the new information you brought forth about Charles Taylor. However, I believe that there has to be some suspicion of someone who wrote in 1963 that he saw a hole, confirmed it in 1975, and then was approached by the government and suddenly an affidavit is signed that he was mistaken and that the windshield he saw then was the same one he saw in 1963 without a hole. Would that changed information be more reliable than those who never changed their accounts? Which would be more reliable, the account he wrote in November 1963 and verified in 1975 or a retraction noted in an affidavit after that time. Do we know that he even wrote that affidavit or if it was given to him by the government to sign? Why was this retraction classified as "Top Secret."

Isn't it somewhat ironic that a similar circumstance happened to Richard Dudman. Like Taylor, he wrote he saw a hole in the windshield. Lo and behold the government flew him from St. Louis to Washington D.C. and showed him a windshield that had no hole. Like Taylor, he renounced his prior position and wrote another article and would never speak about the assassination again and severed his deep friendship with Robert Livingstone. If you saw a hole and then were shown a different windshield by the government would you not be intimidated or even fearful?

There are further problems. The windshield Taylor was shown in 1975 had to be the one you showed in your comparison study in your article by John Hunt. Martin Hinrichs did a detailed study and demonstrated that the cracks were not the same. Jerry himself now questions whether the two windshields in the article are the same. Jerry wrote on this forum "Yes, that's correct. Right now, I don't think any windshield comparison can be conclusive including Hunt's. If we can gather better data at the Archives it might be possible, but right now I'm certain that we really don't know exactly what it is we're trying to compare."

Martin Hinrichs also pointed out a very pertinent fact: "A comparison of this two windshield cracks is nevertheless dominated by the following undeniable principal:

The windshield was kicked out at 11/26/63 by the feet of the Arlington Glass men. And that dominant cross crack should be visible in every photo post to 11/26/63."

There is also evidence that the Secret Service ordered twelve windshields after the assassination for "target practice." Did they need these windshields to attempt to duplicate the damage to the original windshield but without a crack," George Whitaker stated that the original windshield was "scrapped" (destroyed) on November 25, 1963 in Dearborn, Michigan.

I believe there has to be a stronger argument than I "think" all of the witnesses to the hole were mistaken or to state that you are sure that witnesses could be found who did not see a hole, when NO such witness can be presented. I appreciate this exchange. Barb, Jerry, and Josiah have all been very gracious in their responses. Jerry and Barb have now seen further evidence. I respect the intelligence of each of them and each brings a unique expertise to the discussion. I would have preferred that each had responded individually without the opportunity to corroborate with a response, but ultimately it does not make a difference. I am certain that others have shared the position that there was no hole in the windshield evidencing a shot from the front, but those beliefs should be based on more than feelings.

I have discovered many things that I have not yet published but hopefully will get the opportunity to do so in my book. I eagerly anticipate the reactions of Jerry, Barb, Josiah, and anyone. This is not an academic exercise for me nor do I have any interest in any notoriety for myself. I hope to be responsive and seek only truth.

Best,

Doug Weldon

First question: Is it the case that Altgens #5 (taken at Z 255) shows damage to the windshield? Or is it the case that no discernible damage to the windshield is present in Altgens #5?

Second question: Would you agree that Altgens #6 shows damage to the windshield in the approximate spot where Frazier's notes and photo show damage to the windshield? Can you discern any difference between the damage shown in Altgens #6 to the windshield and the later damage to the windshield memorialized in Frazier's notes and photo?

Josiah Thompson

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Great post Doug

I agree that there was a shot through the windshield

I also agree that what we see in Altgens (The Spiral Nebula) is the through and through hole

Edited by Dean Hagerman

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I have moved this topic because it did not fit well within the topic from which there had been some previous discussion. Barb and Jerry have examined some further evidence and have agreed to contribute to the exchange. I believe the prior discussion has been constructive and has demonstrated that disagreement can be expessed passionately, at times, without personal attacks. I submit, unequivocally, that it is a fact that a shot was fired through the front of the windshield and second that there is a strong possibility that the shot resulted in an entrance wound to the throat of President Kennedy. I would define a "fact" as testimony or evidence which would convince an impartial body of people that such was true. I sincerely believe that I could have convinced any unbiased jury "beyond a reasonable doubt" that such a shot was fired and that a cover-up occurred at the highest levels of the United States government and that members of the United States Secret Service had to be complicit in allowing the assassination to occur. I have not reached my conclusions lightly or without great concern and disappointment.

There have been a number of people on this forum who have indicated that this is an extraneous issue. I would contend that issues such as this, the alteration of the body, and the manipulation of the Zapruder film, etc., each and of themselves, if proven, would have dramatic impact on the history of our nation. However. I also believe that truth in this matter would be the genesis for providing a positive change for our future.

Thompson, Jerry, and Barb have sought to refute that there was a hole in the windshield. They noted, "Our purpose, as stated in the intro to our article, was to share what had been discussed and learned in a discussion that took place on a yahoo group. We dealt with what had been offered as proofs by Mr. Fetzer who brought others into it, like David Lifton, Rich, White, Healy, etc. We dealt with those issues, those witnesses. And especially given the new documents regarding Taylor we decided to write it all up and share it elsewhere... like on the Ed Forum."

If this was a summarization of the exchange on the group then I have no problem. However, as I have noted. Fetzer, Lifton, Rich, White, Healy, etc. do not speak for me and not knowing what they posted I can neither support or defend any of their propositions. I am not aware that you or any of the people listed ever spoke to any of the witnesses and are not fully aware of everything they said.

I do have to take exception to a couple of your points. First of all, St. Louis Dispatcher newspaper reporter Richard Dudman had NO doubt he saw a hole in the windshield of the Kennedy limo but was unable to get close enough to determine if the hole entered the front or rear of the windshield.

You have questioned the account of U.S. Park police officer Nick Prencipe. I have provided you with a copy of my first conversation with the late Mr. Prencipe and I am willing to address any concerns you might have. I will neither seek to enhance or minimize anyone's account but I believe I can demonstrate that the overall record is compelling. It did concern me that you wrote that none of you had much knowledge about the limousine but yet you were willing to post very definitive conclusions. It bothered me that you characterized two highly trained police officers as "casual observers" and the fact that three experienced police officers, including Nick Prencipe, unequivocally described the hole they witnessed as a "bullet hole." Dr. Evalea Glanges, who was well experienced with firearms, was also unequivocal in describing what she witnessed as a "bullet hole." Charles Taylor of the Secret Service described a hole from which it appeared that "bullet fragments" had been removed. A key witness who you failed to mention was George Whitaker. a man who in 1963 had thirty years of experience working with glass and had been involved with many tests involving guns and glass, was 100 percent certain that he witnessed a bullet hole that penetrated the windshield from the outside to the inside of the windshield. What is ambiguous about Dallas Police Officer Stavis Ellis, considered by his colleagues to have impeccable integrity, stating that he placed "a pencil in the hole?"

I am sincerely astounded by the contention Jerry made that witnesses "could have been found" who saw no hole in the windshield (assuming I guess that they saw the windshield at Parkland) but yet there are at least eight people (nine, if Prencipe is credible} who clearly saw a hole in the windshield! There is not one identifiable person at Parkland Hospital who saw the windshield and stated there was NO HOLE. I would like to use that logic and state I could have found 1000 people who saw the hole. Is there any difference in the logic? The closest evidence to someone not witnessing a hole is when Officer Ellis loudly stated there was a hole in the windshield and a Secret Service agent came up to him and said "That's not a hole, it's a fragment." Ellis loudly replied "It's not a damn fragment, it's a hole."

One of you wrote that "How about the cops? They could have named others who were standing around the limo." There were many civilians shown in the photographs standing in front of the limousine. Two police officers saw the hole. Who else do they need? They corroborate each other. What would cause one to conjecture that they would have known the civilians and personnel at Parkland and would have taken names of all who would have seen the hole while the Secret Service was pushing people away and drove the limousine away? As for Dr. Glanges she did say there was someone with her who saw the hole but when she spoke with me he was in fear for his job if he said anything. Is that reasonable. I believe so, simply based upon the fears, real or perceived, that so many witnesses expressed to me. If he was trying to distort her account would it not have been easier to say that she was by herself and thus no one could contradict her?

Jerry stated "Latter day gilding the lily, perhaps, but outright lie...no. They saw a spot on the windshield. There was a spot there. They thought/speculated/assumed it was, or may have been a complete hole." What witness said they saw a SPOT? All of them said they saw a HOLE! How does Jerry or anyone have the knowledge to say they saw a SPOT or thought/speculated/assumed they saw a hole. If anyone has the ability to get into the mind of all of the witnesses and speak for them it is a skill far beyond anything I have ever known. When I mentioned to Stavis Ellis once that someone questioned whether he saw a hole, his response to me was "Were they there?"

I acknowledge and appreciate the new information you brought forth about Charles Taylor. However, I believe that there has to be some suspicion of someone who wrote in 1963 that he saw a hole, confirmed it in 1975, and then was approached by the government and suddenly an affidavit is signed that he was mistaken and that the windshield he saw then was the same one he saw in 1963 without a hole. Would that changed information be more reliable than those who never changed their accounts? Which would be more reliable, the account he wrote in November 1963 and verified in 1975 or a retraction noted in an affidavit after that time. Do we know that he even wrote that affidavit or if it was given to him by the government to sign? Why was this retraction classified as "Top Secret."

Isn't it somewhat ironic that a similar circumstance happened to Richard Dudman. Like Taylor, he wrote he saw a hole in the windshield. Lo and behold the government flew him from St. Louis to Washington D.C. and showed him a windshield that had no hole. Like Taylor, he renounced his prior position and wrote another article and would never speak about the assassination again and severed his deep friendship with Robert Livingstone. If you saw a hole and then were shown a different windshield by the government would you not be intimidated or even fearful?

There are further problems. The windshield Taylor was shown in 1975 had to be the one you showed in your comparison study in your article by John Hunt. Martin Hinrichs did a detailed study and demonstrated that the cracks were not the same. Jerry himself now questions whether the two windshields in the article are the same. Jerry wrote on this forum "Yes, that's correct. Right now, I don't think any windshield comparison can be conclusive including Hunt's. If we can gather better data at the Archives it might be possible, but right now I'm certain that we really don't know exactly what it is we're trying to compare."

Martin Hinrichs also pointed out a very pertinent fact: "A comparison of this two windshield cracks is nevertheless dominated by the following undeniable principal:

The windshield was kicked out at 11/26/63 by the feet of the Arlington Glass men. And that dominant cross crack should be visible in every photo post to 11/26/63."

There is also evidence that the Secret Service ordered twelve windshields after the assassination for "target practice." Did they need these windshields to attempt to duplicate the damage to the original windshield but without a crack," George Whitaker stated that the original windshield was "scrapped" (destroyed) on November 25, 1963 in Dearborn, Michigan.

I believe there has to be a stronger argument than I "think" all of the witnesses to the hole were mistaken or to state that you are sure that witnesses could be found who did not see a hole, when NO such witness can be presented. I appreciate this exchange. Barb, Jerry, and Josiah have all been very gracious in their responses. Jerry and Barb have now seen further evidence. I respect the intelligence of each of them and each brings a unique expertise to the discussion. I would have preferred that each had responded individually without the opportunity to corroborate with a response, but ultimately it does not make a difference. I am certain that others have shared the position that there was no hole in the windshield evidencing a shot from the front, but those beliefs should be based on more than feelings.

I have discovered many things that I have not yet published but hopefully will get the opportunity to do so in my book. I eagerly anticipate the reactions of Jerry, Barb, Josiah, and anyone. This is not an academic exercise for me nor do I have any interest in any notoriety for myself. I hope to be responsive and seek only truth.

Best,

Doug Weldon

First question: Is it the case that Altgens #5 (taken at Z 255) shows damage to the windshield? Or is it the case that no discernible damage to the windshield is present in Altgens #5?

Second question: Would you agree that Altgens #6 shows damage to the windshield in the approximate spot where Frazier's notes and photo show damage to the windshield? Can you discern any difference between the damage shown in Altgens #6 to the windshield and the later damage to the windshield memorialized in Frazier's notes and photo?

Josiah Thompson

"Altgens 5" was allegedly shot on Houston near Main, so cannot be taken at Z255.

Altgens 6 shows what has been called the SPIRAL NEBULA hole.

post-667-1266275780_thumb.jpg

Edited by Jack White

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
EXCELLENT, Doug. I am with you! There WAS a hole. It very likely came from the south knoll.

The government hid the hole and tried to produce windshields with cracks but no hole.

I agree with ALL of your research, but am not 100 percent sure that the windshield bullet was

the throat bullet, because there is no evidence to support a bullet in the throat...since none

(that we know of) was found.

Jack

Amusingly, nearly 50 years later all we have are memories of the bullet-riddled body of what was once the most important man in the US - with no substantial metal found in his body. Where does that wonder stuff go?

In clearer resolutions of Altgens 6, Kellerman appears to be staring stoically at the windshield hole.

Edited by David Andrews

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
EXCELLENT, Doug. I am with you! There WAS a hole. It very likely came from the south knoll.

The government hid the hole and tried to produce windshields with cracks but no hole.

I agree with ALL of your research, but am not 100 percent sure that the windshield bullet was

the throat bullet, because there is no evidence to support a bullet in the throat...since none

(that we know of) was found.

Jack

Jack:

I do not disagree with you but I believe there was an entrance wound to Kennedy's throat LIKELY caused by the shot through the windshield. Mantik speculates that a glass fragment caused by the bullet from the windshield may have caused that entrance wound. It is a reasonable hypothethiis.

Best,

Doug

Hi Doug

Quick question. Where would the bullet have ended up theoretically if it did miss according to Mantik's hypo? Would it have wound up entering some structure within the limousine or missed all occupants and limo altogether and flew off behind the motorcade?

Cheers

Lee

Lee:

Thank you. Mantik would have to answer that. I believe there are many potential possibilites including that a bullet did enter the throat and exited the back. Robert Groden had told me that he always believed that the back wound was an exit wound. However, I do not have a definitive answer and have always stated that I believed that I could prove that a bullet was fired through the front of the windshield with the "likely" result that it caused the wound to the throat. It is interesting to note Nick Prencipe's account of Wiliam Greer's statement to Nick that night, "Nick ,you should have been there. Shots were coming from everywhere and one came through the windshield and almost hit me." With making one assumption, that is that the person was trying to hit Kennedy, and if Greer was correct, the hole would have been in the vicinity of Altgen's 6 and would have had to have been fired from the vicinity of the south side of the overpass. Josiah, yes, I believe that Frazier and the FBI did describe the area correctly, but unlike Taylor of the Secret Service, not only omitted the mention of the hole but took the most unusual step of describing the negative and mentioning that there was no hole. In thirty one years of viewing police reports I have never seen one mention something that was not there. As can be seen in my youtube presentation from 1999 the negative could have been described ad infinitum, i.e., there were no crayon marks, grass stains, etc. found.

Best,

Doug Weldon

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi Doug.

Let me add two things.

First: The damage to the windshield we see in Altgens6 is in the same place as in Altgens7.

The damage to the windshield is in the upper right area close to the mirror (Altgens6) and the claim from certain people doesn't hold water saying this is just a part of a womans pocket in the background.

Altgens-coloring6.png

Why did the people who proclaim there is no hole with some macro photographs from the original windshield or even do a simple liquid test

with it ? Wouldn't it be the easiest way to silent this issue? Time to wonder....

Thank you for kind words.

Martin

Edit for number correction. Thank you Jack

Edited by Martin Hinrichs

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Someone keeps mixing up Altgens 6 and "Altgens 5". As far as I know there is no

spiral nebula hole in A5.

Jack

I need to correct something: " Did they need these windshields to attempt to duplicate the damage to the original windshield but without a crack," George Whitaker stated that the original windshield was "scrapped" (destroyed) on November 25, 1963 in Dearborn, Michigan."

The word "hole" should be substituted for "crack." My error.

Best,

Doug Weldon

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Doug,

It`s the throat shot from in front that I`m having the most trouble with.In your opinion,did this shot occur from 10,11,12 or 1 or 2 O`clock from the front of JFK?Also,was this shooter elevated at all?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I have moved this topic because it did not fit well within the topic from which there had been some previous discussion. Barb and Jerry have examined some further evidence and have agreed to contribute to the exchange. I believe the prior discussion has been constructive and has demonstrated that disagreement can be expessed passionately, at times, without personal attacks. I submit, unequivocally, that it is a fact that a shot was fired through the front of the windshield and second that there is a strong possibility that the shot resulted in an entrance wound to the throat of President Kennedy. I would define a "fact" as testimony or evidence which would convince an impartial body of people that such was true. I sincerely believe that I could have convinced any unbiased jury "beyond a reasonable doubt" that such a shot was fired and that a cover-up occurred at the highest levels of the United States government and that members of the United States Secret Service had to be complicit in allowing the assassination to occur. I have not reached my conclusions lightly or without great concern and disappointment.

There have been a number of people on this forum who have indicated that this is an extraneous issue. I would contend that issues such as this, the alteration of the body, and the manipulation of the Zapruder film, etc., each and of themselves, if proven, would have dramatic impact on the history of our nation. However. I also believe that truth in this matter would be the genesis for providing a positive change for our future.

Thompson, Jerry, and Barb have sought to refute that there was a hole in the windshield. They noted, "Our purpose, as stated in the intro to our article, was to share what had been discussed and learned in a discussion that took place on a yahoo group. We dealt with what had been offered as proofs by Mr. Fetzer who brought others into it, like David Lifton, Rich, White, Healy, etc. We dealt with those issues, those witnesses. And especially given the new documents regarding Taylor we decided to write it all up and share it elsewhere... like on the Ed Forum."

If this was a summarization of the exchange on the group then I have no problem. However, as I have noted. Fetzer, Lifton, Rich, White, Healy, etc. do not speak for me and not knowing what they posted I can neither support or defend any of their propositions. I am not aware that you or any of the people listed ever spoke to any of the witnesses and are not fully aware of everything they said.

I do have to take exception to a couple of your points. First of all, St. Louis Dispatcher newspaper reporter Richard Dudman had NO doubt he saw a hole in the windshield of the Kennedy limo but was unable to get close enough to determine if the hole entered the front or rear of the windshield.

You have questioned the account of U.S. Park police officer Nick Prencipe. I have provided you with a copy of my first conversation with the late Mr. Prencipe and I am willing to address any concerns you might have. I will neither seek to enhance or minimize anyone's account but I believe I can demonstrate that the overall record is compelling. It did concern me that you wrote that none of you had much knowledge about the limousine but yet you were willing to post very definitive conclusions. It bothered me that you characterized two highly trained police officers as "casual observers" and the fact that three experienced police officers, including Nick Prencipe, unequivocally described the hole they witnessed as a "bullet hole." Dr. Evalea Glanges, who was well experienced with firearms, was also unequivocal in describing what she witnessed as a "bullet hole." Charles Taylor of the Secret Service described a hole from which it appeared that "bullet fragments" had been removed. A key witness who you failed to mention was George Whitaker. a man who in 1963 had thirty years of experience working with glass and had been involved with many tests involving guns and glass, was 100 percent certain that he witnessed a bullet hole that penetrated the windshield from the outside to the inside of the windshield. What is ambiguous about Dallas Police Officer Stavis Ellis, considered by his colleagues to have impeccable integrity, stating that he placed "a pencil in the hole?"

I am sincerely astounded by the contention Jerry made that witnesses "could have been found" who saw no hole in the windshield (assuming I guess that they saw the windshield at Parkland) but yet there are at least eight people (nine, if Prencipe is credible} who clearly saw a hole in the windshield! There is not one identifiable person at Parkland Hospital who saw the windshield and stated there was NO HOLE. I would like to use that logic and state I could have found 1000 people who saw the hole. Is there any difference in the logic? The closest evidence to someone not witnessing a hole is when Officer Ellis loudly stated there was a hole in the windshield and a Secret Service agent came up to him and said "That's not a hole, it's a fragment." Ellis loudly replied "It's not a damn fragment, it's a hole."

One of you wrote that "How about the cops? They could have named others who were standing around the limo." There were many civilians shown in the photographs standing in front of the limousine. Two police officers saw the hole. Who else do they need? They corroborate each other. What would cause one to conjecture that they would have known the civilians and personnel at Parkland and would have taken names of all who would have seen the hole while the Secret Service was pushing people away and drove the limousine away? As for Dr. Glanges she did say there was someone with her who saw the hole but when she spoke with me he was in fear for his job if he said anything. Is that reasonable. I believe so, simply based upon the fears, real or perceived, that so many witnesses expressed to me. If he was trying to distort her account would it not have been easier to say that she was by herself and thus no one could contradict her?

Jerry stated "Latter day gilding the lily, perhaps, but outright lie...no. They saw a spot on the windshield. There was a spot there. They thought/speculated/assumed it was, or may have been a complete hole." What witness said they saw a SPOT? All of them said they saw a HOLE! How does Jerry or anyone have the knowledge to say they saw a SPOT or thought/speculated/assumed they saw a hole. If anyone has the ability to get into the mind of all of the witnesses and speak for them it is a skill far beyond anything I have ever known. When I mentioned to Stavis Ellis once that someone questioned whether he saw a hole, his response to me was "Were they there?"

I acknowledge and appreciate the new information you brought forth about Charles Taylor. However, I believe that there has to be some suspicion of someone who wrote in 1963 that he saw a hole, confirmed it in 1975, and then was approached by the government and suddenly an affidavit is signed that he was mistaken and that the windshield he saw then was the same one he saw in 1963 without a hole. Would that changed information be more reliable than those who never changed their accounts? Which would be more reliable, the account he wrote in November 1963 and verified in 1975 or a retraction noted in an affidavit after that time. Do we know that he even wrote that affidavit or if it was given to him by the government to sign? Why was this retraction classified as "Top Secret."

Isn't it somewhat ironic that a similar circumstance happened to Richard Dudman. Like Taylor, he wrote he saw a hole in the windshield. Lo and behold the government flew him from St. Louis to Washington D.C. and showed him a windshield that had no hole. Like Taylor, he renounced his prior position and wrote another article and would never speak about the assassination again and severed his deep friendship with Robert Livingstone. If you saw a hole and then were shown a different windshield by the government would you not be intimidated or even fearful?

There are further problems. The windshield Taylor was shown in 1975 had to be the one you showed in your comparison study in your article by John Hunt. Martin Hinrichs did a detailed study and demonstrated that the cracks were not the same. Jerry himself now questions whether the two windshields in the article are the same. Jerry wrote on this forum "Yes, that's correct. Right now, I don't think any windshield comparison can be conclusive including Hunt's. If we can gather better data at the Archives it might be possible, but right now I'm certain that we really don't know exactly what it is we're trying to compare."

Martin Hinrichs also pointed out a very pertinent fact: "A comparison of this two windshield cracks is nevertheless dominated by the following undeniable principal:

The windshield was kicked out at 11/26/63 by the feet of the Arlington Glass men. And that dominant cross crack should be visible in every photo post to 11/26/63."

There is also evidence that the Secret Service ordered twelve windshields after the assassination for "target practice." Did they need these windshields to attempt to duplicate the damage to the original windshield but without a crack," George Whitaker stated that the original windshield was "scrapped" (destroyed) on November 25, 1963 in Dearborn, Michigan.

I believe there has to be a stronger argument than I "think" all of the witnesses to the hole were mistaken or to state that you are sure that witnesses could be found who did not see a hole, when NO such witness can be presented. I appreciate this exchange. Barb, Jerry, and Josiah have all been very gracious in their responses. Jerry and Barb have now seen further evidence. I respect the intelligence of each of them and each brings a unique expertise to the discussion. I would have preferred that each had responded individually without the opportunity to corroborate with a response, but ultimately it does not make a difference. I am certain that others have shared the position that there was no hole in the windshield evidencing a shot from the front, but those beliefs should be based on more than feelings.

I have discovered many things that I have not yet published but hopefully will get the opportunity to do so in my book. I eagerly anticipate the reactions of Jerry, Barb, Josiah, and anyone. This is not an academic exercise for me nor do I have any interest in any notoriety for myself. I hope to be responsive and seek only truth.

Best,

Doug Weldon

Doug,

" There is not one identifiable person at Parkland Hospital who saw the windshield and stated there was NO HOLE."

FWIW actually there is - DPD motorcycle officer B.J Martin. He says that in a Garrison investigation interview.

Todd

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I have moved this topic because it did not fit well within the topic from which there had been some previous discussion. Barb and Jerry have examined some further evidence and have agreed to contribute to the exchange. I believe the prior discussion has been constructive and has demonstrated that disagreement can be expessed passionately, at times, without personal attacks. I submit, unequivocally, that it is a fact that a shot was fired through the front of the windshield and second that there is a strong possibility that the shot resulted in an entrance wound to the throat of President Kennedy. I would define a "fact" as testimony or evidence which would convince an impartial body of people that such was true. I sincerely believe that I could have convinced any unbiased jury "beyond a reasonable doubt" that such a shot was fired and that a cover-up occurred at the highest levels of the United States government and that members of the United States Secret Service had to be complicit in allowing the assassination to occur. I have not reached my conclusions lightly or without great concern and disappointment.

There have been a number of people on this forum who have indicated that this is an extraneous issue. I would contend that issues such as this, the alteration of the body, and the manipulation of the Zapruder film, etc., each and of themselves, if proven, would have dramatic impact on the history of our nation. However. I also believe that truth in this matter would be the genesis for providing a positive change for our future.

Thompson, Jerry, and Barb have sought to refute that there was a hole in the windshield. They noted, "Our purpose, as stated in the intro to our article, was to share what had been discussed and learned in a discussion that took place on a yahoo group. We dealt with what had been offered as proofs by Mr. Fetzer who brought others into it, like David Lifton, Rich, White, Healy, etc. We dealt with those issues, those witnesses. And especially given the new documents regarding Taylor we decided to write it all up and share it elsewhere... like on the Ed Forum."

If this was a summarization of the exchange on the group then I have no problem. However, as I have noted. Fetzer, Lifton, Rich, White, Healy, etc. do not speak for me and not knowing what they posted I can neither support or defend any of their propositions. I am not aware that you or any of the people listed ever spoke to any of the witnesses and are not fully aware of everything they said.

I do have to take exception to a couple of your points. First of all, St. Louis Dispatcher newspaper reporter Richard Dudman had NO doubt he saw a hole in the windshield of the Kennedy limo but was unable to get close enough to determine if the hole entered the front or rear of the windshield.

You have questioned the account of U.S. Park police officer Nick Prencipe. I have provided you with a copy of my first conversation with the late Mr. Prencipe and I am willing to address any concerns you might have. I will neither seek to enhance or minimize anyone's account but I believe I can demonstrate that the overall record is compelling. It did concern me that you wrote that none of you had much knowledge about the limousine but yet you were willing to post very definitive conclusions. It bothered me that you characterized two highly trained police officers as "casual observers" and the fact that three experienced police officers, including Nick Prencipe, unequivocally described the hole they witnessed as a "bullet hole." Dr. Evalea Glanges, who was well experienced with firearms, was also unequivocal in describing what she witnessed as a "bullet hole." Charles Taylor of the Secret Service described a hole from which it appeared that "bullet fragments" had been removed. A key witness who you failed to mention was George Whitaker. a man who in 1963 had thirty years of experience working with glass and had been involved with many tests involving guns and glass, was 100 percent certain that he witnessed a bullet hole that penetrated the windshield from the outside to the inside of the windshield. What is ambiguous about Dallas Police Officer Stavis Ellis, considered by his colleagues to have impeccable integrity, stating that he placed "a pencil in the hole?"

I am sincerely astounded by the contention Jerry made that witnesses "could have been found" who saw no hole in the windshield (assuming I guess that they saw the windshield at Parkland) but yet there are at least eight people (nine, if Prencipe is credible} who clearly saw a hole in the windshield! There is not one identifiable person at Parkland Hospital who saw the windshield and stated there was NO HOLE. I would like to use that logic and state I could have found 1000 people who saw the hole. Is there any difference in the logic? The closest evidence to someone not witnessing a hole is when Officer Ellis loudly stated there was a hole in the windshield and a Secret Service agent came up to him and said "That's not a hole, it's a fragment." Ellis loudly replied "It's not a damn fragment, it's a hole."

One of you wrote that "How about the cops? They could have named others who were standing around the limo." There were many civilians shown in the photographs standing in front of the limousine. Two police officers saw the hole. Who else do they need? They corroborate each other. What would cause one to conjecture that they would have known the civilians and personnel at Parkland and would have taken names of all who would have seen the hole while the Secret Service was pushing people away and drove the limousine away? As for Dr. Glanges she did say there was someone with her who saw the hole but when she spoke with me he was in fear for his job if he said anything. Is that reasonable. I believe so, simply based upon the fears, real or perceived, that so many witnesses expressed to me. If he was trying to distort her account would it not have been easier to say that she was by herself and thus no one could contradict her?

Jerry stated "Latter day gilding the lily, perhaps, but outright lie...no. They saw a spot on the windshield. There was a spot there. They thought/speculated/assumed it was, or may have been a complete hole." What witness said they saw a SPOT? All of them said they saw a HOLE! How does Jerry or anyone have the knowledge to say they saw a SPOT or thought/speculated/assumed they saw a hole. If anyone has the ability to get into the mind of all of the witnesses and speak for them it is a skill far beyond anything I have ever known. When I mentioned to Stavis Ellis once that someone questioned whether he saw a hole, his response to me was "Were they there?"

I acknowledge and appreciate the new information you brought forth about Charles Taylor. However, I believe that there has to be some suspicion of someone who wrote in 1963 that he saw a hole, confirmed it in 1975, and then was approached by the government and suddenly an affidavit is signed that he was mistaken and that the windshield he saw then was the same one he saw in 1963 without a hole. Would that changed information be more reliable than those who never changed their accounts? Which would be more reliable, the account he wrote in November 1963 and verified in 1975 or a retraction noted in an affidavit after that time. Do we know that he even wrote that affidavit or if it was given to him by the government to sign? Why was this retraction classified as "Top Secret."

Isn't it somewhat ironic that a similar circumstance happened to Richard Dudman. Like Taylor, he wrote he saw a hole in the windshield. Lo and behold the government flew him from St. Louis to Washington D.C. and showed him a windshield that had no hole. Like Taylor, he renounced his prior position and wrote another article and would never speak about the assassination again and severed his deep friendship with Robert Livingstone. If you saw a hole and then were shown a different windshield by the government would you not be intimidated or even fearful?

There are further problems. The windshield Taylor was shown in 1975 had to be the one you showed in your comparison study in your article by John Hunt. Martin Hinrichs did a detailed study and demonstrated that the cracks were not the same. Jerry himself now questions whether the two windshields in the article are the same. Jerry wrote on this forum "Yes, that's correct. Right now, I don't think any windshield comparison can be conclusive including Hunt's. If we can gather better data at the Archives it might be possible, but right now I'm certain that we really don't know exactly what it is we're trying to compare."

Martin Hinrichs also pointed out a very pertinent fact: "A comparison of this two windshield cracks is nevertheless dominated by the following undeniable principal:

The windshield was kicked out at 11/26/63 by the feet of the Arlington Glass men. And that dominant cross crack should be visible in every photo post to 11/26/63."

There is also evidence that the Secret Service ordered twelve windshields after the assassination for "target practice." Did they need these windshields to attempt to duplicate the damage to the original windshield but without a crack," George Whitaker stated that the original windshield was "scrapped" (destroyed) on November 25, 1963 in Dearborn, Michigan.

I believe there has to be a stronger argument than I "think" all of the witnesses to the hole were mistaken or to state that you are sure that witnesses could be found who did not see a hole, when NO such witness can be presented. I appreciate this exchange. Barb, Jerry, and Josiah have all been very gracious in their responses. Jerry and Barb have now seen further evidence. I respect the intelligence of each of them and each brings a unique expertise to the discussion. I would have preferred that each had responded individually without the opportunity to corroborate with a response, but ultimately it does not make a difference. I am certain that others have shared the position that there was no hole in the windshield evidencing a shot from the front, but those beliefs should be based on more than feelings.

I have discovered many things that I have not yet published but hopefully will get the opportunity to do so in my book. I eagerly anticipate the reactions of Jerry, Barb, Josiah, and anyone. This is not an academic exercise for me nor do I have any interest in any notoriety for myself. I hope to be responsive and seek only truth.

Best,

Doug Weldon

Doug,

" There is not one identifiable person at Parkland Hospital who saw the windshield and stated there was NO HOLE."

FWIW actually there is - DPD motorcycle officer B.J Martin. He says that in a Garrison investigation interview.

Todd

Let me clarify, Martin says he saw no hole, no crack, nothing, i.e. that the windshield was not damaged. FWIW.

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

×